DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-80,315

MARLETTE HOMES, INC.
A SUBSIDIARY OF CLAYTON HOMES
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY
LEWISTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA


Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

The initial investigation, initiated July 26, 2011, resulted
in a negative determination, issued on September 30, 2011, that
was based on the findings that the subject firm did not shift
production of prefabricated homes to a foreign country and that
there were no increased imports of prefabricated homes. The
determination was applicable to workers and former workers of
Marlette Homes, Inc., a subsidiary of Clayton Homes, Berkshire
Hathaway, Lewistown, Pennsylvania (subject firm). The notice of
negative determination was published in the Federal Register on
October 20, 2011 (76 FR 65214). The workers’ firm is engaged in
activities related to the production of prefabricated homes.
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 worker
group at the subject firm did not meet the eligibility criteria
to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance.
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 prefabricated homes produced by the
subject firm.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the subject firm did not shift the
production of prefabricated homes (or like or directly competitive
articles) to a foreign county or acquire prefabricated homes or a
like or directly competitive article from a foreign county.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the workers’ firm 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 the workers’ firm 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 Marlette
Homes, Inc., a subsidiary of Clayton Homes, Berkshire Hathaway,
Lewistown, Pennsylvania, 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-80,315

MARLETTE HOMES, INC.
LEWISTOWN, 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 (“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 Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) petition filed on July 26, 2011 on
behalf of workers of Marlette Homes, Inc., Lewistown, Pennsylvania
(subject firm). Workers of the subject firm are engaged in the
production of prefabricated homes.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that criterion (i) has not been met. The
subject firm has not shifted production of prefabricated homes (or
like or directly competitive articles) to a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that criterion (ii) has not been met.
There is no increase in imports of prefabricated homes (or like or
directly competitive articles) that contributed importantly to
worker separations and sales and/or production at the subject firm.
U.S. imports of prefabricated buildings (or like or directly
competitive articles) are insignificant in relation to the overall
U.S. market.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the subject firm is neither 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), nor 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
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 Marlette Homes,
Inc., Lewistown, Pennsylvania 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 30th day of September, 2011

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



- 8 -