DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-50,386

BURELBACH INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED
RICKREAL, OREGON

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application of February 10, 2003, a 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 January 13, 2003,
and published in the Federal Register on February 6, 2003 (68 FR
6211).
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 Burelbach Industries, Inc.,
Rickreal, Oregon was denied because the “upstream supplier” group
eligibility requirement of Section 222(b) of the Trade Act of
1974, as amended, was not met. The “upstream supplier”
requirement is fulfilled when the workers’ firm (or subdivision)
is a supplier to a firm that employed a group of workers who
received a certification of eligibility to apply for trade
adjustment assistance benefits and such supply or production is
related to the article that was the basis for such certification.
The workers of Burelbach Industries, Inc., Rickreal, Oregon did
not act as an upstream supplier to a trade certified firm.
The petitioner appears to allege that he is applying for
trade adjustment assistance on behalf of workers that are import
impacted on primary and secondary grounds.
When addressing the issue of import impact, the Department
considers imports of products “like or directly competitive” in
the case of primary impacted firms, or whether the subject firm
supplied a component in a product produced by a trade certified
firm in the case of secondary impact. As neither the subject firm
nor its major declining customers reported imports like or
directly competitive with the sawmill equipment produced at the
subject firm, primary import impact did not occur. As the subject
firm did not produce a component used in the products of their
customers, the allegation of secondary import impact is equally
invalid.
The petitioner notes that several of the subject firm’s
customers have been certified for trade adjustment assistance due
to import impact and thus appears to imply that the petitioning
workers should be eligible for TAA.
As already noted, the declining customers of the subject
firm do not import products like or directly competitive with
those produced at the subject firm. Further, the subject firm
produces sawmill equipment that is used to process timber, but as
the equipment does not form a component part of the products
produced at the customer firms, subject firm workers do not
constitute upstream suppliers of trade certified firms.
The petitioner provides a list of other trade certified
firms, claiming that these firms produced the same type of
products as the subject firm, and thus appears to allege that the
petitioning workers in this case should also be certified.
None of the three firms listed by the petitioner produce
products like or directly competitive with the sawmill machinery
produced by the subject firm. Of the trade certified firms
listed, two were certified on the basis of increased company
imports of products like or directly competitive with those
produced at the subject firms. In the case of the other firm,
workers were certified on the basis of increased customer imports
of products like or directly competitive with those produced at
the subject firm. In contrast to the trade certified firms
described above, neither Burlebach Industries nor its customers
reported imports of competitive sawmill machinery.
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 25th day of March, 2003

/s/ Edward A. Tomchick

EDWARD A. TOMCHICK
Director, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance