DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-58,158

FALCON PLASTICS
A/K/A GRAND VENTURE
WASHINGTON, PENNSYLVANIA

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application postmarked January 6, 2006, a company
official 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 December 30, 2005, and published in the
Federal Register on January 17, 2006 (71 FR 2568).
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 Falcon Plastics, Washington,
Pennsylvania engaged in production of blow molded plastics was
denied because the “contributed importantly” group eligibility
requirement of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended,
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
customers. The survey revealed no imports of blow molded
plastics during the relevant period. The subject firm did not
import blow molded plastics nor did it shift production to a
foreign country during the relevant period.
The petitioner states that the affected workers lost their
jobs as a result of the U.S. manufacturers shifting production of
blow molded plastics to China and Mexico. The petitioner stated
that the sales and production at the subject firm has been
negatively impacted by increasing presence of foreign imports on
the market.
Upon further review of the previous investigation and
further contact with the company official, the Department
conducted a full investigation to determine whether imports of
blow molded plastics indeed impacted production at the subject
firm and consequently caused workers separations.
The Department conducted a new survey of the customers
requesting information on imports of “like or directly
competitive products” to those purchased from Falcon Plastics,
a/k/a Grand Venture in 2002, 2003 and January through September
of 2005. The survey revealed that none of the respondents
reported increasing its imports of “like or directly competitive
products” to blow molded plastics purchased from the subject,
while decreasing its purchases from the subject firm during the
relevant time period.
Moreover, the subject firm does not import blow molded
plastics and did not shift production of blow molded plastics
abroad.
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., day 16th of February, 2006.


/s/ Elliott S. Kushner

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


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-58,158

FALCON PLASTICS
WASHINGTON, PENNSYLVANIA

Negative Determinations Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance
And Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended (19 USC 2273), the Department of Labor herein presents the
results of an investigation regarding certification of eligibility
to apply for worker adjustment assistance. The group eligibility
requirements for directly-impacted (primary) workers under Section
222(a) the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, can be satisfied in
either of two ways:
I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following 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; or



II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following 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. there has been a shift in production by such workers’ firm
or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or
directly competitive with articles which are produced by
such firm or subdivision; and

C. One of the following must be satisfied:
1. the country to which the workers’ firm has shifted
production of the articles is a party to a free trade
agreement with the United States;
2. the country to which the workers’ firm has shifted
production of the articles is a beneficiary country
under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth
and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic
Recovery Act; or
3. there has been or is likely to be an increase in
imports of articles that are like or directly
competitive with articles which are or were produced
by such firm or subdivision.

The investigation was initiated on October 18, 2005 in
response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of
workers of Falcon Plastics, Washington, Pennsylvania. The workers
produce blow molded plastics.
The investigation revealed that criteria I.C and II.C are not
met.
The investigation revealed that there were no company
imports of blow-molded plastics, nor was there a shift in
production from Washington, Pennsylvania to a foreign country
during the period under investigation.
The Department of Labor surveyed the subject firm’s major
customers regarding their purchases of blow molded plastics in
2003, 2004 and January through September of 2005. The survey
revealed that no respondent reported increasing its imports while
decreasing purchases from the subject firm during the relevant
period.
In addition, in accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of
1974 (26 USC 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor herein
presents the results of its investigation regarding certification
of eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assis-
tance (ATAA) for older workers.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for ATAA, the worker group must be certified
eligible to apply for trade adjustment assistance (TAA). Since
the workers are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers
cannot be certified eligible for ATAA.


Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that all workers of Falcon Plastics,
Washington, Pennsylvania are denied eligibility to apply for
adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974,
and are also denied eligibility to apply for alternative trade
adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 30th day of December 2005

/s/ Richard Church
______________________________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance