DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-70,406

GREENVILLE METALS, INC.
POWDER DIVISION
TRANSFER, PENNSYLVANIA

Notice of Revised Determination
on Reconsideration

On October 20, 2009, the Department issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm.
The notice was published in the Federal Register on November 5,
2009 (74 FR 57333).
The initial investigation initiated on May 22, 2009,
resulted in a negative determination issued on September 28,
2009, was based on the finding that imports of powdered metals
did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the
subject firm and no shift in production to a foreign source
occurred. The denial notice was published in the Federal
Register on November 17, 2009 (74 FR 59255).
On reconsideration, the Department requested additional
information from the subject firm’s largest customer to determine
whether imports of powdered metals negatively impacted employment
at the subject firm.
The survey of the major declining customer revealed that the
customer directly incorporated powdered metals purchased from the
subject firm into powdered core. The investigation further revealed
that the largest customer shifted purchases of powdered metals from
the subject firm to sources in South East Asia in September 2008.
Furthermore, this customer increased its imports of powdered core
containing foreign-manufactured powdered metals during the relevant
period and this increase in imports contributed importantly to the
workers’ separation at Greenville Metals, Inc., Powder Division,
Transfer, Pennsylvania.
The investigation also revealed that sales, production and
employment at the subject firm declined during the relevant period.
Conclusion
After careful review of the additional facts obtained on
reconsideration, I determine that workers of Greenville Metals,
Inc., Powder Division, Transfer, Pennsylvania, who are engaged in
activities related to the production of powdered metals meet the
worker group certification criteria under Section 222(a) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a). In accordance with Section 223 of the
Act, 19. U.S.C. § 2273, I make the following certification:



"All workers of Greenville Metals, Inc., Powder Division,
Transfer, Pennsylvania, who became totally or partially
separated from employment on or after May 19, 2008, through
two years from the date of this certification, and all
workers in the group threatened with total or partial
separation from employment on date of certification through
two years from the date of certification, are eligible to
apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II
of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.”

Signed in Washington, D.C., this 24th day of November 2009



/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
_____________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance

4510-FN-P


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-70,406

GREENVILLE METALS, INC
POWDER DIVISION
TRANSFER, PENNSYLVANIA

Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker 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), (c) or
(f) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (c), (f). 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:
I. The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2282(a)(1)) requires that a significant
number or proportion of the workers in the workers’ firm must
have become totally or partially separated or be threatened
with total or partial separation.

II. 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) (I) imports of articles or services like or directly
competitive with articles or services produced or
supplied by the workers’ firm have increased, OR
(II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles into which the component
part produced by the workers’ firm was directly
incorporated have increased; OR
(II)(bb) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles which are produced
directly using the services supplied by the
workers’ firm have increased; OR
(III) imports of articles directly incorporating
component parts not produced in the U.S. that are
like or directly competitive with the article into
which the component part produced by the workers’
firm was directly incorporated have increased.

(B) Shift in Production or Supply Path:
(i)(I) there has been a shift by the workers’ firm to a
foreign country in the production of articles or supply
of services like or directly competitive with those
produced/supplied by the workers’ firm; OR
(i)(II) there has been an acquisition from a foreign country
by the workers’ firm of articles/services that are like
or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by
the workers’ firm.

III. The third criterion requires that the increase in imports or
shift/acquisition must have contributed importantly to the
workers’ separation or threat of separation. See Sections
222(a)(2)(A)(iii) and 222(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
§§ 2272(a)(2)(A)(iii), 2272(a)(2)(B)(ii).

Section 222(d) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(d), defines the
terms “Supplier” and “Downstream Producer”. For the Department to
issue a secondary worker certification under Section 222(c) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), 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 or service 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.

Workers of a firm may also be considered eligible if they
are publicly identified by name by the International Trade
Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation
resulting in a category of determination that is listed in
Section 222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f).
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm under
Section 222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), can be satisfied if
the following criteria are met:
(1) the workers’ firm is publicly identified by name by the
International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic
industry in an investigation resulting in--
(A) an affirmative determination of serious injury or
threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) an affirmative determination of market disruption
or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) an affirmative final determination of material
injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A)
or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A));
(2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning
on the date on which--
(A) a summary of the report submitted to the President
by the International Trade Commission under section
202(f)(1) with respect to the affirmative
determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is
published in the Federal Register under section
202(f)(3); or
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described in
subparagraph (1) is published in the Federal
Register; and
(3) the workers have become totally or partially
separated from the workers’ firm within--
(A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year
period preceding the 1-year period described in
paragraph (2).

The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on May 22, 2009 by a company official on behalf of workers
of Greenville Metals, Inc., Powder Division, Transfer,
Pennsylvania. The workers produce powdered metal.
The petitioner alleges the loss of business to a competitor
located in China resulted in worker separations at the subject
firm. The investigation included a review of company data, phone
conversations with the petitioner, and email exchanges with the
subject firm and its customer.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that workers of Greenville Metals, Inc., Powder Division,
Transfer, Pennsylvania did not meet the criteria for certification.
The second criterion of this section has not been met because
there was no increase in imports or a shift/acquisition by the
subject firm to/from abroad of articles like or directly
competitive with powdered metal products produced at the Transfer,
Pennsylvania facility.
The predominant portion of production at the subject firm is
exported; sales lost on the foreign market are not a basis for
certification of workers under the Trade Act which is related to
imports or shifts of production abroad.
Communication with the major declining customer of the subject
firm revealed that this customer did not increase imports of
finished articles containing like or directly competitive foreign
components. Thus increased imports did not contribute importantly
to worker separations at the subject firm.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that the workers of Greenville Metal Products, Inc.,
Powder Division, Transfer, Pennsylvania, did not meet the criteria
for certification as secondarily affected workers.
Criterion (2) of this section has not been met because the
workers did not produce an article or supply a service that was
used by a firm with TAA-certified workers in the production of an
article.
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), have not been satisfied
because the workers’ firm has not been identified in an affirmative
finding of injury by the ITC.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that workers of Greenville Metal
Products, Inc., Powder Division, Transfer, Pennsylvania are denied
eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of
the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 28th day of September, 2009


/s/Richard Church
______________________________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance





- 9 -