Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Notices 68097

[FR Doc. 05–22330 Filed 11–8–05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–56,536, TA–W–56,536A and TA–W–

56,536B] 

Butler Manufacturing Company, 

Subsidiary of Bluescope Steel, Ltd, 

Building Division, Wall and Roof 

Panels Production, Galesburg, IL; 

Butler Manufacturing Company, 

Subsidiary of Bluescope Steel, Ltd, 

Building Division, Trim and 

Components Production, Galesburg, 

IL; Butler Manufacturing Company, 

Subsidiary of Bluescope Steel, Ltd, 

Building Division, Secondaries 

Production, Galesburg, IL; Notice of 

Negative Determination on Remand 

The United States Court of 

International Trade (USCIT) granted the 

Department of Labor’s motion for 

voluntary remand for further 

investigation in Former Employees of 

Butler Manufacturing Company v. 

United States Secretary of Labor (Court 

No. 05–00440, issued September 2, 

2005). AR 181–182. 

On February 7, 2005, three workers 

filed a petition for Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade 

Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) on 

behalf of workers at Butler 

Manufacturing Company, Galesburg, 

Illinois (TA–W–56,536). The petitioners 

stated that the workers’ separations 

were due to the shift of the subject 

firm’s production of prefabricated 

buildings to India, Mexico, and China 

and Butler’s imports of that article from 

Mexico and China. AR 2. 

The Secretary of Labor may certify as 

eligible for TAA benefits only those 

workers who are employed in the 

subdivision that produces the article 

that is adversely affected by imports of 

‘‘like or directly competitive’’ articles. 

Paden v. U.S. Department of Labor, 562 

F.2d 470, 475 (7th Cir.1977); See Abbott

v. Donovan, 596 F.Supp 475 (C.I.T. 

1984). Therefore, during the 

investigation, the Department of Labor 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘the 

Department’’) requested information 

from Butler Manufacturing Company in 

order to determine what articles were 

produced at the subject firm during 

February 2004 through February 2005, 

the twelve month period prior to the 

petition date (February 7, 2005) which 

is the ‘‘relevant period’’ for 

investigation. The Department also 

requested sale, production, and import 

figures regarding those articles 

produced at the Galesburg, Illinois 

facility during (AR 25–39, 57–66, 68) 

and conducted a survey of the 

company’s major customer’s regarding 

their purchases of those articles during 

the relevant period. AR 53–56, 67. 

Based on information provided by the 

subject firm (AR 68), the Department 

partitioned the petition into three 

subparts (Butler Manufacturing 

Company, Subsidiary of BlueScope 

Steel, LTD, Buildings Division, Wall 

and Roof Panels Production, Galesburg, 

Illinois, TA–W–56,536; Butler 

Manufacturing Company, Subsidiary of 

BlueScope Steel, LTD, Buildings 

Division, Trim and Components 

Production, Galesburg, Illinois, TA–W–

56,536A; and Butler Manufacturing 

Company, Subsidiary of BlueScope 

Steel, LTD, Buildings Division, 

Secondaries Production, Galesburg, 

Illinois, TA–W–56,536B)—hereafter 

referred to collectively as ‘‘the subject 

firm’’—to address those articles 

produced at Butler Manufacturing 

Company, Galesburg, Illinois facility 

during the relevant period: Panels, trim 

and components, and secondaries. 

On March 2, 2005, the Department 

issued a determination denying 

certification of the workers’ eligibility to 

apply for TAA and ATAA. AR 72–75. 

The negative determination was based 

on the investigation’s findings that the 

subject firm did not shift its production 

of panels, trim and components, or 

secondaries to a foreign country and 

that there were no increased imports by 

the subject firm or its customers of 

panels, trim and components, or 

secondaries. The Department’s Notice of 

determination was published in the 

Federal Register on April 1, 2005 (70 FR 

16847). AR 80. 

By application of April 1, 2005, the 

petitioners requested administrative 

reconsideration of the Department’s 

denial, alleging that the workers were 

not separately identifiable by product 

line and that the workers’ separations 

were due to a shift of production abroad 

and increased imports. AR 84–87. On 

April 1, 2005, the Department issued a 

Notice of Affirmative Determination 

Regarding Application for 

Reconsideration. AR 92. On April 23, 

2005, the Notice was published in the 

Federal Register (70 FR 21247). AR 125. 

During the reconsideration 

investigation, the Department contacted 

the subject company (AR 100, 133–139) 

and the workers (AR 104–105) for 

additional information. Based on 

information received by the company 

officials (AR 100, 129, 133–139) and the 

workers (AR 106–124, 126–128, 130–

132), the Department determined on 

reconsideration that the workers were 

ineligible to apply for TAA and ATAA. 

The Department determined that those 

workers were not separately identifiable 

by product line and, nevertheless, that 

the subject firm did not shift production 

of panels, trim and components, or 

secondaries abroad. Instead, the subject 

firm was shifting production of those 

articles to domestic, affiliated facilities. 

AR 140–143. The Department issued a 

Notice of Negative Determination on 

Reconsideration on May 11, 2005. The 

Notice of Negative Determination on 

Reconsideration was published in the 

Federal Register on May 25, 2005 (70 

FR 30142). AR 179–180. 

By letter dated July 21, 2005 to the 

USCIT, petitioners requested judicial 

review. AR 154–155. 

On September 2, 2005, the USCIT 

granted the Department’s request for 

voluntary remand and directed the 

Department to further investigate the 

subject workers’ eligibility to apply for 

TAA and ATAA. AR 181–182.

During the remand investigation, the 

Department carefully reviewed 

previously submitted information, 

solicited information from the plaintiff 

and workers (AR 201), and contacted 

the subject firm to obtain new and 

additional information regarding the 

articles produced during the relevant 

period, the work done by the subject 

workers, and the shift of production 

from the subject firm. 

A careful review of previouslysubmitted information and newlyobtained information revealed that the 

Department’s finding in the 

determination on reconsideration that 

the workers are not separately 

identifiable by product line was in error 

(AR 141), and the initial negative 

determination (of TA–W–56,536) 

finding on this issue (AR 74) was 

correct. The information shows that the 

workers were dedicated to particular 

production lines, that workers’

movements between production lines 

were infrequent, and that such 

movement were determined by union 

guidelines and usually based on 

seniority. AR 41–49, 196–199. Because 

the workers’ assignments to product 

lines in the Buildings Division were 

constant and changes among workers on 

the production lines were not the norm 

but the exception, the Department 

determines that the workers were 

separately identifiable by product line. 

However, regardless of whether or not 

the workers were separately identifiable 

by product line, the evidence obtained 

from all parties during the 

investigations do not support the 

workers’ claim that there was a shift of 

production of prefabricated buildings or 

68098 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Notices 

their components abroad or increased 

imports of those articles during the 

relevant period. 

Information provided by the subject 

firm revealed that the only articles 

produced during the relevant period 

were panels, trim and components, and 

secondaries. AR 183, 194–195. As such, 

the Department focused its remand 

investigation on those articles produced 

at the subject firm during the relevant 

period. AR 195–201. 

According to the subject firm, all trim 

and component, secondaries, and panel 

production at the subject facility had 

ceased by April 2005 and had shifted to 

a newly built facility in Jackson, 

Tennessee. As anticipated by the subject 

firm (AR 41–42), the production shift 

began in February 2005 and finished in 

May 2005. AR 184, 195. Information 

provided by the subject firm revealed no 

imports of panels (AR 186), trim and 

components (AR 187), or secondaries 

(AR 188). The previously conducted 

customer survey covered the 

appropriate products and revealed no 

increased imports of any products 

produced by the subject firm. AR 53–56, 

67. 

In response to the plaintiff’s assertion 

that production had shifted to Mexico, 

India and China, the company official 

agreed that a representative of the 

Mexico plant had visited the subject 

firm. However, the reason for that visit 

was related to securing replacement and 

updated equipment for truss purlin 

production in Mexico (an article not 

produced at the subject firm during the 

relevant period). AR 195. While some 

production of component parts of these 

articles did shift to Asia (China), that 

shift occurred in 2003, which is prior to 

the relevant period for this petition. 

Further, those components were not 

made during the relevant period at the 

subject firm. AR 184, 195. 

Because the remand investigation 

revealed no imports of articles like or 

directly competitive with panels, trim 

and components, secondaries produced 

by the workers of the subject firm by the 

subject firm or its customers during the 

relevant period and no shifts of 

production of those articles abroad 

during the relevant period, the statutory 

requirements of neither Section 

222(a)(1) and (2)(a) nor Section 222(a)(1) 

and (2)(B) of the Trade Act or 1974, as 

amended, were met, and the Department 

cannot certify the subject workers as 

eligible to apply for TAA. Further, since 

the workers are not eligible to apply for 

TAA, the workers cannot be found 

eligible to apply for ATAA under 

Section 246(a)(3)(B)(i) of that law. 

Conclusion 

As the result of the findings of the 

investigation on remand, I affirm the 

negative determination of eligibility to 

apply for adjustment assistance for 

workers and former workers of Butler 

Manufacturing Company, Subsidiary of 

BlueScope Steel, LTD, Buildings 

Division, Wall and Roof Panels 

Production, Galesburg, Illinois (TA–W–

56,536); Butler Manufacturing 

Company, Subsidiary of BlueScope 

Steel, LTD, Buildings Division, Trim 

and Components Production, Galesburg, 

Illinois (TA–W–56,536A); and Butler 

Manufacturing Company, Subsidiary of 

BlueScope Steel, LTD, Buildings 

Division, Secondaries Production, 

Galesburg, Illinois (TA–W–56,536B).

Signed at Washington, DC this 1st day of 

November 2005. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 05–22322 Filed 11–8–05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–30–U

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training 

Administration 

Notice of Determinations Regarding 

Eligibility To Apply for Worker 

Adjustment Assistance 

In accordance with Section 223 of the 

Trade Act of 1974, as amended, (19 

U.S.C. 2273), the Department of Labor 

herein presents summaries of 

determinations regarding eligibility to 

apply for trade adjustment assistance for 

workers (TA–W) number and alternative 

trade adjustment assistance (ATAA) by 

(TA–W) number issued during the 

periods of October 2005. 

In order for an affirmative 

determination to be made and a 

certification of eligibility to apply for 

directly-impacted (primary) worker 

adjustment assistance to be issued, each 

of the group eligibility requirements of 

Section 222(a) of the Act must be met. 

I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following 

must be satisfied: 

A. A significant number or proportion 

of the workers in such workers’ firm, or 

an appropriate subdivision of the firm, 

have become totally or partially 

separated, or are threatened to become 

totally or partially separated; 

B. The sales or production, or both, of 

such firm or subdivision have decreased 

absolutely; and 

C. Increased imports of articles like or 

directly competitive with articles 

produced by such firm or subdivision 

have contributed importantly to such 

workers’ separation or threat of 

separation and to the decline in sales or 

production of such firm or subdivision; 

or 

II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the 

following must be satisfied: 

A. A significant number or proportion 

of the workers in such workers’ firm, or 

an appropriate subdivision of the firm, 

have become totally or partially 

separated, or are threatened to become 

totally or partially separated; 

B. There has been a shift in 

production by such workers’ firm or 

subdivision to a foreign county of 

articles like or directly competitive with 

articles which are produced by such 

firm or subdivision; and 

C. One of the following must be 

satisfied: 

1. The country to which the workers’

firm has shifted production of the 

articles is a party to a free trade 

agreement with the United States; 

2. The country to which the workers’

firm has shifted production of the 

articles to a beneficiary country under 

the Andean Trade Preference Act, 

African Growth and Opportunity Act, or 

the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery 

Act; or 

3. There has been or is likely to be an 

increase in imports of articles that are 

like or directly competitive with articles 

which are or were produced by such 

firm or subdivision. 

Also, in order for an affirmative 

determination to be made and a 

certification of eligibility to apply for 

worker adjustment assistance as an 

adversely affected secondary group to be 

issued, each of the group eligibility 

requirements of Section 222(b) of the 

Act must be met. 

(1) Significant number or proportion 

of the workers in the workers’ firm or 

an appropriate subdivision of the firm 

have become totally or partially 

separated, or are threatened to become 

totally or partially separated; 

(2) The workers’ firm (or subdivision) 

is a supplier or downstream producer to 

a firm (or subdivision) that employed a 

group of workers who received a 

certification of eligibility to apply for 

trade adjustment assistance benefits and 

such supply or production is related to 

the article that was the basis for such 

certification; and 

(3) Either—

(A) The workers’ firm is a supplier 

and the component parts it supplied for 

the firm (or subdivision) described in 

paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 

percent of the production or sales of the 

workers’ firm; or 

(B) A loss or business by the workers’

firm with the firm (or subdivision) 

described in paragraph (2) contributed