DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-70,261

STIMSON LUMBER COMPANY
CLATSKANIE, OREGON

Notice of Revised Determination
on Remand

On November 15, 2010, the United States Court of
International Trade (USCIT) granted the Department of Labor’s
request for voluntary remand to conduct further investigation in
Former Employees of Stimson Lumber Company v. United States
Secretary of Labor, Court No. 10-00278.
On May 18, 2009, the International Association of Machinists
and Woodworkers, Local Lodge W-536 (Union) filed a petition for
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) with the Department of Labor
(Department) on behalf of workers and former workers of Stimson
Lumber Company, Clatskanie, Oregon (subject firm). Workers at the
subject firm (subject worker group) are engaged in the production
of softwood lumber products. The worker group does not include
on-site leased workers.
On February 19, 2010, the Department issued a Negative
Determination regarding eligibility to apply for TAA applicable
to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The
Department’s Notice of determination was published in the Federal
Register on March 12, 2010 (75 FR 11925).
The Department’s initial findings revealed that the subject
firm did not import articles like or directly competitive with
those produced by the workers, shift the production of these
articles abroad, or acquire these articles from a foreign country
during the period under investigation. The survey conducted of
the subject firm’s major declining customers revealed a decline
in imports when compared to purchases made from the subject firm.
The Department had also reviewed aggregate data that
confirmed that U.S. imports of softwood lumber products like or
directly competitive with those produced by the subject worker
group declined when compared to domestic production.
Consequently, the Department determined that the group
eligibility requirements under Section 222 of the Trade Act, as
amended, had not been met.
By application dated March 11, 2010, the Union requested
administrative reconsideration on the Department’s negative
determination. The request for reconsideration stated that the
worker separations in the subject worker group were a result of
competition with Canadian imports. The Union also alleged that
because Hampton Lumber Mills-Washington, Inc., Morton Division,
Morton, Washington, whose workers are eligible to apply for TAA
as primary workers under TA-W-72,129, is an upstream supplier of
Stimson Lumber Company, workers at the subject firm are eligible
to apply for TAA as adversely affected secondary workers.
Section 222(d) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(d), defines the
term “Supplier” as “a firm that produces and supplies directly to
another firm component parts for articles, or services used in the
production of articles or in the supply of services, as the case
may be, that were the basis for a certification of eligibility
under subsection (a) [of Section 222 of the Act] of a group of
workers employed by such other firm.”
During the investigation regarding the application for
reconsideration, the Department confirmed that the subject worker
group did not qualify as secondarily affected workers because the
products manufactured at the subject firm were not used as a
component part in the production of lumber that was the basis of
the primary certification that is applicable to workers at Hampton
Lumber Mills-Washington, Inc., Morton Division, Morton, Washington.
Because the petitioner did not provide information that had
not been previously considered, the Department issued a Negative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
applicable to workers at the subject firm on July 8, 2010. The
Department’s Notice was published in the Federal Register on July
16, 2010 (75 FR 41529).
In the complaint to the USCIT, dated August 4, 2010, the
Plaintiffs claimed that workers at the subject firm were impacted
by Canadian imports of articles like or directly competitive with
those produced by the subject firm. The Plaintiffs also claimed
that “the main competitors of the Stimson Mill are TAA certified
because of foreign competition from the Canadian softwood
dimensional lumber imports.”
On November 8, 2010, the Department requested voluntary
remand to conduct further investigation to address the
allegations made by the Plaintiffs, to determine whether the
subject worker group is eligible to apply for TAA, and to issue
an appropriate determination. On November 15, 2010, the USCIT
granted the Department’s Motion for voluntary remand.
For a worker group to be certified eligible to apply for TAA
based on increased imports, all of the following criteria must be
satisfied:
A. a significant number or proportion of the workers in
such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the
firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated;

B. the sales or production, or both, of such firm or
subdivision have decreased absolutely; and

C. increased imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles produced by such firm or
subdivision have contributed importantly to such
workers’ separation or threat of separation and to the
decline in sales or production of such firm or
subdivision.

During the remand investigation, the Department carefully
reviewed previously submitted information, obtained additional
information from the subject firm, solicited input from the
Plaintiffs, collected and reviewed additional U.S. import
aggregate data on softwood lumber, and conducted an extensive
customer survey.
The Department’s findings on remand confirmed that the
subject firm did not shift to a foreign country the production of
articles like or directly competitive with those produced by the
subject worker group, acquire these products from foreign
sources, or import these articles or articles like or directly
competitive with those produced by the subject worker group
during the relevant time period.
During the remand investigation, the Department surveyed a
significant proportion of the subject firm’s declining customers
regarding import purchases of large wood products, such as
timbers, cross arms, and crane mats and like or directly
competitive articles with those produced at the subject firm
during 2008, 2009, and 2010. The Department also considered in
conducting the survey any overlapping customers between the
subject firm and firms that produce like or directly competitive
products that, according to the Plaintiffs, are competitors of
the subject firm.
The expanded customer survey revealed that imports of
articles like or directly competitive with the softwood lumber
articles produced at the subject firm declined in the first
period under investigation. However, customers’ purchases made
from the subject firm also declined during the same time period
but at a faster rate. During the second period under
investigation, customers’ import purchases increased
significantly compared to purchases made from the subject firm.
Overall, the surveyed customers displayed an increased reliance
on import purchases of articles like or directly competitive with
the softwood lumber products manufactured by the subject worker
group relative to purchases made from the subject firm during the
period under investigation.
Based on the new information obtained during the remand
investigation, the Department determines that an increased
reliance on imports by customers of the subject firm, of articles
like or directly competitive with softwood lumber products
manufactured by the subject firm, contributed importantly to the
separations in the subject worker group and to the decline in
subject firm sales and production.
Conclusion
After careful review of the information obtained during the
remand investigation, I determine that increased imports of
articles like or directly competitive with softwood lumber
products manufactured by the subject firm contributed importantly
to the total separation of a significant number or proportion of
workers at the subject firm. In accordance with the provisions
of the Act, I make the following certification:

“All workers of Stimson Lumber Company, Clatskanie,
Oregon, who became totally or partially separated from
employment on or after May 18, 2008, through two years
from the date of this revised certification, and all
workers in the group threatened with total or partial
separation from employment on date of certification
through two years from the date of certification, are
eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter
2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.”
Signed at Washington, D.C. this 14th day of February, 2011

/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
___________________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-FN-P


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-70,261

STIMSON LUMBER COMPANY
CLATSKANIE, OREGON

Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. § 2273, the Department of Labor herein
presents the results of an investigation regarding certification of
eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance.
Workers of a firm may be eligible for worker adjustment
assistance if they satisfy the criteria of subsection (a), (c) or
(f) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (c), (f). For
the Department of Labor to issue a certification for workers under
Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), the following three
criteria must be met:
I. The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2282(a)(1)) requires that a significant
number or proportion of the workers in the workers’ firm must
have become totally or partially separated or be threatened
with total or partial separation.

II. The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied in one of two
ways:
(A) Increased Imports Path:
(i) sales or production, or both, at the workers’ firm must
have decreased absolutely, AND
(ii) (I) imports of articles or services like or directly
competitive with articles or services produced or
supplied by the workers’ firm have increased, OR
(II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles into which the component
part produced by the workers’ firm was directly
incorporated have increased; OR
(II)(bb) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles which are produced
directly using the services supplied by the
workers’ firm have increased; OR
(III) imports of articles directly incorporating
component parts not produced in the U.S. that are
like or directly competitive with the article into
which the component part produced by the workers’
firm was directly incorporated have increased.

(B) Shift in Production or Supply Path:
(i)(I) there has been a shift by the workers’ firm to a
foreign country in the production of articles or supply
of services like or directly competitive with those
produced/supplied by the workers’ firm; OR
(i)(II) there has been an acquisition from a foreign country
by the workers’ firm of articles/services that are like
or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by
the workers’ firm.

III. The third criterion requires that the increase in imports or
shift/acquisition must have contributed importantly to the
workers’ separation or threat of separation. See Sections
222(a)(2)(A)(iii) and 222(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
§§ 2272(a)(2)(A)(iii), 2272(a)(2)(B)(ii).

Section 222(d) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(d), defines the
terms “Supplier” and “Downstream Producer.” For the Department to
issue a secondary worker certification under Section 222(c) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), to workers of a Supplier or a Downstream
Producer, the following criteria must be met:
(1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in the
workers’ firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm
have become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated;

(2) the workers’ firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer to
a firm that employed a group of workers who received a
certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), and such supply or production
is related to the article or service that was the basis
for such certification; and

(3) either
(A) the workers’ firm is a supplier and the component parts
it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2)
accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or
sales of the workers’ firm; or
(B) a loss of business by the workers’ firm with the firm
described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the
workers’ separation or threat of separation.

Workers of a firm may also be considered eligible if they
are publicly identified by name by the International Trade
Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation
resulting in a category of determination that is listed in
Section 222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f).
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm under
Section 222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), can be satisfied if
the following criteria are met:
(1) the workers’ firm is publicly identified by name by the
International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic
industry in an investigation resulting in--
(A) an affirmative determination of serious injury or
threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) an affirmative determination of market disruption
or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) an affirmative final determination of material
injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A)
or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A));
(2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning
on the date on which--
(A) a summary of the report submitted to the President
by the International Trade Commission under section
202(f)(1) with respect to the affirmative
determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is
published in the Federal Register under section
202(f)(3); or
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described in
subparagraph (1) is published in the Federal
Register; and
(3) the workers have become totally or partially
separated from the workers’ firm within--
(A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year
period preceding the 1-year period described in
paragraph (2).

The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on May 20, 2009, by an official of the Woodworkers (IAM),
Local W536, on behalf of workers of Stimson Lumber Company,
Clatskanie, Oregon. The workers produce Douglas-fir dimensional
lumber.
The petitioner alleged that foreign competitors were
unfairly benefiting from Canadian subsidies, thereby injuring the
subject firm.
The investigation included analysis of data obtained from the
subject firm, aggregate data, and a survey of the firm’s major
declining customers.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that criterion III has not been met because the workers'
separation or threat of separation was not related to the
increase in imports or a shift or acquisition abroad of articles
produced by the subject firm.
The Department conducted a survey of the subject firm’s
major declining customers regarding their purchases of Douglas-
fir lumber and products like or directly competitive for the
2007/2008 and January through October, 2008/2009 periods.
Results of the survey indicated imports declined absolutely and
relative to domestic consumption in both sets of time periods.

Analysis of aggregate industry data revealed that United
States imports of softwood lumber products like or directly
competitive with lumber which is produced by the workers’ firm
decreased absolutely and relative to consumption in 2008 and 2007
and continued to decrease in year-to-date 2009.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that the workers’ firm did not lose business to TAA
certified firms.
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), have not been satisfied
because the workers' firm has not been identified in an
affirmative finding of injury by the International Trade Court.


Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that workers of Stimson Lumber Company,
Clatskanie, Oregon, are denied eligibility to apply for adjustment
assistance under Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 19th day of February, 2010


/s/Richard Church
______________________________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance





- 13 -