[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