[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 21 (Thursday, January 31, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4756-4757]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-2338]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-39,380]


Spinnaker Coating Maine Incorporated Westbrook, ME; Notice of 
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated September 28, 2001, the PACE International 
Union, Local 1069 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 August 23, 
2001, and published in the Federal Register on September 11, 2001 (66 
FR 47242).
    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 petition for the workers of Spinnaker Coating Maine Co., 
Westbrook, Maine was denied because the ``contributed importantly'' 
group eligibility requirement of section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 
1974, as amended, was not met. The ``contributed importantly'' test is 
generally demonstrated through a survey of customers of the workers' 
firm. The survey revealed that none of the respondents increased their 
purchases of imported pressure sensitive paper (including EDP, thermal 
transfer, semi gloss etc.), while decreasing their purchases from the 
subject firm during the relevant period.
    The petitioner believes that the Labor Department looked at the 
wrong product made by Spinnaker Coating Maine Incorporated.
    The Department's decision was based on the correct product 
(pressure sensitive paper). The Department inadvertently referenced the 
wrong U.S. import category, pressure sensitive labels (HTS-4821902000). 
The correct product produced at the company plant is classified under 
the category pressure sensitive papers (HTS-4811210000). The Department 
uses import statistics as an indicator, but relies primarily on 
customer surveys to determine if imports ``contributed importantly'' to 
the declines in sales and/or production and employment at the subject 
firm. The Department examined the new data supplied (pressure sensitive 
paper), but based on other data collected during the initial 
investigation does not consider the import data as contributing 
importantly to the workers layoffs, due to the survey responses showing 
an overwhelming reliance on domestic customer purchases of pressure 
sensitive papers (including EDP, thermal transfer, semi gloss etc) 
during the relevant period.
    The petitioner also feels that the time period considered in the 
investigation is not correct.
    The Department examined the pertinent time periods of 1999, 2000 
and the January through June 2001 over the corresponding 2000 period.
    The petitioner further indicates that the Department failed to 
survey the major customers properly and that a specific customer 
switched from buying from the subject firm in favor of buying imported 
thermal transfer pressure sensitive paper (a product similar to what 
was purchased from the subject firm). That customer stopped buying 
thermal transfer pressure sensitive paper from the subject firm during 
February 1999, which is beyond the relevant impact period for this 
petition and investigation.
    The survey, as already indicated, revealed that none of the 
respondents increased their purchases of imported pressure sensitive 
papers, (including EDP, thermal transfer, semi gloss etc.) importantly, 
while decreasing their purchases from the subject firm during the 
relevant period. The survey further revealed that the overwhelming 
majority of lost company business was due to customers purchasing 
products that are

[[Page 4757]]

like and directly competitive with what the subject plant produced from 
other domestic sources and only small amounts of imports (and 
declining) were purchased during the relevant period.
    The petitioner further alleges that they feel declining price is a 
factor in the company sales declines. Price is not a factor that is 
considered in meeting the ``contributed importantly'' group eligibility 
requirement of section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
    The petitioner also indicates that a foreign producer of products 
that are like and directly competitive with what the subject firm 
produces is importing at a lower price and indicates that this is the 
reason for the plant's problems. Based on the survey results, as 
already indicated, this is not a major factor contributing to the 
company's declines in sales, production and employment.

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 26th day of December 2001.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 02-2338 Filed 1-30-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M