[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 152 (Thursday, August 7, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Page 47099]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-20111]


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

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