DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-64,725
WEATHER SHIELD MANUFACTURING, INC.
CORPORATE OFFICE
MEDFORD, WISCONSIN

Notice of Revised Determination
on Remand

On February 9, 2010, the U.S. Court of International Trade
(USCIT) remanded to the U.S. Department of Labor (Department) for
further review, Former Employees of Weather Shield Manufacturing,
Inc. v. United States, Court No. 09-00377.
On December 17, 2008, former workers of Weather Shield
Manufacturing, Inc. (subject firm) filed a petition for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment
Assistance (ATAA) on behalf of workers of Weather Shield
Manufacturing, Inc., Corporate Office, Medford, Wisconsin
(subject facility).
The initial investigation revealed that, during the period
under investigation, the workers at the subject facility (subject
worker group) supported the production of doors and/or windows by
providing administrative support functions to various subject
firm manufacturing facilities and that there had been a
significant number or proportion of workers at the subject
facility that were totally or partially separated from
employment. However, it was determined that imports of articles
like or directly competitive with those produced by the subject
firm did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the
subject facility and that the subject firm did not shift
production to a foreign country. A survey of a sample of the
subject firm’s declining domestic customers revealed negligible
imports of products like or directly competitive with those
produced by workers at the subject firm.
The Department issued a negative determination regarding the
subject worker group’s eligibility to apply for TAA and ATAA on
April 29, 2009. The Department’s Notice of determination was
published in the Federal Register on May 18, 2009 (74 FR 23214).
By application dated May 26, 2009, the petitioning workers
requested administrative reconsideration of the Department’s
negative determination. To support the claim that the subject
worker group was import impacted, the petitioners provided
additional information regarding the products manufactured at the
subject firm and the worker separations occurring throughout all
subject firm locations. The petitioners also provided information
pertaining to a competitor of the subject firm whose workers had
been certified eligible to apply for TAA.
The Department issued a Notice of Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration on June 2, 2009. The
Department’s Notice was published in the Federal Register on June
18, 2009 (74 FR 28956).
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
obtained additional information from the subject firm regarding
the petitioners’ claims. The Department also surveyed additional
declining customers regarding their purchases of articles like or
directly competitive with those produced at the subject firm. The
reconsideration investigation did not reveal information
sufficient to reverse the initial negative determination.
Based on the findings of the reconsideration investigation,
the Department concluded that customer imports of articles like
or directly competitive with those produced by workers at the
subject firm did not contribute importantly to worker
separations. The Department issued a Notice of Negative
Determination on Reconsideration on July 14, 2009. The Notice was
published in the Federal Register on July 30, 2009 (74 FR 38048).
The petitioners thereupon filed a complaint to the USCIT.
In the complaint to the USCIT, dated January 19, 2010, the
Plaintiffs alleged that workers at the subject facility were
impacted by increased customer imports of articles like or
directly competitive with those produced at the subject firm. The
Plaintiffs also requested the Department to investigate all the
subject firm locations and product lines manufactured at the
production facilities.
On January 19, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a motion to supplement
the administrative record before the USCIT. Plaintiffs’ motion
included additional evidence not considered in Labor’s
investigation of the subject workers’ petition for TAA benefits,
including, in particular, information pertaining to competitors
of the subject firm whose workers had been certified eligible to
apply for TAA and who had overlapping customers with the subject
firm. Since a number of these customers had not been contacted
in the original investigation, a further review of this
information was deemed necessary.
Based on the new information submitted, the Department
requested that the USCIT remand the case to the Department to
conduct a further investigation. On February 9, 2010, the USCIT
granted this request.
For a worker group to be certified for TAA based on
increased imports, 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.

During the remand investigation, the Department obtained
information from the subject firm and solicited input from the
Plaintiffs. The Department also conducted a more extensive sample
customer survey to determine whether or not there were increased
customer imports in the relevant period of articles like or
directly competitive with doors and/or windows produced at the
subject firm and, if so, whether the increased imports
contributed importantly to worker group separations.
The expanded sample customer survey conducted during the
remand investigation revealed that the surveyed customer
purchases from the subject firm declined while imports of doors
and/or windows or articles like or directly competitive with
those produced at the subject firm increased in the relevant
period. The Department surveyed a significant proportion of the
subject firm’s declining customers regarding import purchases of
doors and/or windows in 2007 and 2008, including overlapping
customer with competitors identified by petitioners for the first
time in their USCIT complaint. Overall, the customers increased
import purchases in the period under investigation relative to
purchases made from the subject firm.
Based on the findings of the remand investigation, the
Department determines that increased imports of articles like or
directly competitive with doors and/or windows produced by the
subject firm contributed importantly to the subject workers’
separation and to the decline in subject firm sales and
production.
In accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of 1974 (26 USC
2813), as amended, the Department herein presents the results of
its investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply
for ATAA. The Department has determined in this case that the
group eligibility requirements of Section 246 have been met.
A significant number of workers at the firm are age 50 or over
and possess skills that are not easily transferable. Competitive
conditions within the industry are adverse.
Conclusion
After careful review of the information obtained during the
remand investigation, I determine that increased imports of
articles like or directly competitive with doors and/or windows
produced by the subject firm contributed to the total separation
of a significant number or proportion of workers at the subject
firm. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the
following certification:
"All workers of Weather Shield Manufacturing, Inc.,
Corporate Office, Medford, Wisconsin, who became totally
or partially separated from employment on or after
December 17, 2007, through two years from the issuance of
this revised determination, are eligible to apply for
Trade Adjustment Assistance under Section 223 of the
Trade Act of 1974, and are eligible to apply for
alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246
of the Trade Act of 1974."
Signed at Washington, D.C. this 9th day of August, 2010

/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
_______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance

4510-FN-P


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-64,725

WEATHER SHIELD MANUFACTURING, INC.
CORPORATE OFFICE
MEDFORD, WISCONSIN

Negative Determination 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:
B. 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 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 December 18, 2008, in
response to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Weather Shield
Manufacturing, Inc., Corporate Office, Medford, Wisconsin. Workers
at the subject firm are engaged in support functions such as
administrative, human resources, accounting, sales, and marketing
operations.
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C) and
(a)(2)(B)(II.B) have not been met.
Employment at the subject firm declined from 2007 to 2008.
The decline in employment is primarily related to the elimination
of corporate positions.
Weather Shield Manufacturing, Inc. has not imported windows or
shifted production of windows to any foreign country during the
relevant period.
Although production of windows at the firm’s Medford,
Wisconsin facility declined from 2007 to 2008, customer surveys
revealed that customers have not purchased any windows from foreign
sources during the period under investigation.
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 of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that workers of Weather Shield
Manufacturing, Inc., Corporate Office, Medford, Wisconsin, 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 at Washington, D.C., this 29th day of April 2009
/s/ Linda G. Poole

LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance