DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-83,096

NEWARK RECYCLED PAPERBOARD SOLUTIONS
NEWARK PAPERBOARD PRODUCTS
GREENVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA


Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated January 4, 2014 a worker requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative
determination regarding eligibility for workers and former
workers of Newark Recycled Paperboard Solutions, Newark
Paperboard Products, Greenville, Pennsylvania (subject firm) to
apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). The negative
determination was issued on November 13, 2013, and the
Department’s Notice of negative determination was published in
the Federal Register on December 9, 2013 (78 FR 73888). The
subject workers produce recycled paperboard tubes and cores.
Workers are not separately identifiable by product line.
The negative determination was issued because the subject
firm did not shift to a foreign country production of articles
like or directly competitive with the recycled paperboard tubes
and cores produced by the workers at the subject firm; the
subject firm did not, during the relevant period, increase
imports of articles like or directly competitive with the
recycled paperboard tubes and cores produced by the workers at
the subject firm; declining customers of the subject firm did
not, during the relevant period, increase imports of articles
like or directly competitive with the recycled paperboard tubes
and cores produced by the workers of the subject firm; the
subject firm was not a Supplier or Downstream Producer to a firm
that employed a worker group eligible to apply for TAA, per
Section 222(b) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (the Act);
and the subject firm was not identified by name by the
International Trade Commission, per Section 222(e) of the Act.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c), administrative 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 request for reconsideration asserts that, due to the
closure of two facilities that employed worker groups who are
eligible to apply for TAA (TA-W-80,495 and TA-W-81,155), the
costs of shipping of raw material to the Newark, Pennsylvania
facility has increased, that “several of our customers have
already been transferred to Canada” and that another customer
(Aurubis) was scheduled to transfer to Canada. The request
concludes that the increased costs of raw material and the
customers’ decision to shift operations to Canada have “directly
affected” employment at the subject firm.
After careful review of the request for reconsideration,
the support documentation, and previously submitted materials,
the Department determines that there is no new information that
supports a finding that Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974 was
satisfied and that no mistake or misinterpretation of the facts
or of the law with regards to the number or proportion of
workers separated from the subject firm during the relevant
period.
During the initial investigation, the Department took into
consideration the afore-mentioned certifications, inquired into
imports of recycled paperboard tubes and cores (and like or
directly competitive articles) by both the subject firm and the
firm’s major declining customers, inquired whether the subject
firm shifted to a foreign country the production of recycled
paperboard tubes and cores (and like or directly competitive
articles) or acquired such production from a foreign country,
considered whether or not the workers of the subject firm are
secondarily-affected workers, and reviewed the International
Trade Commission’s findings, and did not find that such activity
occurred during the relevant period.
The Department notes that, for purposes of the Act, the
shift of customers’ operations to a foreign country is not a
basis for certification.
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 14th day of March, 2014


/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
___________________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance

4510-FN-P


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-83,096

NEWARK RECYCLED PAPERBOARD SOLUTIONS
NEWARK PAPERBOARD PRODUCTS
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM MANPOWER
GREENVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA

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 (ITC) 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 19, 2013 by three workers on behalf of workers
of Newark Recycled Paperboard Solutions, Newark Paperboard
Products, Greenville, Pennsylvania (Newark). The workers’ firm is
engaged in activities related to the production of recycled
paperboard tubes and cores. The workers are not separately
identifiable by article produced. The subject worker group
includes on-site leased workers from Manpower.
The petitioners alleged that they are eligible to apply for
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) as secondarily-impacted workers
and identified TA-W-81,155 and TA-W-80,495 as the bases for the
requested certification.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers’ firm, the petitioners, and a major
customer of the subject firm.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that neither the subject firm nor the
customer increased imports of recycled paperboard tubes and cores,
or articles like or directly competitive, 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 recycled paperboard tubes and cores, or like or
directly competitive articles, to a foreign country or acquire
the production of recycled paperboard tubes and cores, or like or
directly competitive articles, from a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Newark is not 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).
The investigation revealed that the certifications of
eligibility to apply for TAA applicable to worker groups covered by
TA-W-80,495 and TA-W-81,155 were based on the Department’s findings
that the respective petitioning worker groups met the criteria set
forth in Section 222(b)(2) of the Act.
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act, have not been satisfied since the workers’ firm
has not been publicly identified by name by the ITC 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 Newark Recycled Paperboard
Solutions, Newark Paperboard Products, Greenville, Pennsylvania,
to apply for adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223
of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 13th day of November, 2013

/s/Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance



- 4 -