Pennsylvania Veneer Corporation, Clearfield, PA; Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 32375 [E5-2799]

Agencies

• Employment and Training Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 105 (Thursday, June 2, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 32375]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-2799]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-56,605]


Pennsylvania Veneer Corporation, Clearfield, PA; Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of April 21, 2005 a petitioner requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of 
the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and 
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). The denial notice was 
signed on March 23, 2005 and published in the Federal Register on May 
2, 2005 (70 FR 22710).
    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 TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at Pennsylvania Veneer 
Corporation, Clearfield, Pennsylvania engaged in production of hardwood 
veneer was denied because the ``contributed importantly'' group 
eligibility requirement of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974 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 declining customers. The survey 
was not conducted in the initial investigation, as the preponderance of 
evidence indicated no declining customers during the relevant time 
period. The subject firm did not import hardwood veneer in the relevant 
period nor did it shift production to a foreign country.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleges that the 
subject firm lost its business due to the ``indirect impact resulting 
from an inadequate supply of raw materials.'' In particular, that the 
increased exportation of raw materials to offshore facilities affected 
the supply of raw materials to domestic businesses. The petitioner 
further alleges that as a result of the above conditions, workers of 
the subject firm have been negatively impacted by the foreign 
competition and should be eligible for TAA.
    In order to establish import impact, the Department must consider 
imports that are like or directly competitive with those produced at 
the subject firm. Exportation of raw materials is irrelevant when 
determining the import impact on domestic firms. The investigation 
revealed that the subject firm experienced an increase in sales prior 
to the shutdown. Consequently, the subject firm did not have customers 
who decreased their purchases of hardwood veneer from the subject firm 
and increased imports of hardwood veneer. The investigation also 
revealed that worker separations were not attributed to increases in 
imports or a shift in production to a foreign country.

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, DC, this 23rd day of May, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5-2799 Filed 6-1-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P