DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-51,194

WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY
PLYMOUTH, NORTH CAROLINA

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application of July 17, 2003, two petitioner requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative
determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the
subject firm. The denial notice was signed on June 13, 2003, and
published in the Federal Register on July 3, 2003 (68 FR 39976).
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 petition for the workers of Weyerhaeuser Company,
Plymouth, North Carolina was denied because the “contributed
importantly” group eligibility requirement of Section 222 of the
Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met. The company did not
import fluff pulp, packaging liner and corrugated filler
products, and uncoated freesheet in the relevant period nor did
it shift production to a foreign country.
The initial investigation established that most of the
layoffs are attributable to the shutdown of machinery for
corrugated packaging filler. Corrugated packaging filler and
linerboard produced is sold within the Weyerhaeuser Company.
Fluff pulp produced at the subject firm was mostly exported, and
there were no significant declines associated with the production
of uncoated freesheet.
Two requests for reconsideration were received from separate
petitioners on the same day. One petitioner includes copies of
newspaper articles that draw particular attention to industry
experts indicating that the market timber and paper products,
including fluff pulp and fine paper are shifting from the U.S. to
foreign sources. Another petitioner alleges that, for years, the
company has been reporting that paper product declines are
attributable to import competition.
In order to establish import impact, the Department must
consider imports that are like or directly competitive with those
produced at the subject firm. As all of the production of
corrugated packaging filler was used to supply internal demand,
and the company reported no imports, there is no evidence of
import impact in regard to this product in conjunction with an
assessment of eligibility for affected workers at the subject
plant. Further, an examination of associated aggregate U.S. Trade
data revealed that there were no increase of imports in the
relevant period.
The petitioners state that the paper packaging components
produced by the subject firm have been displaced as a result of
an increase in imports of packaged goods.
As noted above, the Department considers imports of like or
directly competitive products (in this case, corrugated packaging
filler, as the initial investigation established that layoffs are
predominantly attributable to the shut down of this product) when
conducting TAA investigations. Thus, although the products
produced by the subject firm workers may be indirectly import
impacted, the import impact of packaged goods is not relevant to
an investigation of eligibility for trade adjustment assistance
on behalf of subject firm workers producing corrugated packaging
filler.


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 24th day of July, 2003

/s/ Elliott S. Kushner

ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance