[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 205 (Monday, October 25, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62300-62301]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E4-2811]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-55,233]


Meadwestvaco Corporation Including Leased Workers of D&H 
Associates, Inc. and Proserv, Inc. Escanaba Mills, Escanaba, MI; Notice 
of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of September 7, 2004, a petitioner representative 
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 August 10, 2004 and published in the 
Federal Register on September 8, 2004 (69 FR 54321).
    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, which was filed on behalf of workers at 
Meadwestvaco Corporation, Escanaba Mills, Escanaba, Michigan, engaged 
in the production of coated paper, was denied based on the findings 
that during the relevant time periods, the subject company did not 
separate or threaten to separate a significant number or proportion of 
workers, as required by Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974; that 
subject company's sales and production had increased from 2002 to 2003, 
and also increased during January through July 2004 compared to 2003; 
and that the subject company did not shift production abroad.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleges that the 
Department ``did not take into account the true number of affected 
workers and job losses due to lost sales to foreign competition.''
    For companies with a workforce of over fifty workers, a significant 
proportion of worker separations or threatened separations is five 
percent. In determining whether there were a significant proportion of 
workers separated or threatened with separations at the subject company 
during the relevant time periods, the Department requested employment 
figures for the subject company's Escanaba Mills for 2002, 2003, 
January-July 2003 and January-July 2004. A careful review of the 
information provided in the initial investigation revealed that 
employment at the Escanaba Mills declined about two percent during the 
relevant time period.
    A petitioner was contacted to clarify the statement of ``the true 
number of affected workers''. The petitioner informed that a 
significant number of workers had been separated from the subject firm 
since 1998 and that this number should be taken into consideration by 
the Department.
    When assessing eligibility for TAA, the Department exclusively 
considers the relevant employment data for the facility where the 
petitioning worker group was employed. The relevant period represents 
four quarters back from the date of the petition, thus data from 1998 
is irrelevant in this investigation. As employment levels, sales and 
production at the subject facility did not decline in the relevant 
period, and the subject firm did not shift production to a foreign 
country, criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.A), (a)(2)(B)(II.A), (a)(2)(A)(I.B), and 
(a)(2)(B)(II.B) have not been met.
    The request for reconsideration also alleged that the subject 
company failed to provide key customer contact information.

[[Page 62301]]

    Since the petition resulted in a denial due to employment, sales 
and production criteria not being met, the initial investigation did 
not pursue this line of inquiry and any alleged failure to provide 
customer contact information did not influence the determination of the 
case.

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 13th day of October 2004.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E4-2811 Filed 10-22-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P