38048 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 145 / Thursday, July 30, 2009 / Notices 

None. 

Negative Determinations for Alternative 

Trade Adjustment Assistance 

In the following cases, it has been 

determined that the requirements of 

246(a)(3)(A)(ii) have not been met for 

the reasons specified. 

The Department has determined that 

criterion (1) of Section 246 has not been 

met. The firm does not have a 

significant number of workers 50 years 

of age or older. 

None. 

The Department has determined that 

criterion (2) of Section 246 has not been 

met. Workers at the firm possess skills 

that are easily transferable. 

None. 

The Department has determined that 

criterion (3) of Section 246 has not been 

met. Competition conditions within the 

workers’ industry are not adverse. 

None. 

Negative Determinations for Worker 

Adjustment Assistance and Alternative 

Trade Adjustment Assistance 

In the following cases, the 

investigation revealed that the eligibility 

criteria for worker adjustment assistance 

have not been met for the reasons 

specified. 

Because the workers of the firm are 

not eligible to apply for TAA, the 

workers cannot be certified eligible for 

ATAA. 

The investigation revealed that 

criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.A.) and (a)(2)(B)(II.A.) 

(employment decline) have not been 

met. 

None. 

The investigation revealed that 

criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.B.) (Sales or 

production, or both, did not decline) 

and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production 

to a foreign country) have not been met. 

None. 

The investigation revealed that 

criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased 

imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in 

production to a foreign country) have 

not been met. 

TA–W–65,630; National Envelope, 

Scottdale, PA 

TA–W–65,704; Chipblaster, Inc., 

Meadville, PA 

TA–W–65,753; Weyerhaeuser 

Company, Warrenton, OR 

TA–W–65,914; Alliance Machine 

Systems International, Spokane 

Valley, WA 

The workers’ firm does not produce 

an article as required for certification 

under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 

1974. 

None. 

The investigation revealed that 

criteria of Section 222(b)(2) has not been 

met. The workers’ firm (or subdivision) 

is not a supplier to or a downstream 

producer for a firm whose workers were 

certified eligible to apply for TAA. 

TA–W–65,324; General Aluminum 

Manufacturing Co., Richmond 

Plant, Richmond, IN 

I hereby certify that the aforementioned 

determinations were issued during the period 

of June 29 through July 17, 2009. Copies of 

these determinations are available for 

inspection in Room n-5428, U.S. Department 

of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20210 during normal 

business hours or will be mailed to persons 

who write to the above address. 

Dated: July 21, 2009. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Director, Division of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–18176 Filed 7–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–64,725] 

Weather Shield Manufacturing, Inc., 

Corporate Office, Medford, WI; Notice 

of Negative Determination Regarding 

Application for Reconsideration 

By application dated May 26, 2009, 

the petitioners requested administrative 

reconsideration of the Department’s 

negative determination regarding 

eligibility for workers and former 

workers of Weather Shield 

Manufacturing, Inc., Corporate Office, 

Medford, Wisconsin (subject firm) to 

apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance 

(TAA) and Alternative Trade 

Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). The 

Department’s Notice of Affirmative 

Determination Regarding Application 

for Reconsideration was signed on June 

2, 2009, and published in the Federal 

Register on June 18, 2009 (74 FR 28956). 

The initial investigation revealed that 

workers of the subject firm are engaged 

in support functions such as 

administrative, human resources, 

accounting, sales, and marketing 

operations. It was also revealed that the 

workers of the subject firm support 

production of windows at various 

Weather Shield Manufacturing facilities. 

The investigation resulted in a negative 

determination that was based on the 

finding that imports of windows did not 

contribute importantly to worker 

separations at the subject facility and 

there was no shift of production to a 

foreign country. The ‘‘contributed 

importantly’’ test is generally 

demonstrated through a survey of the 

workers’ firm’s declining domestic 

customers. The survey of the major 

declining customers revealed negligible 

imports of windows in 2008 compared 

with 2007. The subject firm did not 

import windows during the relevant 

period. 

A careful review of previouslysubmitted material shows that one of 

the facilities supported by workers of 

the Weather Shield Manufacturing, Inc., 

Corporate Office in Milford, Wisconsin 

produced doors. During the 

reconsideration investigation, the 

Department conducted additional 

customer survey regarding purchases of 

doors (including like or directly 

competitive articles) during 2007 and 

2008. Based on the information obtain 

through the survey, the Department 

determined no imports of doors during 

the relevant period. 

The petitioner also alleges that the 

competitor of the subject firm has been 

certified for TAA during August 2008 

and therefore workers of the subject firm 

should be also certified for TAA. 

The impact of competitors on the 

subject firm is revealed in an 

investigation through customer survey 

analysis. In the case at hand, the 

Department solicited information from 

the customers of the subject firm to 

determine if customers purchased 

imported windows and doors during 

2007 and 2008. The survey is intended 

to determine if competitor imports 

contributed importantly to layoffs at the 

subject firm. The survey revealed that 

imports of windows and doors were 

negligible during the relevant period. 

The investigation also revealed the 

subject firm did not import windows 

and doors nor was there a shift in 

production of windows and doors from 

subject firm abroad during the relevant 

period. Furthermore, U.S. aggregate 

imports of windows and doors declined 

from 2007 to 2008. 

Based on the information above, the 

Department determines that the group 

eligibility requirements under section 

222(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as 

amended, were not met. 

In order for the Department to issue 

a certification of eligibility to apply for 

ATAA, the subject worker group must 

be certified eligible to apply for TAA. 

Since the subject workers are denied 

eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers 

cannot be certified eligible for ATAA. 

Conclusion 

After reconsideration, I affirm the 

original notice of negative 

determination of eligibility to apply for 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 145 / Thursday, July 30, 2009 / Notices 38049 

worker adjustment assistance for 

workers and former workers of Weather 

Shield Manufacturing, Inc., Corporate 

Office, Medford, Wisconsin. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 14th day of 

July 2009. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–18182 Filed 7–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–65,770; TA–W–65,770A; TA–W– 

65,770B; TA–W–65,770C] 

Westport Shipyard, Inc., Westport, WA; 

Westport Shipyard, Inc., Hoquiam, WA; 

Westport Shipyard, Inc., Port Angeles, 

WA; Westport Shipyard, Inc., La 

Conner, WA; Notice of Negative 

Determination Regarding Application 

for Reconsideration 

By application dated June 12, 2009, 

the petitioners requested administrative 

reconsideration of the Department’s 

negative determination regarding 

eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade 

Adjustment Assistance (ATAA), 

applicable to workers and former 

workers of the subject firm. The denial 

notice was signed on May 15, 2009 and 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 18, 2009 (74 FR 28961). 

Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) 

reconsideration may be granted under 

the following circumstances: 

(1) If it appears on the basis of facts 

not previously considered that the 

determination complained of was 

erroneous; 

(2) If it appears that the determination 

complained of was based on a mistake 

in the determination of facts not 

previously considered; or 

(3) If in the opinion of the Certifying 

Officer, a mis-interpretation of facts or 

of the law justified reconsideration of 

the decision. 

The initial investigation resulted in a 

negative determination, which was 

based on the finding that imports of 

large motor yachts did not contribute 

importantly to worker separations at the 

subject facility and there was no shift of 

production to a foreign country. The 

subject firm did not import large motor 

yachts nor shift production of large 

motor yachts to a foreign country during 

the 2007, 2008 and January through 

March 2009 period. Furthermore, the 

investigation revealed that sales and 

production of large motor yachts at the 

subject firm increased from January 

through March, 2009 when compared 

with the same period in 2008. 

The petitioners alleged that the 

customers of the subject firm, who are 

individual buyers and not business 

entities, can purchase ‘‘similar 

products’’ in foreign countries. The 

individuals can subsequently ship or 

sail the yachts back to the United States 

as a personal property, thus these 

products are not considered imports. To 

support their allegations, the petitioners 

attached information about aggregate 

imports, which reflects ports of 

unlading of ‘‘yachts, row boats, canoes 

and sailboats, with or without auxiliary 

motor’’ for the state of Washington in 

2006, 2007, 2008 and January 2009. This 

data shows that aggregate imports into 

the state of Washington of the above 

mentioned products declined from 2006 

to 2007, further declined from 2007 to 

2008, and increased in January 2009 

when compared with January 2008. The 

petitioners seem to allege that these 

increasing imports in January 2009 

amounted to a significant amount 

contributing importantly to the worker 

separations at all Westport Shipyard 

locations. 

In order to establish import impact, 

the Department solicits relevant 

information from the subject firm, 

customers of the subject firm and 

analyzes available United States 

aggregate data regarding imports of 

products, including those like or 

directly competitive with the products 

manufactured by the subject firm for the 

relevant period (one year prior to the 

date of the petition). In the case at hand, 

the customers were not surveyed, as 

they are individuals and one-time 

buyers. According to the data available 

from the U.S. Department of Commerce 

and the U.S. International Trade 

Commission, United States imports of 

motorized vessels and yachts have 

declined from 2007 to 2008 and 

decreased from January through April 

2009, when compared with the 

corresponding 2008 period. 

The petitioner did not supply facts 

not previously considered; nor provide 

additional documentation indicating 

that there was either (1) a mistake in the 

determination of facts not previously 

considered or (2) a misinterpretation of 

facts or of the law justifying 

reconsideration of the initial 

determination. 

After careful review of the request for 

reconsideration, the Department 

determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not 

been met. 

Conclusion 

After review of the application and 

investigative findings, I conclude that 

there has been no error or 

misinterpretation of the law or of the 

facts which would justify 

reconsideration of the Department of 

Labor’s prior decision. Accordingly, the 

application is denied. 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 9th day of 

July 2009. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–18183 Filed 7–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–62,613] 

Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging, 

Inc., Longview Mill, Formerly Longview 

Fibre Company, Including On-Site 

Leased Workers From Oregon Electric 

and J.H. Kelly, Longview, WA; 

Amended Notice of Revised 

Determination on Reconsideration 

In accordance with section 223 of the 

Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and 

section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 

U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the 

Department of Labor issued a Notice of 

Revised Determination on 

Reconsideration on April 16, 2008. The 

notice was published in the Federal 

Register on April 23, 2008 (73 FR 

21992–21993). 

At the request of the State agency, the 

Department reviewed the Notice of 

Revised Determination on 

Reconsideration for workers of the 

subject firm. The workers are engaged in 

the production of kraft paper. 

New information shows that workers 

leased workers from Oregon Electric and 

J.H. Kelly were employed on-site at the 

Longview, Washington location of 

Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging, 

Inc., Longview Mill, Formerly Longview 

Fibre Company. The Department has 

determined that these workers were 

sufficiently under the control of 

Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging, 

Inc., Longview Mill, Formerly Longview 

Fibre Company to be considered leased 

workers. 

Based on these findings, the 

Department is amending this revised 

determination to include workers leased 

from Oregon Electric and J.H. Kelly 

working on-site at the Longview, 

Washington location of the subject firm. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES