[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 174 (Monday, September 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52066-52070]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20688]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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, cold-rolled, 
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 (hot-rolled 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

[[Page 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.

[[Page 52068]]

    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 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. 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 previously-excluded 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

[[Page 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.

[[Page 52070]]

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 close-down 
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