DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-80,511

SPECIALTY BAR PRODUCTS COMPANY
A SUBSIDIARY OF DONCASTERS, INC.
BLAIRSVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA

Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

On January 25, 2012, the Department of Labor issued an
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
for the workers and former workers of Specialty Bar Products
Company, a subsidiary of Doncasters, Inc., Blairsville,
Pennsylvania (subject firm). The Department’s Notice was published
in the Federal Register on February 8, 2012 (77 FR 6584). Workers
at the subject firm are engaged in activities related to the
production of pins, bushings, and gun blanks.
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 initial investigation resulted in a negative determination
based on the findings that the subject firm did not shift the
production of pins, bushings, or gun blanks (or like or directly
competitive articles) to a foreign country or acquire the
production of such articles from a foreign country. The
investigation also revealed that neither the subject firm nor its
customers imported articles like or directly competitive with those
produced by the subject firm.
The initial investigation also revealed that with respect to
Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the subject firm is neither a
Supplier nor 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).
The request for reconsideration stated that the subject firm
is owned by a company located in the United Kingdom, the subject
firm “provided products to international companies such as William
Cook Defense, Sheffield England” and due to “the international
corporate company in the United Kingdom, a significant decrease in
production orders resulted in reduction of work force within
Specialty Bar Products.”
Information obtained during the reconsideration investigation
confirmed that the subject workers are engaged in activities
related to the production of pins, bushings, and shotgun blanks,
and clarified that the subject firm does not produce firearms,
vehicles, or equipment that utilizes these articles.
Information obtained during the reconsideration investigation
also confirmed that the subject firm is owned by Doncasters Group
Ltd in Centrum, United Kingdom.
The reconsideration investigation also confirmed that the
subject firm did not shift the production of pins, bushings, or
shotgun blanks (or like or directly competitive articles) to a
foreign country or acquire the production of such articles from a
foreign country.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
obtained information which reflects that while William Cook Defense
is a customer, it was not a major declining customer. The customer
surveyed during the initial investigation constituted a significant
majority of the subject firm’s sales declines.
During the reconsideration, the Department confirmed that
neither the subject firm nor its major declining customer imported
articles like or directly competitive with those produced by the
subject firm. Specifically, the Department surveyed the subject
firm’s major declining customer in regard to imports of pins,
bushings, and shotgun blanks (or like or directly competitive
articles). The investigation revealed no such imports.
The investigation also revealed that with respect to Section
222(b)(2) of the Act, the subject firm is neither a Supplier nor
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).
Based on a careful review of information obtained during the
initial and reconsideration investigations, the Department
determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.
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 Specialty Bar
Products Company, a subsidiary of Doncasters, Inc., Blairsville,
Pennsylvania, to apply for adjustment assistance, in accordance
with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. on this 26th day of June, 2012
/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
_______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-FN-P


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-80,511

SPECIALTY BAR PRODUCTS COMPANY
A SUBSIDIARY OF DONCASTERS, INC.
BLAIRSVILLE, 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), (b) or
(e) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (b) and (e).
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
criteria must be met:
(1) 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.

(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) (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.
(iii) the increase in imports 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.

(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
(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; and
(ii) the shift described in clause (i)(I) or the acquisition
of articles or services described in clause (i)(II)
contributed importantly to such workers’ separation or
threat of separation.

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 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.

Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), defines the
terms “Supplier” and “Downstream Producer.”
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(e) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(e).
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm under
Section 222(e) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(e), 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 October 14, 2011 by three workers on behalf of workers of
Specialty Bar Products Company, a subsidiary of Doncasters, Inc.,
Blairsville, Pennsylvania. The workers’ firm is engaged in
activities related to the production of pins, bushings, gun blanks
used for the U. S. Department of Defense.
The petitioners alleged, “Separations have occurred through
cutbacks and management tactics, as well as moving major job
operations to other plants by new foreign ownership.”
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers’ firm, customers, and the petitioners.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that neither the subject firm or their
customers imported articles like or directly competitive with those
produced by Specialty Bar Products Company.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift the production
of pins, bushings, gun blanks or like or directly competitive
articles to a foreign country or acquire pins, bushings, gun blanks
or like or directly competitive articles from a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Specialty Bar Products Company is not 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).
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act, have not been satisfied the workers’ firm has
not been publicly 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 of the facts obtained in the
investigation, 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 Specialty Bar Products
Company, a subsidiary of Doncasters, Inc., Blairsville,
Pennsylvania engaged in activities related to the production of
pins, bushings, gun blanks to apply for adjustment assistance, in
accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 16th day of December, 2011


/s/Michael W. Jaffe
______________________________
MICHAEL W. JAFFE
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance






- 5 -