[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 7, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Page 51302]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-19971]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[NAFTA-05943]


F.H. Stoltze Land and Lumber Company, Stoltze Aspen Mills 
Division, Siguird, UT; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding 
Application for Reconsideration

    By application of July 1, 2002, the petitioner requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of 
the subject firm to apply for North American Free Trade Agreement-
Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-TAA). The NAFTA-TAA denial 
notice applicable to workers of F.H. Stoltze Land and Lumber Company, 
Stoltze Aspen Mills Division, Siguird, Utah was signed on June 21, 2002 
and will soon be published in the Federal Register.
    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 NAFTA-TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at F.H. Stoltze 
Land and Lumber Company, Stoltze Aspen Mills Division, Siguird, Utah 
was denied because criteria (3) and (4) of the group eligibility 
requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of Section 250 of the Trade Act, as 
amended, were not met. The ``contributed importantly'' test is 
generally demonstrated through a survey of the workers' firm's 
customers. The survey revealed that none of the respondents increased 
their imports from Canada or Mexico of products like or directly 
competitive with what the subject plant produced during the relevant 
period. The subject firm did not import from Canada or Mexico products 
like or directly competitive with what the subject plant produced, nor 
was the subject plant's production shifted from the workers' firm to 
Mexico or Canada. The workers were primarily engaged in activities 
related to the production of landscape timber.
    The petitioner appears to be alleging that the subject firm's 
customers switched purchases from the subject firm in favor of buying 
from other domestic competitors that had an apparent competitive edge, 
since the competitors could purchase landscape timber directly from 
Canada at a lower price than the subject plant could produce landscape 
timber.
    The Department, as already indicated, examines the impact of 
imports from Canada and Mexico by a survey of the subject firm's major 
declining customers to examine if the ``contributed importantly'' test 
is met. The survey conducted during the initial investigation revealed 
that none of the respondents increased their imports of landscape 
timbers from Canada or Mexico, while decreasing their purchases from 
the subject firm during the relevant period.
    The survey also examines if the products purchased by the customers 
from other domestic sources were imported from Canada or Mexico. The 
survey revealed that none of the customers reported purchasing imported 
landscape timbers from other domestic sources.

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 decisions. Accordingly, the application is denied.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th day of July 2002.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 02-19971 Filed 8-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P