DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-51,084

GILINSKY LOGGING, INC.
ROGUE RIVER, OREGON

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application of May 5, 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 27, 2003
and published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2003 (68 FR
17831).
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 Gilinsky
Logging, Inc., Rogue River, Oregon engaged in the production of
logs, was denied because the "contributed importantly" group
eligibility requirement of Section 222(3) of the Trade Act of
1974, as amended, was not met. The "contributed importantly" test
is generally demonstrated through a survey of the workers' firm's
customers. The Department conducted a survey of the subject
firm’s major customer regarding its purchases of competitive
products in 2001 and 2002. The respondent reported no increased
imports. The subject firm did not import logs during the
relevant period, nor did it shift production to a foreign source.
The petitioner states that the impact of Canadian lumber was
not taken into account in the original investigation regarding
layoffs at the subject firm. To support this allegation, he
states that the Department should have looked at the “last
fifteen years” of contracts for the subject firm, rather than
just the major declining customer surveyed for periods in 2001
and 2002.
The fifteen year time period mentioned by the petitioner far
exceeds the relevant period of TAA investigations, which is four
quarters (or one year) preceding the petition date compared with
a representative base period. Additionally lumber is not
competitive with logs, and thus lumber data is irrelevant to
establishing import impact in connection with TAA eligibility for
this worker group.
The petitioner further provides a list of NAFTA-TAA
certified facilities that were customers of the subject firm,
implying that the subject firm may be eligible for secondary
upstream supplier certification.



For certification on the basis of secondary upstream
supplier, the secondary firm must supply at least 20 percent of
its production or sales to a manufacturer whose workers were
certified eligible to apply for adjustment assistance currently
under certification for Trade Adjustment Assistance or NAFTA-TAA
or the company must supply component parts to the primary firm
and a loss of business with this manufacturer contributed
importantly to the workers separation or threat of separation.
Of the six trade certified firms listed by the petitioner, four
of the certifications had expired at the time of the petition for
Gilinsky Logging. The remaining two firms (Louisiana Pacific
Corporation, Rogue River, Oregon, NAFTA-5001, and Roseburg
Sawmill, Roseburg, Oregon, NAFTA-4988) were under existing
certifications at the time of the petition signing. However,
collectively, these two customers constituted a very small
portion of subject firm business. The initial investigation
revealed the layoff occurred as a result of declines in business
to a customer who represented the overwhelming majority of
business in the relevant period.
Finally, the petitioner alleges that about one-third of U.S.
consumption of softwood lumber comes from Canada, and that this
alleged fact should be used to verify import eligibility
requirements for TAA.
In assessing import impact, the Department considers import
trends of like or directly competitive products to determine
import impact in the relevant period, thus stagnant figures
indicating foreign production for U.S. consumption of softwood
lumber are not relevant to this investigation regarding workers
producing logs.
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 20th day of June, 2003.
/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
_______________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance