Stimson Lumber Company Clatskanie, OR; Notice of Revised Determination on Remand, 10404-10405 [2011-4092]

Agencies

• Employment and Training Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 37 (Thursday, February 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10404-10405]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4092]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-70,261]


Stimson Lumber Company Clatskanie, OR; 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

[[Page 10405]]

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, DC, this 14th day of February, 2011.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011-4092 Filed 2-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P