[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 3 (Friday, January 4, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 775-780]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31658]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-72,673]
Weather Shield Manufacturing, Inc., Corporate Office, Medford,
WI; Notice of Negative Determination on Third Remand
On May 31, 2012, the United States Court of International Trade
(USCIT) ordered the United States Department of Labor (Department) to
conduct further investigation in Former Employees of Weather Shield
Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States Secretary of Labor (Court No. 10-
00299).
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm under
Section 222(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (the Act), 19
U.S.C. 2272(a), can be satisfied if the following criteria are met:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such
workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated; and
(2)(A)(i) The sales or production, or both, of such firm have
decreased absolutely;
(ii)(I) Imports of articles or services like or directly
competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm
have increased;
(II) Imports of articles like or directly competitive with
articles--
(aa) Into which one or more component parts produced by such
firm are directly incorporated, or
(bb) Which are produced directly using services supplied by such
firm, have increased; or
(III) Imports of articles directly incorporating one or more
component parts produced outside the United States that are like or
directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or
more component parts produced by such firm have increased; and
(iii) The increase in imports described in clause (ii)
contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of
separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such
firm; or
(B)(i)(I) There has been a shift by such workers' firm to a
foreign country in the production of articles or the supply of
services like or directly competitive with articles which are
produced or services which are supplied by such firm; or
(II) Such workers' firm has acquired from a foreign country
articles or services that are like or directly competitive with
articles which are produced or services which are supplied by such
firm; and
(ii) The shift described in clause (i)(I) or the acquisition of
articles or services described in clause (i)(II) contributed
importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation.
[[Page 776]]
Background
The initial investigation began on October 23, 2009 when three
workers filed a petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) on
behalf of workers and former workers of the Weather Shield
Manufacturing, Inc., Corporate Office, Medford, Wisconsin (subject
facility). Workers at the subject facility (subject worker group)
supply administrative support services related to the production of
doors and windows at various domestic locations of Weather Shield
Manufacturing, Inc. (hereafter referred to as ``subject firm'' or
``Weather Shield'').
29 CFR 90.2 states that ``Increased imports means that imports have
increased either absolutely or relative to domestic production compared
to a representative base period. The representative base period shall
be one year consisting of the four quarters immediately preceding the
date which is the twelve month prior to the date of the petition.'' As
such, the relevant time period for this investigation is October 2008
through September 2009, and the representative base period is October
2007 through September 2008 (hereafter referred to as ``relevant time
period'' or ``period under investigation'').
The initial investigation revealed that neither the subject firm
nor its customers increased import purchases of either doors or windows
(or like or directly competitive articles) during the relevant time
period. Additionally, the subject firm had not shifted abroad either
the production of these articles or services like or directly
competitive with those supplied by the worker group in the period under
investigation. As such, the group eligibility requirements were not
satisfied, and the Department issued a negative determination on July
16, 2010. The Department's Notice of Negative Determination was
published in the Federal Register on August 2, 2010 (75 FR 45163).
Updated Administrative Record (UAR) 611. The Department filed the UAR
with the USCIT on October 31, 2011.
By application dated August 23, 2010, one of the petitioners
requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative
determination. In the application, the petitioner stated that the
worker group covered by petition TA-W-72,673 was impacted by the same
import competition as the worker group covered by TAA certification TA-
W-64,725, which was issued on August 9, 2010 (Weather Shield
Manufacturing, Inc., Corporate Office, Medford, Wisconsin; petition
dated December 17, 2008) and argued that the same conclusion awarding
worker adjustment assistance should be applied in the case at hand.
However, because it was determined that a different relevant time
period was at issue which resulted in a different conclusion, the
Department determined that the determination in TA-W-64,725 was not
controlling.
Because the Department determined that administrative
reconsideration could not be granted, a Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration was issued on
September 10, 2010, in accordance with 29 CFR 90.18(c). The
Department's Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for
Reconsideration was published in the Federal Register on September 21,
2010 (75 FR 57519). UAR 653.
Subsequently, the petitioners filed a complaint with the USCIT on
October 8, 2010, and argued the same allegations as in their request
for administrative reconsideration. The Department determined that
further investigation under judicial review was unjustified and filed
an administrative record of the materials upon which the Department
relied in making its determination with regards to the subject worker
group's eligibility to apply for TAA.
In Plaintiffs' Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record,
dated March 30, 2011, Plaintiffs indicated that the administrative
record did not include documentation that adequately supported the
negative determination and submitted additional information to be
considered by the Department to show that Weather Shield faced import
competition.
First Remand Activity
On May 2, 2011, the Department filed a Motion for Voluntary Remand
in which it sought to supplement the administrative record with
documentation that was used in the decision making process for case TA-
W-64,725 and explain the relevance of this material. At that time, the
Department did not seek to conduct further investigation. Rather, the
Department amended the administrative record on June 3, 2011 to include
documents from case TA-W-64,725 and supplemented the record with an
explanation regarding the relevance of these documents.
The Plaintiffs filed a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in
Support of Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record
on July 5, 2011 in which they asked the Department to conduct further
investigation and apply the same methodology for administering customer
surveys and determining import competition as in the TA-W-64,725 remand
investigation. Specifically, the Plaintiffs stated that the Department
should collect additional information from the subject firm's customers
and competitors.
Second Remand Activity
On August 3, 2011, the Department requested a second voluntary
remand to conduct further investigation, to permit the Plaintiffs to
submit additional evidence, and to supplement the administrative record
with all the contents of the TA-W-64,725 case record. During the second
remand investigation, the Department collected additional information
from the subject firm, conducted an expanded customer survey, collected
aggregate U.S. import data, and sought input from the Plaintiffs.
The Department found that imports of Weather Shield's customers had
declined during the relevant time period. The updated data also
revealed that, contrary to information that had been provided
previously, the subject firm's total sales for the relevant time period
increased. As such, the Department determined that worker separations
were not related to trade impact and reaffirmed the negative
determination regarding TAA eligibility. On October 11, 2011 the
Department issued a Negative Determination on Remand. The Department's
Notice of Negative Determination was published in the Federal Register
on November 15, 2011 (76 FR 70761). Supplemental Updated Administrative
Record (SUAR) 501-505.
Third Remand Activity
On December 2, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Motion for
Judgment on the Agency Record. The Plaintiffs contended that the
Department had not fully investigated the change in sales reported by
Weather Shield; had not fully investigated if Weather Shield lost
business to competitor Simpson Door Company, whose workers were
eligible to apply for TAA under TA-W-65,585; and that the Department
did not contact the domestic suppliers of a major customer of the
subject firm to determine whether the suppliers sold imported articles
to the customer, which could have created import competition for the
subject firm.
On February 3, 2012, the Department filed Defendant's Response in
Opposition to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Motion for Judgment on the
Agency Record. In the response, the
[[Page 777]]
Department explained the basis of the negative determination. In
particular, the Department reiterated that during the relevant time
period, customer imports and U.S. aggregate imports declined, both in
absolute and relative terms, and again emphasized that the sales of the
subject firm increased during the relevant time period.
On February 22, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Reply Brief in Support of
Plaintiffs' Second Amended Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record in
which they stated that the Department failed to investigate conflicting
information provided by Weather Shield during the initial and first
remand investigations of this petition regarding its overall sales of
doors and windows in the relevant time period; pointed to possible
import competition by alleged Weather Shield competitor, Simpson Door
Company; stated that the Department failed to investigate if imports by
Simpson could have impacted operations at the subject firm; and alleged
that the Department did not investigate sufficiently whether a major
customer of the subject firm had purchased imported doors and/or
windows indirectly through its other domestic suppliers during the
relevant time period.
On May 31, 2012, the USCIT filed a Memorandum and Order that stated
that the Department's decision cannot be sustained as it does not
explain the change in Weather Shield's reported sales information
supplied by the subject firm. Additionally, the Memorandum stated that
the investigation did not adequately address whether the customer
purchased imported product from its other suppliers. The USCIT remanded
the case to the Department to ``review and reconsider its explanation
for the differences in Weather Shield's sales for 2008; as well as its
conclusions related to import volumes.''
Activity Related to Weather Shield's 2008 Sales Data
Pursuant to the May 31, 2012 Order, the Department again solicited
information from Weather Shield regarding its sales for 2008 and 2009.
In order to ensure the accuracy of the information collected from the
subject firm throughout this investigation on which this determination
is based, the Department requested and received an Affirmation of
Information, signed under penalty of law, by the official
representative of the subject firm. SUAR 170-173, 174-178.
Because the two sets of sales data provided by the subject firm
during the earlier investigations were not identical, the Department
requested that the subject firm provide an explanation regarding the
discrepancy between the two sets of data along with the correct sales
information. SUAR 2-26, 27-31. In order to determine if sales or
production declined during the relevant time period, the Department
also solicited information regarding Weather Shield's production data
during the same time period. SUAR 35-39. The findings confirmed that,
in terms of value, Weather Shield sales increased from 2008 to 2009.
SUAR 32, 81.
In order for the Department to obtain from the subject firm
production information regarding its total 2008 and 2009 doors and
window units and to resolve any inconsistencies, on July 6, 2012, the
Department filed its first motion for an enlargement of time. The time
extension was also requested at this time to allow for the collection
and analysis of the customer's supplier responses. On July 9, 2012, the
USCIT granted the Department's request for a time enlargement that
extended the deadline for filing the results to August 15, 2012.
On July 19, 2012, the subject firm reported that production of
doors and windows at the manufacturing locations which received the
administrative support services of the subject worker group declined
from 2008 to 2009. SUAR 40-45. The Department asked the subject firm to
provide an explanation regarding the reason that a sales increase
occurred while production declined. SUAR 40-45, 46-65, 66-71, 72-77,
78-80.
On August 6, 2012, the Department served Weather Shield with a
subpoena to explain why the subject firm reported an increase in the
value of sales of windows and doors for the same period (calendar year
2008 to calendar year 2009) that it reported a decrease in the
production of these articles. SUAR 72-77.
Although Weather Shield reported that the sales information which
was provided during the second remand was correct, SUAR 81, the
Department sought further explanation of the seemingly inverse
relationship between sales and production. The subject firm affirmed
that total sales of doors and windows for 2008 and 2009 had increased.
SUAR 32, 81. The subject firm also stated that the production numbers
submitted earlier were provided in error and that they had submitted
updated and accurate information. SUAR 81.
On August 14, 2012, the Department filed a motion for a second
enlargement of time of 60 days to continue the remand investigation.
The Plaintiffs consented to the motion filed for the time enlargement
provided that they receive any new relevant information provided by
Weather Shield and to be given opportunity to comment.
In accordance with the August 22, 2012 Order, the Department
submitted to the Plaintiffs information that consisted of email
correspondence between the Department and the subject firm that took
place between June 14, 2012 and August 8, 2012 and the subpoena served
on August 6, 2012. SUAR 295-378.
On September 17, 2012, Plaintiffs provided comments on the released
information, along with new import information. SUAR 382-386. The
Plaintiffs stated that the information was insufficient for the
following reasons: the record did not establish that all manufacturing
locations and products manufactured by the subject firm were included
in the sales and production figures; the Department had not
demonstrated that the subject firm understood the questions posed and
the type of information that had been requested, which had caused
responses to be insufficient or incorrect; and that the subject firm
had not provided accurate data regarding its imports of finished goods.
SUAR 382-386.
The Plaintiffs also argued that it is unclear from the record how
many of the subject firm's production facilities are covered under this
investigation. SUAR 382-386. Specifically, the Plaintiffs point out
that, during the second remand investigation, the Department found
that, although the subject firm pointed to five production locations
that were supported by the corporate headquarters during the initial
investigation, the Department later received information that the
corporate headquarters supported ten production facilities. UAR 17-22,
779-782. SUAR 174-178, 179-183, 184-186.
The Plaintiffs' comments regarding the five locations were derived
from information that was submitted by the subject firm during the
initial investigation of TA-W-64,735. UAR 17-22. That information was
updated after the conclusion of the investigation of TA-W-64,735, and,
during the second remand investigation of TA-W-72,673, the subject firm
submitted a list of the ten production facilities that were supported
by the subject worker group and fall within the scope of this
investigation. UAR 779-782. SUAR 174-178, 179-183, 184-186.
As attested by the subject firm official and reflected in the
record, the third remand investigation covered the locations supported
by the subject worker group and all the products manufactured at those
locations; the
[[Page 778]]
subject firm showed that it was fully aware of which locations and
products it was providing information; and that the subject firm
confirmed that it did not import doors or windows (or like or directly
competitive articles) during the period under investigation. UAR 779-
782, 787, 789, 793-794, 796, 800, 820-821. SUAR 2-26, 27-31, 32-34, 35-
39, 174-178, 179-183, 184-186.
The Plaintiffs asked the Department to obtain from the subject firm
evidence that the information submitted to the Department during this
investigation was accurate and complete. SUAR 382-386. In particular,
the Plaintiffs suggested that hard copies or electronic screen shots of
accounting records would be beneficial in supporting the findings. SUAR
382-386.
As noted earlier, the Department received from the subject firm's
representative a signed Attestation. Therefore, the Department's
reliance upon information supplied by the subject firm during the third
remand investigation is reasonable. Nonetheless, the Department
reviewed the record and determined that any inconsistencies that
Plaintiffs raised were already resolved based on the record through the
investigation by the Department and, consequently, that a review of the
subject firm's financial records are not necessary.
Regarding the Plaintiff's claims of inaccuracy and inconsistency of
the investigation, the Department identified information that is
already part of the record to address the allegations and collected
additional information from the subject firm. UAR 779-782, 787, 789,
793-794, 796, 800, 820-821. SUAR 2-26, 27-31, 32-34, 35-39, 174-178,
179-183, 184-186.
To further support their argument regarding the inaccuracy of
Weather Shield's import information, the Plaintiffs provided data from
a trade publication. Specifically, the Plaintiffs submitted a bill of
lading report from Zepol Corporation (www.zepol.com) that showed
Weather Shield as an importer of doors and Windows. SUAR 386. Although
the document did not list Weather Shield as the importer or consignee
of foreign goods, it indicated that Weather Shield, specifically its
Park Falls, Wisconsin facility, was the ultimate recipient of the
imported products. SUAR 386.
The Department contacted the subject firm to obtain further
information to address Plaintiff comments regarding the bill of lading.
SUAR 83-98. Specifically, the Department again solicited information to
confirm that the subject firm did not import doors and/or windows, or
like or directly competitive articles, during the relevant time period.
SUAR 83-98. The Department also requested that the subject firm provide
information on its domestic vendors and to address the information
submitted by the Plaintiffs from zepol.com. SUAR 83-98, 100-101, 102-
104, 141, 142-143, 144-145, 146-147, 148-149.
The subject firm responded that the importer and consignee listed
on the bill of lading document is a domestic vendor that supplies the
subject firm with articles that are neither like nor directly
competitive with either windows or doors. SUAR 99, 105-140 150-152. The
subject firm confirmed that it does not conduct business with any
foreign firms, including the one listed on the bill of lading under the
exporter column. SUAR 105-140, 150-152, 177-178.
The Department asked the subject firm to provide more detailed
information on the relationship between the subject firm and the vendor
listed on the bill of lading document, as well as provide information
on any relationships with any other foreign firms during the relevant
time period. SUAR 83-98, 99, 100-101, 102-104, 142-143, 144-145, 150-
152. The subject firm stated that the vendor provided articles that are
neither like nor directly competitive with either windows or doors,
confirmed that Weather Shield does not purchase window or door units
from vendors, and stated that the subject firm does not have
information pertaining to the origin of the products purchased from
vendors. SUAR 83-98, 99, 100-101, 102-104, 142-143, 144-145, 150-152.
The subject firm explained that it does not purchase from vendors
finished doors or windows and submitted a list of its top twenty
vendors for 2008 and 2009. SUAR 105-140. The list included vendors that
supplied services and articles other than doors and windows. SUAR 150-
152.
In addition to the information collected from the subject firm
regarding the new allegations, the Department conducted its own trade
records search on zepol.com. SUAR 481-482, 485-488. The search did not
expose any import information relating to the subject firm for the
relevant time period. SUAR 481-482, 485-488.
On October 2, 2012, the Department released more information to the
Plaintiffs. The information included email correspondence between the
Department and the subject firm that occurred between September 21,
2012 and October 1, 2012. SUAR 389-464.
On October 12, 2012, the Department filed a third motion for an
enlargement of time. The motion stated that the Department required an
extension to allow Plaintiffs to review and comment on the information
provided by Weather Shield on October 2, 2012 (the second release of
information to Plaintiffs), and, once comments are received, to analyze
the comments, to collect further information as needed, and to file its
remand findings. The USCIT granted the Department until December 17,
2012 to file the Department's third remand results and the supplemental
updated administrative record.
On October 15, 2012, Plaintiffs submitted comments regarding the
second information release. The comments provided by the Plaintiffs
were erroneous on several counts. SUAR 467-469.
First, the Plaintiffs misunderstood the time periods for which
information was collected and stated that the subject firm provided
information for its vendors for 2007 and 2008. SUAR 467-469. The record
evidence covers periods 2008 and 2009, which is the period under
investigation.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs claimed that Weather Shield provided
information regarding only one of its vendors. SUAR 467-469. This is
inaccurate because Weather Shield had provided information regarding
its top twenty vendors and confirmed that it does not purchase from
vendors finished door or window products. SUAR 105-140, 150-152.
Further, the Plaintiffs misunderstood the Department's intent when it
questioned the subject firm regarding one vendor in more detail because
the name of this vendor was found on the trade publication submitted by
the Plaintiffs. SUAR 83-98. According to the information received from
the subject firm, the vendor provided articles that are neither like
nor directly competitive with either windows or doors to Weather
Shield. Therefore, any such imports could not have contributed to a
decline in employment and sales or production at the subject firm.
Imports of articles other than doors or windows (or like or directly
competitive articles) fall outside the scope of this investigation.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs stated that the Department should have
solicited information from the subject firm regarding its imports of
articles. SUAR 467-469. At the time the comments were submitted,
Plaintiffs were informed that Weather Shield had confirmed that it did
not import finished doors or windows (or like or directly competitive
articles). This information was part of the October 2, 2011 information
release. SUAR 389-464.
[[Page 779]]
Activity Related to Weather Shield's Customer and Its Suppliers
During the initial investigation of this petition, the Department
conducted a customer survey on the customers of the subject firm to
determine if the layoffs at Weather Shield were the result of increased
import competition. UAR 562-565, 566-572, 573-575, 576-578, 579-581,
582, 679-738. A sample group of the subject firm's customers were
surveyed regarding their purchases of doors and/or windows made in the
relevant time period from the subject firm, other domestic firms, and
foreign firms. The Department repeated a larger survey during the
second remand that captured the majority of the subject firm's customer
base during the period under investigation. UAR 1243-1319, 1325-1344.
Both surveys demonstrated that customer imports declined during the
relevant time period.
The results of the second remand investigation's customer survey
showed that purchases made by the surveyed customers from the subject
firm declined. UAR 1243-1319, 1325-1344. Purchases made by these
customers from other domestic and foreign firms also declined. UAR
1243-1319, 1325-1344. Specifically, in the second survey conducted
during the remand investigation, the Department captured 73 percent of
the subject firm's customer base, in terms of value, in 2008 and 46
percent in 2009. UAR 1243-1319, 1325-1344. During the surveyed period,
customer imports declined 20 percent. UAR 1243-1319, 1325-1344. The
survey conducted on Weather Shield's customers also showed that total
customer imports declined 63 percent from 2008 to 2009. UAR 1325-1344.
At the time of this customer survey, the subject firm had submitted
information to the Department that indicated a decline of total sales
of doors and windows from 2008 to 2009. UAR 585, 673. However, it was
revealed in the second remand that overall sales of the subject firm
increased. UAR 815.
In the customer survey that was conducted during the initial
investigation of this petition, one (and the largest) of Weather
Shield's customers (for confidentiality purposes, this customer will
hereafter be referred to as ``the customer'') was unable to provide a
response to question 2 on the Business Confidential Customer
Survey (OMB 1205-0342, Exp. 1/31/2013) which asks if the
products purchased from other domestic firms were manufactured in a
foreign country. UAR 562-565, 566-572.
The information that this significant customer provided on the
survey showed that its purchases from the subject firm declined from
2008 to 2009. The customer's purchases from other domestic and foreign
firms also declined during the same period. UAR 562-565, 566-572.
To determine whether the subject firm may have competed with
imported doors and/or windows of the other domestic suppliers of the
customer, the Department followed up with the customer during the
second remand to solicit information regarding the origin of the
articles it purchases from other domestic firms. The customer again
responded that it does not track import information on articles
purchased from domestic suppliers and submitted a list of its suppliers
for the relevant time period. UAR 823.
The customer was contacted again during this third remand
investigation to confirm the information that it submitted during the
initial and remand investigations of this petition. SUAR 188-239. The
customer also submitted additional information regarding the size
(purchase value) of its 2008 and 2009 domestic door and/or window
suppliers along with more specific information about the products
purchased from each supplier. SUAR 188-239.
Although the Department believes that its previous determination
based on the findings of the customer survey was correct, the
Department contacted each of the customer's suppliers to question
whether they sold imported product to this customer in the period under
investigation. SUAR 240-293.
In order to determine whether any imported product sold to the
customer by its other domestic suppliers contributed importantly to a
decline in operations at Weather Shield, the Department first had to
determine the size of each supplier in relation to the customer's
operations, and then examine any import impact on the operations of the
subject firm.
The Department had to determine if the customer decreased its
purchases from the subject firm and increased purchases from suppliers
that imported the doors and/or windows they sold to the customer in the
relevant time period. The customer provided information regarding the
size, in purchase value, of its suppliers which was used to determine
the significance of each supplier relative to the customer's operations
and whether any of their imports could have impacted operations at
Weather Shield. SUAR 187-239. The Department contacted all of the
domestic suppliers of doors and windows of the customer to obtain
information regarding the origin of the products sold to the customer
in the years 2008 and 2009. SUAR 241-293. Each supplier was requested
to specify how much, if any, of the doors and/or windows sold to the
customer in the relevant time period was manufactured in a foreign
country. SUAR 241-293.
A portion of the suppliers-approximately 24 percent of the
customer's door and window supplier base in 2008 and 22 percent in
2009--reported that the articles that they sold to the customer were
manufactured in a foreign country. SUAR 241-293, 477, 480. However,
because the suppliers imported a negligible percentage of the articles
they sold to the customer, the customer purchased approximately one
percent of imported products from its other domestic suppliers in 2008
and approximately two percent in 2009. SUAR 241-293, 477, 480, 507-508.
This new survey information was used to determine total import
impact. To identify the relevance of the information collected from the
suppliers of the customer during this remand investigation, the
Department revised the survey analysis to show results to include the
new import information. SUAR 507-508. Specifically, the results now
include the missing response to question 2 on the customer
survey form--imported purchases made from domestic firms. SUAR 507-508.
The updated information that includes indirect imports (``direct
imports'' refer to imports by the customers of Weather Shield and
``indirect imports'' refer to imports by the other domestic suppliers
of Weather Shield's customers) shows that total imports of the
customer's of the subject firm declined from 2008 to 2009 and that
indirect imports increased by one percent during the relevant time
period. SUAR 507-508. The negligible increase in imports by the
suppliers could not have contributed importantly to a decline in
employment and sales or production at the subject firm.
Summary of Third Remand Investigation
The third remand investigation revealed that the subject firm's
sales and production increased October 2008 through September 2009, and
that the information provided by the subject firm could be relied upon
by the Department.
Based on a careful review of previously submitted information and
new information obtained during this remand investigation, the
Department determines that increased imports of articles like or
directly competitive with those produced by the subject firm did not
contribute importantly to subject
[[Page 780]]
worker group separations. Therefore, the Department determined that the
petitioning workers have not met the eligibility criteria of Section
222(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Conclusion
After careful reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of
negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment
assistance for workers and former workers of Weather Shield
Manufacturing, Inc., Corporate Office, Medford, Wisconsin.
Signed in Washington, DC, on this 13th day of December 2012.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2012-31658 Filed 1-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P