DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-80,459

ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS
COMPOSITE PANELS DIVISION
MISSOULA, MONTANA

Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

On March 14, 2012, the Department of Labor (Department) issued
an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for
Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of Roseburg
Forest Products, Composite Panels Division, Missoula, Montana
(subject firm). The Department’s Notice was published in the
Federal Register on March 26, 2012 (77 FR 17524). The workers are
engaged in employment related to the production of particleboard.
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 initial investigation resulted in a negative determination
based on the findings that worker separations were not attributable
to either increased imports by the subject firm or its declining
customers of particleboard (or articles like or directly
competitive with particleboard), or a shift/acquisition of the
production of particleboard (or articles like or directly
competitive with particleboard) to/from a foreign country by the
workers’ firm.
In the request for reconsideration, a company official alleged
that workers at the subject firm were impacted by increased import
competition of particleboard similar to workers at three other
subject firm facilities who are eligible to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (Louisville, Missouri; Orangeburg, South
Carolina; and Russellville, South Carolina).
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
reviewed and confirmed information collected during the initial
investigation and collected additional information from the
subject firm.
The reconsideration investigation findings confirmed that
neither the subject firm nor its major declining customers
increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with
particleboard in the period under investigation. Additionally,
the reconsideration investigation findings confirmed that the
subject firm did not shift the production of particleboard (or a
like or directly competitive article) to a foreign country or
acquire the production of such articles from a foreign country.
After careful review of the request for reconsideration,
previously-submitted information, and information obtained during
the reconsideration investigation, the Department determines that
29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.
Conclusion
After careful review, I determine that the requirements of
Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272, have not been met and,
therefore, deny the petition for group eligibility of to apply for
adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act,
19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. on this 25th day of May, 2012
/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-80,459

ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS
COMPOSITE PANELS DIVISION
MISSOULA, MONTANA

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), (b) or
(e) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (b) and (e).
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
criteria must be met:
(1) 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.

(2) 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.
(iii) the increase in imports described in clause (ii)
contributed importantly to such workers’ separation or
threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or
production of such firm.

(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
(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; and
(ii) the shift described in clause (i)(I) or the acquisition
of articles or services described in clause (i)(II)
contributed importantly to such workers’ separation or
threat of separation.

For the Department to issue a secondary worker certification
under Section 222(b) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(b), 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.

Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), defines the
terms “Supplier” and “Downstream Producer.”
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(e) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(e).
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm under
Section 222(e) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(e), 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 September 23, 2011 by the company official on behalf of
workers of Roseburg Forest Products, Composite Panels Division,
Missoula, Montana (subject firm). The workers’ firm is engaged in
activities related to the production of particleboard used for
building purposes.
The petitioner alleges that increased customer reliance on
foreign products contributed importantly to sales/production
declines and worker separations at the subject firm.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers’ firm, its largest customers, the U.S.
Department of Commerce, and the U.S. International Trade
Commission.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that neither the subject firm nor its major
customers imported particleboard (or like or directly competitive
articles) during the relevant period. Further, the U.S. Department
of Labor conducted analysis of aggregate imports of articles like
or directly competitive with the particleboard produced by the
subject firm. The findings revealed no increase in aggregate
imports during the relevant time period.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the subject firm did not shift the
production of particleboard (or a like or directly competitive
article) to a foreign country or acquire the production of
particleboard (or a like or directly competitive article) from a
foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the subject firm is not a Supplier 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).
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the subject firm is not act as a
Downstream Producer to a firm (or subdivision, whichever is
applicable) 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).
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act, have not been satisfied because Criterion (1)
has not been met since the workers’ firm has not been publically
identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a
member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in an
affirmative finding of serious injury, market disruption, or
material injury, or threat thereof.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that the requirements of Section 222 of
the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272, have not been met and, therefore, deny
the petition for group eligibility of Roseburg Forest Products,
Composite Panels Division, Missoula, Montana to apply for
adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act,
19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 2nd day of February, 2012
/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance







- 3 -