DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-80,195

PREFERRED DENTAL LAB
ROSELAND, NEW JERSEY

Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

The initial investigation, initiated May 24, 2011, resulted in
a negative determination, issued on August 4, 2011, that was based
on the finding that the subject firm did not shift production to a
foreign country nor did the subject firm increase imports. The
determination was applicable to workers and former workers of
Preferred Dental Lab, Roseland, New Jersey (subject firm). The
notice of negative determination was published in the Federal
Register on August 18, 2011 (76 FR 51435). The workers’ firm is
engaged in activities related to the production of dentures,
partials and crowns (removable and fixed appliances).
As required by the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) Extension
Act of 2011 (the TAAEA), the investigation into this petition was
reopened for a reconsideration investigation to apply the
requirements for worker group eligibility under chapter 2 of title
II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the TAAEA, to the facts
of this petition.
Based on information reviewed during the reconsideration
investigation, the Department of Labor determines that the subject
firm did not shift production of dentures, partials and crowns to
a foreign country nor was there increased imports of dentures,
partials and crowns during the relevant period.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed no increased imports of articles like or
directly competitive with the dentures, partials, and crowns
produced by Preferred Dental Lab, Roseland, New Jersey.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the subject firm did not shift
production of dentures, partials and crowns (or like or directly
competitive articles) to a foreign county or acquire such
articles from a foreign county.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Preferred Dental Lab, Roseland, New
Jersey, is not a Supplier to a firm that employed a group of
workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section
222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a).
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Preferred Dental Lab, Roseland, New
Jersey, does not act as a Downstream Producer to a firm (or
subdivision, whichever is applicable) that employed a group of
workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section
222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a).
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act, have not been satisfied since the workers’ firm
has not been publically identified by name by the International
Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an
investigation resulting in an affirmative finding of serious
injury, market disruption, or material injury, or threat thereof.
Conclusion
After careful review, I determine that the requirements of
Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272, have not been met and,
therefore, deny the petition for group eligibility of Preferred
Dental Lab, Roseland, New Jersey, to apply for adjustment
assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. §
2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 25th day of November, 2011

/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-80,195

PREFERRED DENTAL LAB
ROSELAND, NEW JERSEY

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 (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. § 2273, the Department of Labor herein
presents the results of an investigation regarding certification of
eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance.
Workers of a firm may be eligible for worker adjustment
assistance if they satisfy the criteria of subsection (a) and (b)
of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a) and (b). For the
Department of Labor to issue a certification for workers under
Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), the following three
criteria must be met:
(1) The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(1)) requires that 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
(2) The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied in one of two
ways:
(A) Increased Imports Path:
(i) sales or production, or both, at the workers’ firm must
have decreased absolutely, AND
(ii) imports of articles like or directly competitive with
articles produced by such firm or subdivision have
increased; and
(iii) the increase described in clause (ii) contributed
importantly to such workers’ separation or threat of
separation and to the decline in the sales or
production of such firm or subdivision.

(B) Shift in Production Path:
(i) 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
(ii)(I) 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;
(II)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
(III)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.

For the Department to issue a secondary worker certification
under Section 222(b) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(b), to workers of
a Supplier or a Downstream Producer, the following criteria must be
met:
(1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in the
workers’ firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm
have become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated;

(2) the workers’ firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer to
a firm that employed a group of workers who received a
certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), and such supply or production
is related to the article that was the basis for such
certification; and

(3) either
(A) the workers’ firm is a supplier and the component parts
it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2)
accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or
sales of the workers’ firm; or
(B) a loss of business by the workers’ firm with the firm
described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the
workers’ separation or threat of separation.

Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), defines the
terms “Supplier” and “Downstream Producer.”
The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on May 24, 2011 on behalf of workers of Preferred Dental
Lab, Roseland, New Jersey (Preferred). The workers’ firm is
engaged in activities related to the production of dentures,
partials and crowns (removable and fixed appliances).
The petitioner alleges that the work performed by the
subject worker group is being sent to China.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers’ firm.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Preferred did not shift production of
dentures, partials and crowns (removable and fixed appliances), or
like or directly competitive articles, to a foreign country. In
response to the petitioner’s allegations that the production of
dentures, partials and crowns (removable and fixed appliances) was
shifted to a location in the United States.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Preferred did not import dentures,
partials and crowns (removable and fixed appliances) like or
directly competitive with those produced by the workers in 2009,
2010 and during the first six months of 2011. Further, sales of
dentures, partials and crowns (removable and fixed appliances) at
Preferred did not decline during the relevant period.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Preferred is not a Supplier to a firm
that employed a group of workers who received a certification of
eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a).
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Preferred does not act as a
Downstream Producer to a firm (or subdivision, whichever is
applicable) that employed a group of workers who received a
certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19
U.S.C. § 2272(a), based on an increase in imports from, or a shift
in production to, Canada or Mexico.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance
(ATAA), the worker group must be certified eligible to apply for
trade adjustment assistance. 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 Preferred Dental
Lab, Roseland, New Jersey, who are engaged in activities related
to the production of dentures, partials and crowns (removable and
fixed appliances), are denied eligibility to apply for adjustment
assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended,
and are also denied eligibility to apply for alternative trade
adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974,
amended.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 4th day of August, 2011


/s/Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance




- 3 -