[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 231 (Thursday, December 2, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67596-67597]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-31235]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-36,127]


Tri-Pro Cedar Products, Spokane, Washington; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By an application dated October 25, 1999, an attorney for the 
petitioners (hereafter referred to as petitioners) requested 
administrative reconsideration of the subject petition for trade 
adjustment assistance. The denial notice was signed on August 27, 1999 
and published in the Federal Register on September 29, 1999 (64 FR 
52539).
    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 
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of 
the decision.
    The investigation findings show that the workers were primarily 
engaged in employment related to the production of cedar products.
    The Department's denial was based on the fact that the 
``contributed importantly'' test of the increased import criterion of 
the Group Eligibility Requirements of the Trade Act was not met. The 
``contributed importantly'' test is generally demonstrated through a 
survey of the workers' firm's customers.
    The Department's survey of the Tri-Pro Cedar Products' customers 
shows that none of the customers were decreasing purchases from Tri-Pro 
Cedar or increasing their reliance on import purchases of articles like 
or directly competitive with those produced at the Spokane mill. Other 
findings show that the company chose to close the Spokane mill and 
shift production of cedar products to another domestic facility.
    The petitioners assert that in order for the subject firm to 
compete with the price advantage of imports over their product, 
production at Tri-Pro Cedar was consolidated. The company could not 
switch to alternate production of spruce/pine fir products because the 
price advantage imports held would have made production of those items

[[Page 67597]]

unprofitable. The petitioners believe TAA certification should also be 
given when a company cedes to imports products which it is capable of 
completion at the local facility when the advantages imports hold make 
such manufacturing economically unfeasible.
    The Department cannot issue a worker group certification based on 
speculation of what could have been produced at the workers' firm. 
Rather, the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, requires the Department to 
examine the impact of imports of articles like or directly competitive 
with those produced by the petitioning workers' firm. Furthermore, 
price is not a criterion for a worker group certification under the 
Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
    The petitioners cite a Court case that they believe to be analogous 
to their situation, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of 
America v. U.S. Department of Labor, which sustained Labor's 
certification of a company that produced railway systems when the 
company substituted imports for manufacturing done at the plant.
    In the Court case cited by the petitioners, the worker group was 
certified based on the finding that the subject firm substituted 
imports for production that was formerly done at the workers' firm. 
That is not the case for the workers of Tri-Pro Cedar Products; there 
were no company imports of articles like or directly competitive with 
those produced at the Spokane mill.
    The petitioners add that they believe that workers in the wood 
products industry are exactly the type of workers that Congress 
intended to benefit from the TAA program.
    In accordance with the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the 
Department does not conduct its TAA investigation on an industry-wide 
basis.

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 17th day of November 1999.
Grant D. Beale,
Program Manager, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 99-31235 Filed 12-1-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M