Weyerhaeuser Company, Plymouth, North Carolina; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration [08/07/2003]
Volume 68, Number 152, Page 47099
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-51,194]
Weyerhaeuser Company, Plymouth, North Carolina; Notice of
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application of July 17, 2003, two petitioner 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 the
subject firm. The denial notice was signed on June 13, 2003, and
published in the Federal Register on July 3, 2003 (68 FR 39976).
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 petition for the workers of Weyerhaeuser Company, Plymouth,
North Carolina was denied because the ``contributed importantly'' group
eligibility requirement of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended, was not met. The company did not import fluff pulp, packaging
liner and corrugated filler products, and uncoated freesheet in the
relevant period nor did it shift production to a foreign country.
The initial investigation established that most of the layoffs are
attributable to the shutdown of machinery for corrugated packaging
filler. Corrugated packaging filler and linerboard produced is sold
within the Weyerhaeuser Company. Fluff pulp produced at the subject
firm was mostly exported, and there were no significant declines
associated with the production of uncoated freesheet.
Two requests for reconsideration were received from separate
petitioners on the same day. One petitioner includes copies of
newspaper articles that draw particular attention to industry experts
indicating that the market timber and paper products, including fluff
pulp and fine paper are shifting from the U.S. to foreign sources.
Another petitioner alleges that, for years, the company has been
reporting that paper product declines are attributable to import
competition.
In order to establish import impact, the Department must consider
imports that are like or directly competitive with those produced at
the subject firm. As all of the production of corrugated packaging
filler was used to supply internal demand, and the company reported no
imports, there is no evidence of import impact in regard to this
product in conjunction with an assessment of eligibility for affected
workers at the subject plant. Further, an examination of associated
aggregate U.S. Trade data revealed that there was no increase of
imports in the relevant period.
The petitioners state that the paper packaging components produced
by the subject firm have been displaced as a result of an increase in
imports of packaged goods.
As noted above, the Department considers imports of like or
directly competitive products (in this case, corrugated packaging
filler, as the initial investigation established that layoffs are
predominantly attributable to the shut down of this product) when
conducting TAA investigations. Thus, although the products produced by
the subject firm workers may be indirectly import impacted, the import
impact of packaged goods is not relevant to an investigation of
eligibility for trade adjustment assistance on behalf of subject firm
workers producing corrugated packaging filler.
Conclusion
After review of the application and investigative findings, I
conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law
or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department
of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of July, 2003.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-20111 Filed 8-6-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
|
