[Federal Register: November 24, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 226)]
[Notices]
[Page 65954-65955]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24no03-105]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-50,687]
Metso Paper USA, Inc., Logistics Division, Beloit, WI; Notice of
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application of June 24, 2003, a petitioner 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 March 30, 2003 and published in the Federal
Register on June 19, 2003 (68 FR 36845).
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 TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at Metso Paper USA,
Inc., Beloit, Wisconsin was denied because the ``contributed
importantly'' group eligibility requirement of Section 222 of the Trade
Act of 1974 was not met and production was not shifted abroad.
In the reconsideration investigation, it was revealed that the
production worker group is embedded within the Logistics Division of
the subject facility.
The petitioner alleges that ``production has shifted to Finland for
many of the spare parts supplied from Metso to U.S. papermills.''
Contact from another petitioner alleged that the company was serving
former and present subject firm customers with foreign production, and
implies that the company is attempting to hide the fact that they are
engaged in foreign production from their customers.
A history of the subject facility site revealed that the subject
facility was once owned by Beloit Paper, and was sold to the current
owners following bankruptcy in 2000. The purchasing company included a
facility in Finland. Prior to the relevant period of this
investigation, the new owners dramatically downsized the production
capacity of the subject facility due to dramatically decreased demand
following the bankruptcy. Contact with company officials revealed that
the subject facility only produced doctor blades and headbox vanes
(parts used in paper making equipment) in the relevant period, and that
the majority of work performed in the Logistics Division of the Metso
Beloit facility involves buying, warehousing and shipping many other
spare parts purchased by, but not produced at the subject facility. The
officials stated that the company had not shifted production of doctor
blades or headbox vanes away from the subject facility. One official
did confirm that the company did outsource many of the parts that were
warehoused at the same site. However, items that are not like or
directly competitive with production at the subject facility in the
relevant period are not pertinent to this investigation.
The petitioner states that production of doctor blades shifted to
Finland, and implies that this shifted production is being used to
supply U.S. customers. Further contact with the petitioners yielded a
request that we obtain a copy of a ``BaaN'' report from the company
that would reveal the volume of doctor blades that had been sourced in
Finland, and subsequently imported to the U.S.
Contact with a company official revealed that the subject facility
supplied almost all of their North American business. He further stated
that the Finnish facility did on rare occasions supply customers with
doctor blades in cases where an unanticipated increased demand
occurred. The official later clarified that they also imported Finnish
doctor blades in cases where ``odd ball'' sizes were requested, but the
doctor blades with these specifications had never been produced at the
subject facility. Results of the company ``BaaN'' report revealed that
imports represented a very small amount of total subject firm
production.
The petitioner asserted that ``castings'' previously produced in
``Beloit, Wisconsin or the ``Stateline Area'' surrounding Beloit'' were
shifted to Canada.
Castings were not produced at the subject facility in the relevant
period and are therefore irrelevant to this investigation.
The petitioner alleges that coater rods and assemblies previously
``machined'' at the subject facility are currently being produced in
finished form in Finland for U.S. customers.
In regard to this issue, a company official stated that coater rods
produced in Finland are ``cut to length'' at the subject facility, but
there has been no change in the production location in the relevant
period.
The petitioner alleges that the company's customers have begun
purchasing headbox vanes from competitors in Canada.
The reconsideration investigation revealed that plant production of
headvane boxes declined slightly in the relevant period, while sales
increased. It was revealed that the subject firm produces two different
types of headvane boxes, one made of lexan (which needs to be replaced
every six months or so), and the other made of graphite, which lasts
for two to three years before requiring a replacement.
[[Page 65955]]
The more durable and more expensive graphite product would account for
the dip in production, as customers would not have to re-order the item
as frequently. The official stated further that the only known
competition in this market is domestic.
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 October, 2003.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-29267 Filed 11-21-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P