DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-50,687

METSO PAPER USA, INC.
LOGISTICS DIVSISION
BELOIT, WISCONSIN


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. 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, D.C., this 17th day of October, 2003.
/s/ Elliott S. Kusner
_______________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance