Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 57517 

TA–W No. Subject firm Location Impact date 

73,722 ................................... Sojitz Corporation of America, Sojitz Corporation; Forest 

Products Department.

Seattle, WA ...........................

74,035 ................................... OSRAM Sylvania, Siemens ................................................. Warren, PA ...........................

74,246 ................................... Bank of America, Card Customer Assistance Division ....... State College, PA .................

74,290 ................................... Supermedia LLC, Idearc Media LLC; SuperMedia Information Services LLC; Client Care, etc..Middleton, MA .......................

Determinations Terminating 

Investigations of Petitions for Worker 

Adjustment Assistance 

After notice of the petitions was 

published in the Federal Register and 

on the Department’s Web site, as 

required by Section 221 of the Act (19 

U.S.C. 2271), the Department initiated 

investigations of these petitions. 

The following determinations 

terminating investigations were issued 

because the petitioner has requested 

that the petition be withdrawn. 

TA–W No. Subject firm Location Impact date 

73,707 ................................... JD Norman Industries, Inc., Brooklyn Facility ..................... Brooklyn, OH ........................

73,759 ................................... Eskco, Inc ............................................................................ Dayton, OH ...........................

74,353 ................................... Riverhawk Aviation .............................................................. Hickory, NC ..........................

The following determinations 

terminating investigations were issued 

because the petitioning groups of 

workers are covered by active 

certifications. Consequently, further 

investigation in these cases would serve 

no purpose since the petitioning group 

of workers cannot be covered by more 

than one certification at a time. 

TA–W No. Subject firm Location Impact date 

73,625 ................................... Compuware Corporation ...................................................... Warren, MI ............................

I hereby certify that the 

aforementioned determinations were 

issued during the period of August 30, 

2010 through September 3, 2010. Copies 

of these determinations may be 

requested under the Freedom of 

Information Act. Requests may be 

submitted by fax, courier services, or 

mail to FOIA Disclosure Officer, Office 

of Trade Adjustment Assistance (ETA), 

U.S. Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20210 or tofoiarequest@dol.gov. 

These determinations also are available 

on the Department’s Web site at 

http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact under 

the searchable listing of determinations. 

Dated: September 10, 2010. 

Elliott S. Kushner 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23496 Filed 9–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–70,344] 

Atlantic Southeast Airlines, a 

Subsidiary of Skywest, Inc., Airport 

Customer Service Division, Including 

On-Site Leased Workers of Delta 

Global Services, Inc., Fort Smith, AR; 

Notice of Negative Determination on 

Remand 

On July 6, 2010, the United States 

Court of International Trade (USCIT) 

granted the Department of Labor’s 

request for voluntary remand to conduct 

further investigation in Former 

Employees of Atlantic Southeast 

Airlines, a Subsidiary of Skywest, Inc., 

Airport Customer Service Division v. 

United States Secretary of Labor (Court 

No. 09–00522). 

Background 

On September 28, 2009, the 

Department of Labor (Department) 

issued a Negative Determination 

regarding eligibility to apply for Trade 

Adjustment Assistance (TAA) under the 

Trade Act of 1974, as amended 

(hereafter referred to as the Act) 

applicable to workers and former 

workers of Atlantic Southeast Airlines, 

a Subsidiary of Skywest, Inc., Airport 

Customer Division, Fort Smith, 

Arkansas (subject firm). AR 35. Workers 

at the subject firm (subject worker 

group) provided airline ground services, 

such as baggage handling, at the Forth 

Smith, Arkansas airport. AR 8, 14, 17, 

25–26, 34. The Department’s Notice of 

negative determination was published 

in the Federal Register on November 17, 

2009 (74 FR 59251). AR 48. 

The negative determination stated 

that the subject firm did not import 

services like or directly competitive 

with the services supplied by the 

subject workers in the period under 

investigation nor shift the supply of 

these services to a foreign country 

during this period. A customer survey 

was not conducted because the subject 

firm’s customers were private 

individuals who traveled through Fort 

Smith, Arkansas airport. AR 35–38. 

By application dated October 19, 

2009, a petitioner requested 

administrative reconsideration on the 

Department’s negative determination. In 

the request for reconsideration, the 

petitioner alleged that workers at the 

subject firm provided services to 

individuals employed at firms that 

employed workers eligible to apply for 

TAA and that workers at the subject 

firm should also be eligible to apply for 

TAA as ‘‘downstream producers’’ to 

these firms. AR 42–43. 

Because the petitioner did not provide 

information that had not been 

previously considered, the Department 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
57518 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 

issued a Notice of Negative 

Determination Regarding Application 

for Reconsideration applicable to 

workers at the subject firm on November 

5, 2009. AR 44. The Notice of 

determination was published in the 

Federal Register on December 8, 2009 

(74 FR 64736). AR 54. 

In the complaint to the USCIT, dated 

December 2, 2009, the Plaintiff 

reiterated the reconsideration 

application allegations, claiming that 

workers at the subject firm are eligible 

to apply for TAA as secondarily affected 

workers because they provided 

transportation services to individuals 

employed at manufacturing firms in the 

Fort Smith area that employed worker 

groups eligible to apply for TAA and 

which used the airport at which the 

subject firm employed the worker 

group. The complaint stated that ‘‘our 

station was closed as a direct result of 

down sizing and closing of major 

companies in our area; all of which are 

receiving TAA benefits.’’ The Plaintiff 

did not provide additional information 

in support of the complaint, but 

attached a copy of the request for 

reconsideration. 

On June 30, 2010, the Department 

requested voluntary remand to address 

the allegations made by the Plaintiff, to 

determine whether the subject worker 

group is eligible to apply for TAA, and 

to issue an appropriate determination. 

On July 6, 2010, the USCIT granted the 

Department’s Motion for voluntary 

remand. 

Statutory Requirements 

The Act authorizes the Department to 

certify worker groups as eligible to 

apply for TAA generally when the 

increased imports or shifts in 

production of articles or supply of 

services of the workers’ firm contributed 

importantly to a significant number or 

proportion of worker separations or 

threats of separation and there have 

been absolute decreases in the sales or 

production of the workers’ firm. 

In narrowly defined circumstances, 

Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 

2272(c), permits the certification of 

worker groups based on the direct 

relationship between the workers’ firm 

and another firm that employed a 

worker group eligible to apply for TAA 

(a primary firm). For the Department to 

issue such a ‘‘secondary worker’’ 

certification to workers of a Supplier or 

a Downstream Producer, the following 

criteria must be met: 

(1) A 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 is a Supplier or 

Downstream Producer to a firm that 

employed a group of workers who 

received a certification of eligibility 

under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 

U.S.C. 2272(a), and such supply or 

production is related to the article or 

service that was the basis for such 

certification; and 

(3) Either 

(A) the workers’ firm is a supplier and 

the component parts it supplied to the 

firm described in paragraph (2) 

accounted for at least 20 percent of the 

production or sales of the workers’ firm; 

or 

(B) a loss of business by the workers’ 

firm with the firm described in 

paragraph (2) contributed importantly to 

the workers’ separation or threat of 

separation. 

Section 222(d)(3)(A) of the Act, 19 

U.S.C. 2272(d)(3)(A), states that a 

‘‘downstream producer means a firm 

that performs additional, value-added 

production processes or services 

directly for another firm for articles or 

services with respect to which a group 

of workers in such other firm has been 

certified under subsection (a).’’ 

Section 222(d)(3)(B) of the Act, 19 

U.S.C. 2272(d)(3)(B), states that ‘‘valueadded production processes or services 

include final assembly, finishing, 

testing, packaging, or maintenance or 

transportation services.’’ 

Investigations of Petition, Application 

for Reconsideration, and USCIT 

Complaint 

The petitioners identified the subject 

worker group as twelve ‘‘airline 

customer service and ramp agents’’ in 

the employ of Atlantic Southeast 

Airlines (ASA) working at Fort Smith, 

Arkansas. AR 4. The petition states that 

‘‘ASA is closing stations @ Ft. Smith and 

all surrounding airports.’’ AR 5. 

Information provided by the subject 

firm during the initial investigation 

revealed that, at the Fort Smith, 

Arkansas location, the subject worker 

group consisted of airport station 

manager(s), airport station supervisor(s), 

and airport ramp/baggage agent(s). AR 

25–26. The initial investigation also 

revealed that the subject firm had a 

contract with Delta Air Lines to supply 

airport ramp and baggage agents and 

airport station supervisors and 

managers. AR 14, 17, 24–25, 27–28, 33– 

34. The subject firm also employed 

temporary workers supplied by Delta 

Global Services, Inc. to perform security 

personnel and administrative support 

personnel services at the Fort Smith, 

Arkansas airport. AR 25, 33. 

The initial investigation also revealed 

that the worker separations were due to 

the subject firm’s failure to win a bid to 

continue to supply services at the Fort 

Smith, Arkansas airport. Specifically, 

when Delta Air Lines and Northwest Air 

Lines merged, their operations were 

consolidated and regional airlines with 

contracts to supply services at airports 

where they operated were invited to 

submit new bids to maintain operations 

at those airports. The subject firm did 

not win the bid to supply services at the 

Fort Smith, Arkansas airport because 

the merged entity decided to use the 

company that supplied the same 

services to Northwest Air Line rather 

than complete the bidding process. AR 

17, 25, 33–34. 

In the request for reconsideration, the 

petitioner alleged that because the 

subject firm is ‘‘completely reliant on 

the manufacturing industry in our town’’ 

and because the businesses 

‘‘discontinued their flights with us due 

to their downsizing,’’ the workers of the 

subject firm should be eligible to apply 

for TAA as ‘‘downstream producers’’ to 

those companies in the area who 

employed workers eligible to apply for 

TAA because they used the Fort Smith, 

Arkansas airport. AR 42–43. 

In the negative determination 

regarding the application for 

reconsideration, the Department stated 

that because the subject firm did not 

perform additional, value-added 

production processes or services 

directly to these primary firms, the 

subject firm is not a downstream 

producer. Therefore, the application for 

reconsideration was denied. AR 44–47. 

During the remand investigation, the 

Department carefully reviewed 

previously-submitted information and 

obtained additional information from 

the subject firm regarding its operations. 

The subsequent investigation covered 

the reasons for the subject firm’s closure 

of its Fort Smith, Arkansas operations, 

the type of work engaged in by the 

subject worker group and where the 

work that it performed is currently 

taking place, the nature of the customer 

base at that location, and the 

customer(s) of the subject firm. 

The remand investigation confirmed 

that the subject firm did not solicit 

business for Delta Air Lines, SAR 24, 27, 

or maintain or have access to Delta Air 

Lines’ customer list. SAR 3, 19, 27. The 

subject firm provided ground handling 

and ticketing services to Delta Air Lines 

customers, who included individual 

passengers, corporate accounts and 

travel agencies. SAR 3, 19, 21, 27. Under 

contract to Delta Air Lines, on some 

flights, the subject firm also provided 

aircraft and personnel. SAR 19, 27. The 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 57519 

subject firm, and not Delta Air Lines, 

paid the subject worker group. SAR 19, 

27. 

Issues on Remand 

The Plaintiff alleged in the complaint 

to the USCIT that the decline in travel 

in the Forth Smith, Arkansas area is 

attributable to a reduction in the 

operations of local firms that employed 

workers eligible to apply for TAA, and 

that this decline contributed to worker 

separations at the subject firm. 

Because there is no dispute that a 

significant proportion or number of 

workers of the subject firm was 

separated, the only issues for the 

Department to decide on remand are 

whether or not the remaining two 

criteria of Section 222(c) of the Act have 

been met. Specifically, the Department 

must determine whether or not the 

subject firm meets the requirements of 

a ‘‘downstream producer’’ under 

Sections 222(c) and (d) of the Act and, 

if so, whether or not the loss of business 

by the subject firm with a primary firm 

contributed importantly to the subject 

worker group separations or threat of 

separations. 

The investigations revealed that the 

services supplied by the subject firm 

were provided under contract 

exclusively for Delta Air Lines, AR 14, 

24–25, 27–28, 33–34, SAR 3, 19, 21, 27, 

but that the subject worker group 

worked for the subject firm and not for 

Delta Air Lines. SAR 19, 27. Delta Air 

Lines was the sole customer of the 

subject firm. SAR 3, 21, 27. The Fort 

Smith, Arkansas airport users such as 

leisure travelers, travel agencies, 

corporate accounts, and the military 

may have benefited from the services 

supplied by the subject firm, and one or 

more of these entities may have 

employed workers who are eligible to 

apply for TAA. However, workers and 

former workers of Delta Air Lines at Fort 

Smith, Arkansas airport are not eligible 

to apply for TAA. SAR 32–33. 

Section 222(d)(3)(A) of the Act 

requires that a ‘‘downstream producer’’ 

perform ‘‘additional, value-added 

production processes or services 

directly for another firm for articles or 

services with respect to which a group 

of workers in such other firm has been 

certified under subsection (a) [of Section 

222 of the Act].’’ Section 222(d)(3)(B) 

includes ‘‘transportation services’’ 

among those services. 

The subject firm cannot meet the 

statutory definition of a ‘‘downstream 

producer’’ because it only directly 

provided services to Delta Air Lines (not 

for the customers of Delta Air Lines). 

SAR 3, 21, 27. The subject firm did not 

supply services directly related to the 

production or supply of an article or 

service that was a basis for a TAA 

certification. SAR 32–33. 

Moreover, Section 222(c)(2) of the Act 

does not permit secondary worker 

certification unless the service provided 

by the subject firm ‘‘is related to the 

article or service that was the basis for 

such certification [under Section 222(a) 

of the Act].’’ Certification of a worker 

group under Section 222(c) of the Act 

may not be based on a secondary worker 

certification. Therefore, even if Delta Air 

Lines workers could be certified eligible 

to apply for TAA on the basis that Delta 

Air Lines provided transportation 

services related to the production or 

supply of an article or service that was 

a basis for a TAA certification of one or 

more of its customers, workers of the 

subject firm may not be certified as 

adversely affected secondary workers. 

The Plaintiff also alleged that the 

domestic merger between Delta Air 

Lines and Northwest Airlines shows 

trade impact that resulted in the worker 

group layoffs. 

The Department investigated this 

allegation during the remand 

investigation, and confirmed that 

worker separations at the subject firm 

are attributable to Delta Air Lines 

ceasing operations out of the Fort Smith, 

Arkansas airport. SAR 3, 19, 21, 27. 

However, the newly-merged airline 

maintained operations out of the Fort 

Smith, Arkansas location using a 

different airline customer service 

provider. SAR 3, 19, 21, 27. Further, 

those services provided by the subject 

firm cannot be imported or shifted 

abroad as they are used directly by 

domestic passengers. As such, 

conducting a survey of Delta Air Lines 

to determine whether it increased its 

imports of services like or directly 

competitive with those supplied by the 

subject firm (as requested by Plaintiff’s 

counsel) is not necessary. 

Based on a careful review of 

previously-submitted information and 

new information obtained during the 

remand investigation, the Department 

determines that the petitioning workers 

have not met the eligibility criteria of 

Section 222(c) of the Trade Act of 1974, 

as amended. 

Conclusion 

After careful reconsideration, I affirm 

the original negative determination of 

eligibility to apply for worker 

adjustment assistance for workers and 

former workers of Atlantic Southeast 

Airlines, a Subsidiary of Skywest, Inc., 

Airport Customer Division, including 

on-site leased workers of Delta Global 

Services, Inc., Fort Smith, Arkansas. 

Signed at Washington, DC this 3rd day of 

September, 2010. 

Del Min Amy Chen, 

Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23497 Filed 9–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–72,673] 

Weather Shield Manufacturing, 

Medford, WI; Notice of Negative 

Determination Regarding Application 

for Reconsideration 

By application dated August 12, 2010, 

the petitioners requested administrative 

reconsideration of the Department’s 

negative determination regarding 

eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers 

and former workers of Weather Shield 

Manufacturing, Inc., Medford, 

Wisconsin (subject firm). The negative 

determination was signed on July 16, 

2010. The Notice of determination was 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 2, 2010 (75 FR 45163). The 

petitioning worker group provides 

administrative support services related 

to the production of doors and windows 

at various Weather Shield 

Manufacturing, Inc. facilities. 

Workers at Weather Shield 

Manufacturing, Inc., Medford, 

Wisconsin, who became totally or 

partially separated from employment on 

or after December 17, 2007 through 

August 9, 2012, are eligible to apply for 

TAA and alternative trade adjustment 

assistance under TA–W–64,725. 

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 negative determination 

applicable to workers and former 

workers at the subject firm was based on 

the findings that the subject firm did 

not, during the period under 

investigation, shift to a foreign country 

services like or directly competitive 

with those supplied by the workers or 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES