DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-56,605

PENNSYLVANIA VENEER CORPORATION
CLEARFIELD, PENNSYLVANIA

Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application of April 21, 2005 a petitioner requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative
determination regarding eligibility for workers and former
workers of the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA). The denial notice was signed on March 23, 2005 and
published in the Federal Register on May 2, 2005 (70 FR 22710).
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 TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at Pennsylvania
Veneer Corporation, Clearfield, Pennsylvania engaged in
production of hardwood veneer was denied because the "contributed
importantly" group eligibility requirement of Section 222 of the
Trade Act of 1974 was not met, nor was there a shift in
production from that firm to a foreign country. The “contributed
importantly” test is generally demonstrated through a survey of
the workers’ firm’s declining customers. The survey was not
conducted in the initial investigation, as the preponderance of
evidence indicated no declining customers during the relevant
time period. The subject firm did not import hardwood veneer in
the relevant period nor did it shift production to a foreign
country.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleges
that the subject firm lost its business due to the “indirect
impact resulting from an inadequate supply of raw materials.” In
particular, that the increased exportation of raw materials to
offshore facilities affected the supply of raw materials to
domestic businesses. The petitioner further alleges that as a
result of the above conditions, workers of the subject firm have
been negatively impacted by the foreign competition and should be
eligible for TAA.
In order to establish import impact, the Department must
consider imports that are like or directly competitive with those
produced at the subject firm. Exportation of raw materials is
irrelevant when determining the import impact on domestic firms.
The investigation revealed that the subject firm experienced an
increase in sales prior to the shutdown. Consequently, the
subject firm did not have customers who decreased their purchases
of hardwood veneer from the subject firm and increased imports of
hardwood veneer. The investigation also revealed that worker
separations were not attributed to increases in imports or a
shift in production to a foreign country.
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 23rd day of May, 2005

/s/ Elliott S. Kushner


ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance