Petitioner Type: Workers
Impact Date:
Filed Date: 12/18/2006
Most Recent Update: 01/23/2007
Determination Date: 01/23/2007
Expiration Date:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-60,625
HUNTINGTON FOAM PITTSBURGH CORPORATION
A SUBSIDIARY OF HUNTINGTON FOAM CORPORATION
MT. PLEASANT, PENNSYLVANIA
Dismissal of Application for Reconsideration
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for
administrative reconsideration was filed with the Director of the
Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers at Huntington
Foam Pittsburgh Corporation, a subsidiary of Huntington Foam
Corporation, Mt. Pleasant, Pennsylvania. The application did not
contain new information supporting a conclusion that the
determination was erroneous, and also did not provide a
justification for reconsideration of the determination that was
based on either mistaken facts or a misinterpretation of facts or
of the law. Therefore, dismissal of the application was issued.
TA-W-60,625; Huntington Foam Pittsburgh Corporation
A Subsidiary of Huntington Foam Corporation
Mt. Pleasant, Pennsylvania (April 9, 2007)
Signed at Washington, D.C. this 10th day of April 2007.
/s/_Ralph DiBattista
RALPH DIBATTISTA
Director, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-FN-P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-60,625
HUNTINGTON FOAM PITTSBURGH CORP.
A SUBSIDIARY OF HUNTINGTON FOAM CORPORATION
MT. PLEASANT, 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 December 18, 2006 in response to
a petition filed by workers of Huntington Foam Pittsburgh Corp., a
subsidiary of Huntington Foam Corporation, Mt. Pleasant, Pennsylvania.
The workers produced shape molded foam packaging materials.
Workers of the subject facility were denied eligibility to apply
for Trade Adjustment Assistance on August 7, 2006 (TA-W-59,760).
This investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C) and
(a)(2)(B)(II.B) have not been met.
The subject facility did not shift production to a foreign country,
nor did it import like or competitive products in 2004, 2005, or January
through November 2006.
The Department of Labor surveyed the subject firm’s primary lost
bids regarding purchases of shape molded foam packaging materials in
2004, 2005 and January through November 2006. The survey revealed that
the customer awarded the contract to a domestic firm.
Furthermore, the workers of the subject firm cannot be deemed
eligible as secondarily affected. Although two customers’ workers were
certified eligible to apply for trade adjustment assistance as a primary
firm, the packaging materials purchased from the subject firm do not
constitute a component part of the products (color televisions and
components) manufactured by the customers nor does the use of the
packaging materials purchased from the subject firm constitute finishing
of these products.
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 assistance (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 Huntington Foam Pittsburgh Corp., a
subsidiary of Huntington Foam Corporation, Mt. Pleasant, 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 23rd day of January 2007
/s/Richard Church
______________________________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-60,625
HUNTINGTON FOAM PITTSBURGH CORPORATION
A SUBSIDIARY OF HUNTINGTON FOAM CORPORATION
MT. PLEASANT, PENNSYLVANIA
Dismissal of Application for Reconsideration
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for
administrative reconsideration was filed with the Director of the
Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers at Huntington
Foam Pittsburgh Corporation, a subsidiary of Huntington Foam
Corporation, Mt. Pleasant, Pennsylvania. The application did not
contain new information supporting a conclusion that the
determination was erroneous, and also did not provide a
justification for reconsideration of the determination that was
based on either mistaken facts or a misinterpretation of facts or
of the law. Therefore, dismissal of the application was issued.
TA-W-60,625; Huntington Foam Pittsburgh Corporation
A Subsidiary of Huntington Foam Corporation
Mt. Pleasant, Pennsylvania (April 9, 2007)
Signed at Washington, D.C. this 10th day of April 2007.
/s/_Ralph DiBattista
RALPH DIBATTISTA
Director, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-FN-P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-60,625
HUNTINGTON FOAM PITTSBURGH CORP.
A SUBSIDIARY OF HUNTINGTON FOAM CORPORATION
MT. PLEASANT, 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 December 18, 2006 in response to
a petition filed by workers of Huntington Foam Pittsburgh Corp., a
subsidiary of Huntington Foam Corporation, Mt. Pleasant, Pennsylvania.
The workers produced shape molded foam packaging materials.
Workers of the subject facility were denied eligibility to apply
for Trade Adjustment Assistance on August 7, 2006 (TA-W-59,760).
This investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C) and
(a)(2)(B)(II.B) have not been met.
The subject facility did not shift production to a foreign country,
nor did it import like or competitive products in 2004, 2005, or January
through November 2006.
The Department of Labor surveyed the subject firm’s primary lost
bids regarding purchases of shape molded foam packaging materials in
2004, 2005 and January through November 2006. The survey revealed that
the customer awarded the contract to a domestic firm.
Furthermore, the workers of the subject firm cannot be deemed
eligible as secondarily affected. Although two customers’ workers were
certified eligible to apply for trade adjustment assistance as a primary
firm, the packaging materials purchased from the subject firm do not
constitute a component part of the products (color televisions and
components) manufactured by the customers nor does the use of the
packaging materials purchased from the subject firm constitute finishing
of these products.
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 assistance (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 Huntington Foam Pittsburgh Corp., a
subsidiary of Huntington Foam Corporation, Mt. Pleasant, 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 23rd day of January 2007
/s/Richard Church
______________________________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance