[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 124 (Thursday, June 28, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35514-35515]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-12518]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-61,293]


Georgia Pacific Corrugated Number 1 LLCA.K.A. Great Northern 
Nekoosa Corporation, Ridgeway, VA; Notice of Negative Determination 
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated June 6, 2007, the 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 May 10, 2007 and 
published in the Federal Register on May 24, 2007 (72 FR 29182).
    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 Georgia Pacific Corrugated Number 1 
LLC, a.k.a. Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Ridgeway, Virginia 
engaged in production of corrugated packaging was denied because the 
``contributed importantly'' group eligibility requirement of Section 
222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met, nor was there a 
shift in production from that firm to a foreign country in 2005, 2006 
and January through March of 2007. The ``contributed importantly'' test 
is generally demonstrated through a survey of the workers' firm's 
declining

[[Page 35515]]

customers. The survey revealed no imports of corrugated packaging by 
declining customers during the relevant period. The subject firm did 
not import corrugated packaging nor shift production to a foreign 
country during the relevant period.
    The petitioner states that the affected workers lost their jobs as 
a direct result of a loss of customers in the textile and furniture 
industry. The petitioner alleges that customers of the subject firm 
which manufacture textile products and furniture decreased purchases of 
corrugated packaging from the subject firm because their business was 
in its turn negatively impacted by increased imports of textiles and 
furniture. As a result, several of the customers were certified 
eligible for TAA. Therefore, the petitioner concludes that because 
sales and production of corrugated packaging at the subject firm have 
been negatively impacted by the closure of other businesses in the area 
and by increasing presence of foreign imports of textile products and 
furniture on the market, workers of the subject firm should be eligible 
for TAA.
    In order to establish import impact, the Department must consider 
imports that are like or directly competitive with those produced at 
the subject firm. The Department conducted a survey of the subject 
firm's major declining customer regarding their purchases of corrugated 
packaging. The survey revealed that the declining customers did not 
increase their imports of corrugated packaging during the relevant 
period.
    Imports of textiles and furniture cannot be considered like or 
directly competitive with corrugated packaging produced by Georgia 
Pacific Corrugated Number 1, LLC, Ridgeway, Virginia and imports of 
textiles and furniture are not relevant in this investigation.
    The fact that subject firm's customers were certified for TAA is 
relevant to this investigation if determining whether workers of the 
subject firm are eligible for TAA based on the secondary upstream 
supplier of trade certified primary firm impact. For certification on 
the basis of the workers' firm being a secondary upstream supplier, the 
subject firm must produce a component part of the article that was the 
basis for the customers' certification.
    In this case, however, the subject firm does not act as an upstream 
supplier, because corrugated packaging does not form a component part 
of textile products and furniture. Thus the subject firm workers are 
not eligible under secondary impact.

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 in Washington, DC, this 20th day of June, 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E7-12518 Filed 6-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P