DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-80,430

PRODUCT DYNAMICS LTD
LEVITTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA

Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

The initial investigation, initiated September 12, 2011,
resulted in a negative determination, issued on September 14, 2011,
that was based on the findings that the subject firm does not
produce an article. The determination was applicable to workers and
former workers of Product Dynamics Ltd., Levittown, Pennsylvania
(subject firm). The notice of negative determination has yet to be
published in the Federal Register. An application for
reconsideration was filed on September 28, 2011, by a company
official.
In a request for reconsideration, the company official stated
that “[t]he majority of models that we produce are now being produced
in China and Hong Kong . . . many of our clients have turned to
outsourcing the majority of their model work to foreign countries.”
In support of the request, the company official referenced material
submitted with the petition. An affirmative of application was
issued on October 3, 2011, which was published in the Federal
Register on October 20, 2011 (76 FR 65212).
The workers’ firm is engaged in activities related to the
product development. Specifically, the workers produce prototype
models, patterns, and samples for new products for toys,
collectibles, and consumer products.
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 workers of the
subject firm are not eligible to apply for TAA.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed no increased imports by the subject firm or
its major customers of articles like or directly competitive with
the prototypes produced by the subject firm. During the
reconsideration investigation, the Department contacted the
customer referenced in the petition and the request for
reconsideration.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the subject firm did not shift the
production of prototypes (or a like or directly competitive
article) to a foreign country or acquire the production of such
articles from a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that Product Dynamics 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 Product Dynamics 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 Product
Dynamics Ltd., Levittown, 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 2nd day of February, 2012

/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-80,430

PRODUCT DYNAMICS LTD
LEVITTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA

Negative Determination 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 September 12, 2011 by workers of Product Dynamics Ltd.,
Levittown, Pennsylvania. The workers’ firm is engaged in activities
related to supplying product development services for various product
consumer industries.
During the investigation, the petitioner alleged that the firm
Product Dynamics separated workers due to “lack of work available”.
The investigation revealed that Product Dynamics Ltd.,
Levittown, Pennsylvania does not produce an article within the
meaning of Section 222(a) or Section 222(b) of the Act. In order to
be considered eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under
Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, the worker group seeking
certification (or on whose behalf certification is being sought) must
work for a “firm” or appropriate subdivision that produces an
article. The definition of a firm includes an individual
proprietorship, partnership, joint venture, association, corporation
(including a development corporation), business trust, cooperative,
trustee in bankruptcy, and receiver under decree of any court.
During the investigation, the Department of Labor obtained
information that revealed that the workers’ firm did not produce an
article; rather, the workers’ firm supplied services related to
product development.
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 (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 Product Dynamics, Ltd., Levittown,
Pennsylvania are engaged in activities related to the supply of
product development services 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 14th day of September, 2011


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








- 7 -