[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 128 (Thursday, July 3, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Page 39979]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-16905]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-51,084]


Gilinsky Logging, Inc., Rogue River, OR; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of May 5, 2003, a petitioner requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of 
the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). The 
denial notice was signed on March 27, 2003 and published in the Federal 
Register on April 11, 2003 (68 FR 17831).
    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 TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at Gilinsky Logging, 
Inc., Rogue River, Oregon engaged in the production of logs, 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 the workers' firm's customers. The Department conducted a 
survey of the subject firm's major customer regarding its purchases of 
competitive products in 2001 and 2002. The respondent reported no 
increased imports. The subject firm did not import logs during the 
relevant period, nor did it shift production to a foreign source.
    The petitioner states that the impact of Canadian lumber was not 
taken into account in the original investigation regarding layoffs at 
the subject firm. To support this allegation, he states that the 
Department should have looked at the ``last fifteen years'' of 
contracts for the subject firm, rather than just the major declining 
customer surveyed for periods in 2001 and 2002.
    The fifteen year time period mentioned by the petitioner far 
exceeds the relevant period of TAA investigations, which is four 
quarters (or one year) preceding the petition date compared with a 
representative base period. Additionally lumber is not competitive with 
logs, and thus lumber data is irrelevant to establishing import impact 
in connection with TAA eligibility for this worker group.
    The petitioner further provides a list of NAFTA-TAA certified 
facilities that were customers of the subject firm, implying that the 
subject firm may be eligible for secondary upstream supplier 
certification.
    For certification on the basis of secondary upstream supplier, the 
secondary firm must supply at least 20 percent of its production or 
sales to a manufacturer whose workers were certified eligible to apply 
for adjustment assistance currently under certification for Trade 
Adjustment Assistance or NAFTA-TAA or the company must supply component 
parts to the primary firm and a loss of business with this manufacturer 
contributed importantly to the workers separation or threat of 
separation. Of the six trade certified firms listed by the petitioner, 
four of the certifications had expired at the time of the petition for 
Gilinsky Logging. The remaining two firms (Louisiana Pacific 
Corporation, Rogue River, Oregon, NAFTA-5001, and Roseburg Sawmill, 
Roseburg, Oregon, NAFTA-4988) were under existing certifications at the 
time of the petition signing. However, collectively, these two 
customers constituted a very small portion of subject firm business. 
The initial investigation revealed the layoff occurred as a result of 
declines in business to a customer who represented the overwhelming 
majority of business in the relevant period.
    Finally, the petitioner alleges that about one-third of U.S. 
consumption of softwood lumber comes from Canada, and that this alleged 
fact should be used to verify import eligibility requirements for TAA.
    In assessing import impact, the Department considers import trends 
of like or directly competitive products to determine import impact in 
the relevant period, thus stagnant figures indicating foreign 
production for U.S. consumption of softwood lumber are not relevant to 
this investigation regarding workers producing logs.

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 20th day of June, 2003.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-16905 Filed 7-2-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P