[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 146 (Monday, July 31, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43215-43216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-12208]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-58,929]


Milprint, Inc., a Division of Bemis Company, Denmark, WI; Notice 
of Negative Determination on Reconsideration

    On May 10, 2006, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination 
Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former 
workers of the subject firm. The Notice was published in the Federal 
Register on May 17, 2006 (71 FR 28712). The workers produce flexible 
plastic packaging, used largely in confectionary and snack food 
markets, and paper for packaging cigarettes. Workers are not separately 
identifiable by product line.
    The petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative 
Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) filed on behalf of the workers of 
Milprint, Inc., A Division of Bemis Company, Denmark, Wisconsin 
(subject firm) was denied because the subject firm neither imported 
flexible plastic packaging or cigarette paper, nor shifted production 
of either article abroad during the relevant period. The investigation 
also revealed that the parent firm experienced increased sales of 
articles like or directly competitive with those produced by the 
subject facility during the investigatory period.
    The petitioners had also filed as workers of a secondarily-affected 
company (supplied component parts for articles produced by a firm with 
a currently TAA-certified worker group). In the initial determination, 
the Department stated that the subject facility does not supply 
cigarette paper component parts to any TAA-certified firm in the 
relevant time period and that flexible plastic packaging is not a 
component part of confectionaries.
    In the request for reconsideration, the United Steel Workers, Local 
7-1203 (Union) stated that cigarette packaging paper constituted ten 
percent of subject firm production and that it was supplied to a TAA-
certified firm, P.H. Gladfether, Neenah, Wisconsin (TA-W-53,612). The 
Union also stated that flexible plastic packaging constituted ninety 
percent of subject firm production and that this article was supplied 
to TAA-certified companies: Farley's and Sather Candy (TA-W-51,546), 
Archibald Candy (TA-W-53,983), American Safety Razor (TA-W-57,323), and 
Bob's Candy (TA-W-57,772).
    To be certified as a secondarily-affected company, the subject firm 
must have a customer with a currently TAA-certified worker group and 
the subject firm produces a component part of the product that was the 
basis for the customer's certification. In addition, the TAA-certified 
customer must account for at least twenty percent of subject firm's 
sales or production or the loss of business with the customer 
contributed importantly to the workers' separations.
    According to the Union, cigarette paper production constituted only 
ten percent of subject firm production. Even if P.H. Gladfether, 
Neenah, Wisconsin was the subject firm's only customer of this product, 
sales to P.H. Gladfether would have accounted for less than twenty 
percent of overall sales or production of the subject firm. Further, 
P.H. Gladfether, Neenah, Wisconsin was

[[Page 43216]]

not a major customer of the subject firm. Therefore, the Department 
determines P.H. Gladfether accounted for less than twenty percent of 
overall subject firm sales or production and the loss of business with 
this customer did not contribute importantly to the workers' 
separations.
    In order to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for 
TAA as secondarily-affected workers of a company that supplied flexible 
plastic packaging to a firm with a currently TAA-certified worker 
group, the Department requested the subject firm's 2005 sales figures 
for Farley's and Sather Candy, Archibald Candy, American Safety Razor, 
and Bob's Candy.
    The reconsideration investigation revealed that, during the 
relevant period, the subject firm conducted no business with three of 
the customers identified by the Union and conducted an insignificant 
amount of business with the fourth customer. As such, the Department 
determines that each customer accounted for less that twenty percent of 
overall subject firm sales or production and that the loss of business 
with each customer did not contribute importantly to the workers' 
separations.
    The Union also alleged in the request for reconsideration that 
flexible plastic packaging production had shifted abroad. During the 
reconsideration investigation, the Department confirmed that flexible 
plastic packaging production did not shift abroad but shifted to 
affiliated production facilities in Lancaster, Wisconsin and Lebanon, 
Pennsylvania.

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 revision of the Department of 
Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of July 2006.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E6-12208 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P