DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-71,469
ACUTEC PRECISION MACHINING, INC.
SAEGERTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA

TA-W-71,469A
ACUTEC PRECISION MACHINGING, INC.
MEADVILLE, 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 June 30, 2009 on behalf of workers of Acutec Precision
Machining, Inc., Saegertown and Meadville, Pennsylvania. The
workers produce machined components, spare parts, and assembly
parts for the aerospace, power generation, and commercial
industries. The two production facilities are integrated.
The petitioners allege that worker separations are due to
outsourcing by the subject firm.
The investigation included obtaining written and oral
information from company officials, aggregate data from
government sources, and a survey from the subject firm's major
declining customers.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the
investigation revealed Criteria II and III have not been met.
Criterion II has not been met because the subject firm did
not shift production abroad or acquire like or directly
competitive articles from a foreign country in 2007, 2008, and
January to May, 2009. The subject firm also did not import
articles like or directly competitive with those produced by the
subject firm.
Additionally, the Department of Labor surveyed the subject
firm's principal customers regarding their purchases of
precision lathed component parts January to May 2008 and January
to May 2009. Results of the survey revealed those customers'
imports of articles like or directly competitive with those
produced by the subject firm declined and were negligible when
compared with the subject firm's total sales.
Analysis of United States' aggregate imports of articles
like or directly competitive with those produced by the subject
firm into the United States revealed that such imports were
declining in January to May 2009 over the corresponding period
in 2008.
Criteria III has not been met because the workers'
separation or threat of separation was not related to a shift in
production/acquisition abroad or any increase in articles like
or directly competitive with those produced by the subject firm.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Criterion II has not been met
because the workers did not produce an article that was used by
a firm with TAA-certified workers in the production of an
article or supply of a service that was the basis for TAA-
certification.
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 International Trade
Commission.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that workers of Acutec Precision
Machining, Inc., Saegertown (TA-W-71,469) and Meadville,
Pennsylvania (TA-W-71,469A) 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 24th day of February 2010



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