Adjustment assistance: Pro Cedar Products,

[Federal Register: December 2, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 231)]

[Notices]

[Page 67596-67597]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr02de99-77]

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-36,127]

Tri-Pro Cedar Products, Spokane, Washington; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By an application dated October 25, 1999, an attorney for the petitioners (hereafter referred to as petitioners) requested administrative reconsideration of the subject petition for trade adjustment assistance. The denial notice was signed on August 27, 1999 and published in the Federal Register on September 29, 1999 (64 FR 52539).

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 investigation findings show that the workers were primarily engaged in employment related to the production of cedar products.

The Department's denial was based on the fact that the ``contributed importantly'' test of the increased import criterion of the Group Eligibility Requirements of the Trade Act was not met. The ``contributed importantly'' test is generally demonstrated through a survey of the workers' firm's customers.

The Department's survey of the Tri-Pro Cedar Products' customers shows that none of the customers were decreasing purchases from Tri-Pro Cedar or increasing their reliance on import purchases of articles like or directly competitive with those produced at the Spokane mill. Other findings show that the company chose to close the Spokane mill and shift production of cedar products to another domestic facility.

The petitioners assert that in order for the subject firm to compete with the price advantage of imports over their product, production at Tri-Pro Cedar was consolidated. The company could not switch to alternate production of spruce/pine fir products because the price advantage imports held would have made production of those items

[[Page 67597]]

unprofitable. The petitioners believe TAA certification should also be given when a company cedes to imports products which it is capable of completion at the local facility when the advantages imports hold make such manufacturing economically unfeasible.

The Department cannot issue a worker group certification based on speculation of what could have been produced at the workers' firm. Rather, the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, requires the Department to examine the impact of imports of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by the petitioning workers' firm. Furthermore, price is not a criterion for a worker group certification under the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

The petitioners cite a Court case that they believe to be analogous to their situation, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America v. U.S. Department of Labor, which sustained Labor's certification of a company that produced railway systems when the company substituted imports for manufacturing done at the plant.

In the Court case cited by the petitioners, the worker group was certified based on the finding that the subject firm substituted imports for production that was formerly done at the workers' firm. That is not the case for the workers of Tri-Pro Cedar Products; there were no company imports of articles like or directly competitive with those produced at the Spokane mill.

The petitioners add that they believe that workers in the wood products industry are exactly the type of workers that Congress intended to benefit from the TAA program.

In accordance with the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the Department does not conduct its TAA investigation on an industry-wide basis.

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 17th day of November 1999. Grant D. Beale, Program Manager, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 99-31235Filed12-1-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M