52066 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 174 / Monday, September 8, 2008 / Notices 

All meetings are held at the Foreign 

Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E 

Street, NW., Washington, DC. Requests 

for information, or advance notices of 

intention to observe an open meeting, 

may be directed to: Administrative 

Officer, Foreign Claims Settlement 

Commission, 600 E Street, NW., Room 

6002, Washington, DC 20579. 

Telephone: (202) 616–6988. 

Mauricio J. Tamargo, 

Chairman. 

[FR Doc. E8–20879 Filed 9–4–08; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4410–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–63,448] 

Prestolite Wire LLC, Including On-Site 

Leased Workers From Talent Tree, 

Tifton, GA; Amended Certification 

Regarding Eligibility To Apply for 

Worker Adjustment Assistance and 

Alternative Trade Adjustment 

Assistance 

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 

Certification of Eligibility to Apply for 

Worker Adjustment Assistance and 

Alternative Trade Adjustment 

Assistance on June 10, 2008, applicable 

to workers of Prestolite Wire LLC, 

including on-site leased workers of 

Talent Tree, Tifton, Georgia. The notice 

was published in the Federal Register 

on June 27, 2008 (73 FR 36575). 

At the request of the State agency, the 

Department reviewed the certification 

for workers of the subject firm. The 

workers were engaged in the production 

of automotive ignition wire assemblies. 

Findings show that there was a 

previous certification, TA–W–59,531, 

issued on July 13, 2006, for the workers 

of Prestolite Wire LLC, Tifton, Georgia. 

That certification expired on July 13, 

2008. To avoid an overlap in worker 

group coverage for the workers of the 

Tifton, Georgia location, the 

certification is being amended to change 

the impact date from May 29, 2007 to 

July 14, 2008. 

Accordingly, the Department is 

amending the certification to properly 

reflect this matter. 

The intent of the Department’s 

certification is to include all workers of 

Prestolite Wire LLC who were adversely 

affected by a shift in production of 

automotive ignition wire assemblies to 

Mexico. 

The amended notice applicable to 

TA–W–63,448 is hereby issued as 

follows: 

All workers of Prestolite Wire LLC, 

including on-site leased workers from Talent 

Tree, Tifton, Georgia, who became totally or 

partially separated from employment on or 

after July 14, 2008, through June 10, 2010, are 

eligible to apply for adjustment assistance 

under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, 

and are also eligible to apply for alternative 

trade adjustment assistance under Section 

246 of the Trade Act of 1974. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of 

August 2008. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E8–20690 Filed 9–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–54,455] 

Weirton Steel Corporation, Weirton, 

WV; Negative Determination on 

Remand 

On April 30, 2008, the U.S. Court of 

International Trade (USCIT) remanded 

United Steel, Paper and Forestry, 

Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied 

Industrial and Service Workers 

International Union, Local 2911 v. 

United States Secretary of Labor, Court 

No. 04–00492, to the U.S. Department of 

Labor (Department) for further 

investigation. 

On March 9, 2004, an official of 

Weirton Steel Corporation (subject firm) 

filed a petition for Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade 

Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) on 

behalf of workers of Weirton Steel 

Corporation, Weirton, West Virginia 

(subject facility). AR 2. Workers at the 

subject facility produce hot-rolled, coldrolled, tin-plate and hot-dipped, and 

electrolytic galvanized steel. AR 2, 48. 

The workers are not separately 

identifiable by specific product. AR 48. 

On April 23, 2002, workers at Weirton 

Steel Corporation, Weirton, West 

Virginia were certified eligible to apply 

for TAA (TA–W–39,657; certification 

was issued on April 23, 2002 and 

expired on April 23, 2004). SAR 18. 

The initial investigation revealed that 

the subject firm neither imported steel 

products nor shifted steel production to 

a foreign country in the one year prior 

to the petition date (March 9, 2003 

through March 9, 2004). AR 102. The 

initial investigation also revealed that 

although subject firm production 

declined in 2003 from 2002 levels and 

declined during January through 

February 2004 compared with the 

corresponding period in 2003, subject 

firm sales increased in 2003 compared 

with 2002, and increased in January 

through February 2004 compared with 

the corresponding period in 2003. AR 

102. 

The Department surveyed fifteen of 

the subject firm’s major declining 

customers regarding their purchases of 

the principal product types of steel sold 

by the subject firm in 2002, 2003, 

January through March 2003, and 

January through March 2004. The 

majority of respondents reported either 

no imports or declining imports. The 

survey also revealed that for those 

customers that did increase import 

purchases, the imports were 

substantially less than one percent of 

the subject firm’s sales or production. 

AR 102. 

Aggregate data of the major steel 

products manufactured by the subject 

facility during the relevant period (hotrolled carbon sheet, cold-rolled carbon 

sheet, hot-dipped galvanized sheet and 

strip, galvanized electrolytic carbon 

sheet and strip, and tin mill products) 

indicated that imports of these products 

declined, both absolutely and relative to 

shipments, in 2003 compared with 

2002, and continued to decline in the 

first quarter of 2004 compared with the 

corresponding period of 2003. AR 102. 

The Department’s negative 

determination regarding the subject 

workers’ eligibility to apply for worker 

adjustment assistance was issued on 

May 14, 2004. AR 103. The 

Department’s Notice of determination 

was published in the Federal Register 

on June 2, 2004 (69 FR 31135). AR 104. 

By letter dated June 18, 2004, the 

Independent Steelworkers Union (ISU), 

via their counsel, requested 

administrative reconsideration of the 

Department’s negative determination 

applicable to the subject workers. AR 

119. The ISU requested that the 

investigation period be extended in 

order to include information regarding 

subject firm sales declines and import 

impact that were the basis for an 

expired TAA certification (TA–W–

39,657; certified on April 23, 2002). AR 

119–194. 

The Notice of Negative Determination 

Regarding Application for 

Reconsideration (issued on July 23, 

2004) stated that information on events 

that occurred before the relevant period 

cannot be the basis for TAA certification 

in the immediate case. AR 195. The 

Department’s Notice of determination 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 174 / Monday, September 8, 2008 / Notices 52067 

was published in the Federal Register 

on August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47184). AR 

198. 

By letter dated September 14, 2004, 

the Independent Steelworkers Union 

(ISU) requested that the expired 

certification for TA–W–39,657 be 

amended to include workers separated 

from the subject facility after the end of 

the original certification period (April 

23, 2004). SAR 12. 

The request for amendment stated 

that, on May 18, 2004, ‘‘substantially all 

of the production assets of Weirton Steel 

Corporation were acquired out of 

bankruptcy by International Steel 

Group, Inc. (ISG)’’ and ‘‘Weirton ceased 

to exist as a producer of steel and 

several hundred additional employees 

were permanently separated from the 

company.’’ SAR 13. The letter asserts 

that the intent of the request is to 

provide TAA eligibility to those workers 

who stayed with the subject firm after 

the expiration of the certification in 

order to effectuate the sale of assets, 

which took place on May 18, 2004. SAR 

12. In support of the request, the ISU 

cited two cases in which the 

Department extended the certification 

date (O/Z–Gedney Co., Division of EGS 

Electrical Group, Terrytown, 

Connecticut; TA–W–38,569 and 

Wiegand Appliance Division, Emerson 

Electric Company, Vernon, Alabama; 

TA–W–39,436). SAR 14. 

On September 24, 2004, the 

Department issued a letter in which the 

Plaintiff was notified that its request 

had been denied. The letter explained 

that the Department extends the 

certification period, before it expires, in 

those cases where workers were 

retained beyond the certification period 

in order to assist with the closure of the 

facility after production had ceased. The 

Department’s letter stated: 

You referred to two trade petition 

certifications where the expiration dates were 

extended, specifically, O/Z Gedney 

Company, Division of EGS Electrical Group, 

Terryville, Connecticut (TA–W–38,569) and 

Wiegand Appliance Division, Emerson 

Electric Company, Vernon, Alabama (TA–W–

39,436). In each of these cases, workers were 

retained to assist with the plant closure after 

production had ceased. That is not the case 

for workers at Weirton Steel. Production of 

steel products at the Weirton, West Virginia 

plant continued during the period relevant to 

the investigation. 

SAR 16–17. 

By letter to the USCIT, dated October 

1, 2004, the United Steel, Paper and 

Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, 

Energy, Allied Industrial and Service 

Workers International Union, Local 

2911 (Plaintiff) sought judicial review of 

the July 23, 2004 determination denying 

reconsideration in this matter. 

The complaint stated that the 

Plaintiff’s challenges are ‘‘(1) the final 

determination in the investigation 

regarding certification of eligibility of 

former employees of Weirton Steel 

Corporation, Weirton, West Virginia, to 

apply for worker adjustment assistance, 

Case No. TA–W–54,455, and (2) the 

final negative determination in response 

to a request for an amendment of the 

certification in Case No. TA–W–39,657 

to extend the expiration date of that 

certification from April 23, 2004 to May 

18, 2004, so as to guarantee eligibility 

for all former employees of Weirton 

Steel who were adversely affected by 

increased imports.’’

Plaintiff’s first claim is that ‘‘the 

Department’s use of a one-year 

‘representative base period’ in this case 

ignored the reality that in certain 

industries, such as steel, there was the 

possibility or even the likelihood of a 

lag time of more than one or two years 

between import surges and workers 

separations.’’

Plaintiff’s second claim is that the 

Department has much discretion as to 

how it gathers and analyzes information 

in determining whether increased 

imports contributed importantly to 

worker separations, and that regulations 

should not be construed as a ‘‘bar to a 

more expansive inquiry where there are 

compelling reasons for a broader 

examination.’’

Plaintiff’s third claim is that the 

Department is not precluded by the 

statute or the regulation from 

considering ‘‘only imports during the 

two years prior to the date of the 

petition, or during any particular period 

of time.’’

Plaintiff’s fourth claim is that while 

amendments are absent in both the 

statute and the regulation, the 

Department has not supported its 

decision (to not extend the certification 

period to May 18, 2004) with substantial 

evidence and has failed to reconcile the 

decision with other cases where 

requests for amendments to extend the 

period of certification were granted. 

The Department filed its 

administrative record with the USCIT 

supporting its decision. On November 

17, 2006, the USCIT issued its opinion 

which sustained the Department’s 

negative determination applicable to 

TA–W–54,455. The USCIT also stated 

that it possessed jurisdiction to review 

the Department’s decision not to grant 

the request to extend the certification of 

TA–W–39,657 and that it was reserving 

judgment pending the Department’s 

submission of additional documentation 

related to the amendment request. The 

court remanded the case to the 

Department ‘‘with instructions to 

assemble and submit to the court the 

administrative record regarding 

plaintiff’s amendment claim.’’ Slip. Op. 

at 31. On January 27, 2007, the 

Department filed a supplemental 

administrative record with the USCIT in 

accordance with that order. 

In its April 30, 2008 remand order, 

the Court considered the Department’s 

decision, in addition to the 

Department’s supplemental 

administrative record, which refused to 

extend the prior determination and 

remanded the matter to the Department 

for it to provide a fuller explanation of 

its refusal to extend the certification. 

The USCIT, in its order, directed the 

Department to: (1) Clarify the basis of 

and to fully explain any decision it 

reaches; (2) establish the facts upon 

which it makes its determination and 

state precisely why it is, or is not, 

significant that the Weirton plant did 

not close; (3) clearly explain why, if at 

all, the Weirton workers who lost their 

jobs after April 23, 2004, should be 

treated differently than those who lost 

their jobs prior to that date; (4) set forth 

its current and past policy regarding 

amendments to the expiration date of 

certifications; (5) explain how the case 

at hand is different, if at all, from 

previous cases where it extended 

worker certifications; (6) set forth all 

steps, if any, taken to change its policy 

with respect to extensions, including 

any measures taken to notify the public, 

and the dates on which all such steps 

were undertaken; (7) set forth the 

criteria upon which it makes any 

determination to extend or not to extend 

the subject certification; and (8) explain 

why its determination is in accord with 

the remedial nature of the TAA statute. 

In order to better explain the 

Department’s determination, the 

Department has addressed the USCIT’s 

concerns in a different order than above 

and has included facts relevant to TA–

W–39,657 as well as the history of the 

administration of the Trade program. 

Relevant Facts of TA–W–39,657 

On April 23, 2002, the Department 

issued a certification applicable to 

workers and former workers of Weirton 

Steel Corporation, Weirton, West 

Virginia (TA–W–39,657) who produced 

hot and cold rolled coated carbon steel. 

The certification was based on the 

finding that, during the relative period, 

sales, production, and employment at 

the subject firm decreased while ‘‘U.S. 

aggregate imports of cold-rolled carbon 

steel sheet increased both absolutely 

and relative to domestic shipments’’

during the relative period. SAR 18–19. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

52068 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 174 / Monday, September 8, 2008 / Notices 

In May 2003, Weirton filed for 

bankruptcy. AR 122, SAR 13. During 

this bankruptcy proceeding, Weirton 

agreed to sell to ISG (a competitor) its 

assets, including steel production 

equipment at the Weirton, West Virginia 

location. SAR 13. During the transition 

period between the bankruptcy filing 

and the sale of its assets to ISG, over 

three hundred workers employed by 

Weirton, AR 2, 46, 50, 96, continued to 

produce steel at the Weirton, West 

Virginia facility. AR 49–50, SAR 13–14. 

After the sale took place, on May 18, 

2004, ISG took over production at the 

Weirton, West Virginia facility and 

Weirton separated the workers 

remaining at the West Virginia facility. 

SAR 13–14. 

Applicable Authorities 

Under Section 222(a) of the Trade Act 

of 1974, as amended, a worker group is 

adversely-affected by increased imports 

if (1) 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; (2) the 

sales and/or production of such firm or 

subdivision have decreased absolutely; 

and (3) 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. 

This is codified in 29 CFR 90.16. 

Under section 223(d) of the Trade Act, 

the Secretary is authorized to terminate 

a certification ‘‘[w]henever the Secretary 

determines * * * that total or partial 

separations from such firm or 

subdivision are no longer attributable to 

the conditions specified in section 222.’’

This is codified in 29 CFR 90.17. 

Under Section 231 of the Trade Act, 

payment of a Trade Readjustment 

Allowance (TRA) shall be made to an 

adversely affected worker covered by a 

certification under conditions including 

that the worker’s separation occurred on 

or after the beginning date of the 

certification and ‘‘before the expiration 

of the two-year period beginning on the 

date on which the determination * * * 

was made’’ or an earlier date if the 

Department terminates the certification 

prior to the end of that period. This is 

codified in 20 CFR 617.11. 

The TAA Certification Period 

Historically, the Department issued 

certifications that did not expire until 

two years after the issuance of the 

certification; however, if the facts of a 

case indicated that worker separations 

would conclude on a date earlier than 

two years from the date of the 

certification (such as in a plant closure), 

the Department would issue a 

certification that contained a 

termination date that corresponded to 

the latest date that, based on the 

information provided by the company, 

the Department determined that 

workers’ separations could be 

attributable to the basis for the 

certification. 

Applying the statutory guidance in 

section 223(d) of the Trade Act, where 

the facts of a case indicate that the 

worker separations will conclude earlier 

than the 2-year expiration of the 

certification, the Department has 

terminated certifications, which 

resulted in certifications with a shorter 

eligibility period than the ‘‘2-year 

expiration date.’’

Section 231 of the Trade Act provides 

that payment of a Trade Readjustment 

Allowance (TRA), which is the largest 

benefit available under the Trade Act, 

shall be made to an adversely affected 

worker covered by a certification if the 

worker’s separation occurred on or after 

the beginning date of the certification 

and ‘‘before the expiration of the twoyear period beginning on the date on 

which the determination * * * was 

made’’ or an earlier date if the 

Department terminates the certification 

prior to the end of that period. Utilizing 

the 2-year expiration date in 

certifications is consistent with this 

section of the Trade Act. 

As the TAA program evolved, the 

Department addressed the issue of 

termination of the certification period in 

Unemployment Insurance Program 

Letter 28–80 (April 9, 1980). This 

guidance to state agencies that 

determine individual eligibility for TAA 

benefits states that a certification which 

is amended to add new groups of 

workers, which could have been 

included in the original certification, 

should not extend the two-year period 

of the certification. 

Currently, the Department continues 

to issue certifications that do not expire 

until two years after the date of the 

determination and does not monitor 

certified worker groups to ascertain 

whether the worker separations are 

attributable to the basis for certification. 

The Department’s Current Policy 

Regarding Amendments to the 

Expiration Date of Certifications 

As stated in all amendment 

determinations, the intent of the 

Department is for the certification to 

cover all workers of the subject firm or 

appropriate subdivision who were 

adversely affected by increased imports 

of the article produced by the firm or a 

shift in production of the article, based 

on the investigation of the petition. 

Neither the statute nor the regulation 

addresses whether the Department may 

amend certifications or how to process 

requests for amendments, although 

section 223(d) of the Trade Act and 29 

CFR 90.17 authorize the Department to 

terminate certifications if, after an 

investigation, the Department believes 

that worker separations are ‘‘no longer 

attributable to the conditions specified 

in section 222 of the Trade Act and 29 

CFR 90.16(b).’’ However, in 

implementing its authority to certify all 

adversely affected workers, the 

Department has and continues to amend 

the expiration date of certifications 

when the facts of the case show that the 

later worker separations are attributable 

to the basis for certification (the 

increased imports or shift of production 

to a foreign country). 

Because terminating a certification 

denies a previously-eligible worker 

group’s access to an entitlement 

program, the Department believes that 

using a standard for amending a 

certification to include a previouslyexcluded worker group that is identical 

to the approved standard for terminating 

a certification adequately safeguards the 

interests of the worker group and is in 

line with the remedial nature of the 

Trade Act. Therefore, requests to 

amendment certification to extend the 

expiration period are granted in cases 

where the Department determines that 

the worker separations are 

‘‘attributable’’ to the basis for the earlier 

certification. 

The Department’s policy is reflected 

in its determination in Thomson, Inc., 

Circleville, Ohio, TA–W–59,118. SAR 

22–23. In Thomson, workers alleged 

that they were part of the worker group 

certified under TA–W–52,274, issued on 

August 7, 2003. Thomson continued to 

employ several workers at the subject 

facility after August 7, 2005, the 

expiration date that certification, 

although production had ceased when 

the plant closed on June 25, 2004. The 

Department explained in the 

determination that ‘‘the workers who 

continued their employment with the 

subject firm to * * * complete 

shutdown functions are part of the 

worker group covered by TA–W–

52,274.’’ The basis for the determination 

was the Department’s finding of ‘‘the 

causal nexus between the subject 

facility’s closure and the workers’

separations.’’

The amended certification of TA–W–

52,274 (issued January 25 2007) stated 

‘‘during the ensuing remand process for 

TA–W–59,118, the Department 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 174 / Monday, September 8, 2008 / Notices 52069 

determined that there was a causal 

nexus between the subject firm’s 

shutdown of operations and the 

shutdown workers’ separations and that, 

therefore, the separations of the workers 

* * * are attributable to the conditions 

specified in section 222 of the Trade 

Act.’’ SAR 22–23. 

The Department’s Past Policy 

Regarding Amendments to the 

Expiration Date of Certification 

There has been no change in the 

Department’s policy as to situations 

such as the one presented in this case. 

While the Department anticipated a 

change in its policy to extend the 

expiration date of a certification beyond 

two years, that policy has not changed, 

as shown by the Thomson certification. 

The Department has not, to the best of 

our knowledge, amended a certification 

to extend the expiration date except in 

limited circumstances when there has 

been a plant closing and a small number 

of workers are retained past the 2-year 

expiration date to complete shutdown 

activities. The intent of the Department 

in these cases, as in all cases, is for the 

amended certification to cover all 

adversely affected workers at the subject 

firm or appropriate subdivision (based 

on the investigation of the petition). 

The Department’s Steps To Change 

Policy Regarding Certification 

Extensions and To Notify the Public of 

Policy Changes 

The Department has not taken any 

steps to notify the public of any change 

in policy because there has been no 

policy change. The Department had 

intended to amend its certification 

regulations, as reported in the 

Department’s regulatory agenda, but 

Congressional action has barred agency 

action on such regulations. See Section 

110 of Division G of Public Law 110–

161 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2008), which states: 

SEC. 110. None of the funds made 

available in this or any other Act shall be 

available to finalize or implement any 

proposed regulation under the Workforce 

Investment Act of 1998, Wagner-Peyser Act 

of 1933, or the Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Reform Act of 2002 until such time as 

legislation reauthorizing the Workforce 

Investment Act of 1998 and the Trade 

Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002 is 

enacted. 

As a result of this prohibition, the 

Department has been unable to notify 

the public of any proposal regarding 

procedures on group eligibility 

terminations, including procedures on 

amendments to certifications, and no 

regulatory change has taken place. The 

Department shall, however, notify the 

public of any regulatory proposal and 

seek public comments on the draft 

regulations once permissible. 

Criteria for Extending Worker Group 

Certification Period 

Requests for an amendment to extend 

the period of a certification are rare. 

However, in response to each request for 

such an amendment to a certification, 

the Department reviews the facts of the 

case and determines whether or not it 

has been demonstrated that the worker 

separations that occurred after the 

expiration date of the certification has 

expired are also ‘‘attributable’’ to the 

basis for that certification. As stated in 

Thomson, the Department must 

determine that workers separated after 

the certification expired are 

appropriately part of the worker group 

covered by the certification. As such, 

the earlier and later separated workers 

must have identical characteristics 

(same location, same article, and same 

basis for certification) aside from dates 

of separation. It must also be shown that 

the predominant important cause of the 

later worker separations is identical to 

the conditions that were the basis for 

the certification of the earlier separated 

workers. 

If the certification was based on 

increased imports, the petitioning 

worker group must show that the 

increased imports (same article, same 

time periods, etc.) contributed 

importantly to their separations; if the 

certification was based on a shift of 

production, the petitioning worker 

group must show that the same shift of 

production (same article, same country, 

etc.) was the basis for their separations. 

The Significance of the Lack of Closure 

of the Weirton Plant 

When considering whether or not to 

grant the request to extend the 

certification period of TA–W–39,657, 

the Department must determine whether 

worker separations after April 23, 2004 

are attributable to the increased imports 

that were the basis of the certification of 

TA–W–39,657. If it is demonstrated that 

the contributing cause of the worker 

separations at issue is not the increased 

imports that were the basis of the 

certification, amending the certification 

is not appropriate. 

Further, should the Department find 

that the same conditions that were the 

basis for certification in TA–W–39,657 

persisted beyond April 23, 2004, and 

that worker separations after April 23, 

2004 are attributable to the basis for 

certification, the Department may 

extend the certification period. 

However, if there was a change in 

circumstance that prevents a causal 

nexus between the workers’ separation 

and the basis for certification, then the 

Department cannot find that the 

workers’ separation is attributable to the 

basis for certification. 

If a production facility closes, the 

workers at that facility would eventually 

be separated from that facility, and the 

Department would determine that there 

was a causal nexus between the 

workers’ separations and the plant 

closure. The significance of a plant 

closure was most recently demonstrated 

in Thomson, where the plant closed and 

the Department amended the 

certification to include the shutdown 

workers’ separations. However, because 

the Weirton facility did not close, there 

is no such causal nexus between the 

separations and the events that were the 

basis for the certification of TA–W–

39,657. 

The investigation of TA–W–54,455 

disclosed that the Weirton facility 

continued production beyond the 

certification date of TA–W–39,657. AR 

2, 46, 50, 96, SAR 13–14. Accordingly, 

the facility ceased to suffer from the 

same economic conditions that were the 

basis for the certification, and the later 

worker separations are not attributable 

to the increased imports that were the 

basis for the TA–W–39,657 certification. 

In addition, the evidence found in 

support of the denial of the certification 

request in the instant case showed that 

sales of the subject firm increased in the 

relevant period, and that there were 

declining imports or little or no increase 

in imports during the relevant period. 

AR 102. This negative determination 

was published in the Federal Register 

on June 2, 2004 (69 FR 31135). AR 104. 

A review of the record amply 

demonstrates that extension of the 

certification of TA–W–39,657 to cover 

the workers would be contrary to the 

Department’s policy and practice. 

Different Treatment of Separations 

After April 23, 2004 Than Separations 

That Occurred On or Prior to April 23, 

2004 

Workers separated after April 23, 

2004 are treated differently from those 

separated on or prior to April 23, 2004, 

because the workers separated before 

April 23, 2004 belong to a separately 

identifiable worker group. 

In the case at hand, the Department 

issued a routine certification that 

expired two years from the date of 

issuance because there was no 

information in the record to indicate 

that a shorter certification was 

appropriate. And, because the 

Department did not conduct a 

termination investigation, the 

certification period was not shortened. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

52070 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 174 / Monday, September 8, 2008 / Notices 

Therefore, the issue is not whether the 

worker separations on or before April 

23, 2004 are attributable to the increased 

imports that were the basis for 

certification; the issue is whether or not 

the worker separations after April 23, 

2004 are attributable to the increased 

imports that were the basis for 

certification. 

The Department must determine 

whether the events that caused the 

separations after April 23, 2004 are 

identical to those that were the basis for 

the certification. While the certification 

of workers separated on or before April 

23, 2004 was based on increased 

imports, SAR 18–19, worker separations 

after April 23, 2004 resulted from ISG’s 

decision not to continue to employ the 

Weirton production workers when it 

purchased the operating Weirton plant 

as part of the May 18, 2004 sale. SAR 

13–14. Accordingly, the Department 

determines that workers separated on 

May 18, 2004, belong in a worker group 

that is separately identifiable from the 

worker group covered by the 

certification in TA–W–39,657, and that 

the Department’s determination denying 

amendment of the TA–W–39,657 to 

include both worker groups is 

appropriate under the circumstances. 

Weirton Different From Previous Cases 

Where the Department Extended 

Worker Certifications 

Plaintiffs allege that the action taken 

by the Department in the case at hand 

is inconsistent with the actions taken in 

O/Z–Gedney Co., Division of EGS 

Electrical Group, Terrytown, 

Connecticut, TA–W–38,569 (O/Z–

Gedney) and Wiegand Appliance 

Division, Emerson Electric Company, 

Vernon, Alabama, TA–W–39,436 

(Wiegand). 

In O/Z–Gedney, the certified workers 

were engaged in the production of 

electrical fittings until the facility 

closed. The amended certification stated 

that the intent of the Department’s 

certification is to include all workers of 

the subject firm who were adversely 

affected by increased imports. The 

Department amended the certification 

because there was a causal nexus 

between the workers’ separation and the 

plant closure that was the result of 

increased imports. The single worker 

retained at the subject firm beyond the 

March 27, 2003 expiration date was 

engaged in activities related to the closedown process until her termination on 

March 26, 2004. SAR 20. 

In Wiegand, the certified workers 

were engaged in activities related to the 

production of electric heating elements 

until the company closed. The amended 

certification stated that the intent of the 

Department’s certification is to include 

all workers of the subject firm who were 

adversely affected by increased imports. 

The Department amended the 

certification because there was a causal 

nexus between the worker’s separation 

and the plant closure that was the result 

of increased imports. The workers 

separated after the July 16, 2003 

expiration date were retained to conduct 

activities related to the closure of the 

facility. These workers completed the 

tracking of outstanding customer orders 

until their termination on July 21, 2003. 

SAR 21. 

In Thomson, the amended 

certification issued by the Department 

stated that the intent of the certification 

is to include all workers of the subject 

firm who were adversely affected by 

increased imports. The Department 

stated that there was a causal nexus 

between the worker’s separation and the 

plant closure. The few workers 

Thomson continued to employ after the 

expiration of the certification were 

retained by the subject firm pursuant to 

State regulation to engage in 

decommissioning activities. SAR 24. 

As illustrated in the cases discussed 

above, the Department’s amendments 

were based on findings that increased 

imports adversely affected the workers 

separated after the expiration of the 

certification. The subject firm retained 

employees past the certification 

expiration date solely to close down the 

facility from which the certified workers 

had been separated based on increased 

imports of the articles produced at that 

facility. The Department’s treatment of 

such workers has been consistent and 

the decision here also is consistent with 

that practice. The Weirton workers 

separated after the plant’s acquisition by 

ISG were not engaged in the closedown 

of that facility, but were actually 

involved in production and 

maintenance of the plant. 

The Remand Determination Is in 

Accord With the Remedial Nature of 

the TAA Statute 

In the remand order, the USCIT 

directs the Department to explain why 

its determination is in accord with the 

remedial nature of the Trade Act. The 

Department respectfully disagrees with 

the premise of the USCIT’s question. 

While it is true that the Trade Act is 

remedial in nature, the statute does not 

authorize the granting of certification, 

unlimited by time, in every situation 

involving a sympathetic fact pattern. 

Certifications have to end at some 

time. Our current procedures provide 

that certifications generally last for two 

years and are, normally, not terminated 

short of that. A generous application of 

the law is not required. 

Conclusion 

After reconsideration on remand, I 

affirm the decision not to amend the 

certification of TA–W–39,657 to include 

workers separated from Weirton Steel 

Corporation, Weirton, West Virginia 

after April 23, 2004. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of 

August 2008. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E8–20688 Filed 9–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–63,197] 

Dan River, Inc.; Danville Operations; 

Danville, VA; Notice of Revised 

Determination on Reconsideration 

On July 11, 2008, the Department 

issued an Affirmative Determination 

Regarding Application on 

Reconsideration applicable to workers 

and former workers of the subject firm. 

The notice was published in the Federal 

Register on July 21, 2008 (73 FR 42368). 

In the request for reconsideration, the 

petitioner provided new information 

regarding production at the subject 

facility. The petitioner stated that 

workers of the subject facility produced 

various package labels and packaging 

materials. 

The Department contacted a company 

official to address this allegation. Based 

on information provided by the 

company official, the Department 

determined that workers of the subject 

firm were engaged in the production of 

package labels and packaging material 

in 2007 and January through April 2008. 

The investigation also revealed that 

the subject firm has shifted production 

of package labels and packaging 

material to China, Pakistan and India 

impacting workers at the Danville plant. 

The investigation also revealed that the 

firm increased imports of package labels 

and packaging material during the 

relevant period. 

In accordance with Section 246 the 

Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 

amended, the Department herein 

presents the results of its investigation 

regarding certification of eligibility to 

apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (ATAA) for older workers. 

In order for the Department to issue 

a certification of eligibility to apply for 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES