DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-54,455

WEIRTON STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTON, WEST VIRGINIA


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 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.
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 Allowances (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 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. 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, D.C. this 28th day of August 2008.
/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
______________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance

4510-FN-P


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-54,455

WEIRTON STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTON, WEST VIRGINIA

Negative Determinations Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance
And Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 USC 2273),
the Department of Labor herein presents the results of an investigation regarding certification of
eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance. The group eligibility requirements for
directly-impacted (primary) workers under Section 222(a) the Trade Act of 1974, as amended,
can be satisfied in either of two ways:
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 country 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 is 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.

The investigation was initiated on March 9, 2004 in
response
to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers
of Weirton Steel Corporation, Weirton, West Virginia. The
workers produce hot-rolled, cold-rolled, tin-plate and hot
dipped and electrolytic galvanized steel. They are not
separately identifiable by specific product.
Workers at Weirton Steel Corporation, Weirton, West
Virginia were certified eligible to apply for trade adjustment
assistance on April 23, 2002 (TA-W-39,657). That certification
expired April 23, 2004.
This investigation revealed that criteria I.C. and II.B.
have not been met.
Weirton Steel Corporation did not import the products it
produces, nor did it shift production abroad in the period
covered by this investigation: the one year prior to the
petition date of March 9, 2004.
Sales of the subject firm increased in 2003 compared with
2002, and also increased in January through February, 2004
compared with the same period one year earlier.
The Department of Labor surveyed the subject firm’s major
customers regarding their purchases of the principal product
types of steel sold by the subject firm in 2002-2003 and January
through March, 2003-2004. Most respondents either did not import
or reported declining imports. Total imports of those that did
increase imports were substantially less than one percent of the
subject firm’s sales or production.
Aggregate United States imports of five major steel
products manufactured by the subject firm, hot rolled carbon
sheet, cold rolled carbon sheet, hot dipped galvanized sheet and
strip, galvanized electrolytic carbon sheet and strip, and tin
mill products (black plate, tin plate, tin free) all were
relatively low, (ranging from a maximum of 13.5 percent of
shipments down to 2.0 percent of shipments) in 2003 and January
through March of 2004. Imports of all the above 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 same period of 2003.
In addition, in accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act
of 1974 (26 USC 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor
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 ATAA, the worker group must be
certified eligible to apply for trade adjustment assistance
(TAA). Since the workers are denied eligibility to apply for
TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA.
Conclusion
After careful review, I determine that all workers of
Weirton Steel Corporation, Weirton, West Virginia are denied
eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223
of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also denied eligibility to
apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section
246 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 14th day of May 2003.

/s/ Richard Church
______________________________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance







- 29 -