DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,630

GENERAL DYNAMICS OTS (PENNSYLVANIA), INC.,
A SUBSIDIARY OF GENERAL DYNAMICS ORDNANCE
AND TACTICAL SYSTEMS, INC.
SCRANTON, PENNSYLVANIA


Notice of Negative Determination
After Statutory Reconsideration

As required by the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reauthorization
Act of 2015 (TAARA 2015), which was enacted as Title IV of the
Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law No. 114-27,
section 405(a)(1)(A), 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 TAARA 2015, to the
facts of this petition (statutory reconsideration).
The initial investigation, initiated November 6, 2014,
resulted in a negative determination, issued on November 18, 2014,
that was based on the finding that worker separations were
unrelated to foreign imports or foreign shifts abroad. The
determination was applicable to workers and former workers of
General Dynamics OTS (Pennsylvania), Inc., a subsidiary of
General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems, Inc., Scranton,
Pennsylvania. The workers’ firm is engaged in activities related
to the production of forged, machined, heavy steel, cylindrical
parts used in military applications.
Based on information reviewed during the statutory
reconsideration investigation, the Department of Labor determines
that imports of articles, shifts in production abroad, or
acquisitions of articles did not contribute importantly to worker
separations. Furthermore the worker group did not qualify as a
secondary worker or was affirmed in a final determination by the
United States International Trade Commission.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that imports of articles like or directly
competitive with forged, machined, heavy steel, cylindrical parts
by General Dynamics OTS (Pennsylvania), Inc., a subsidiary of
General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems, Inc., Scranton,
Pennsylvania, have not increased.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift the production
of forged, machined, heavy steel, cylindrical parts or a like or
directly competitive products to a foreign country or acquire
forged, machined, heavy steel, cylindrical parts or like or
directly competitive products from a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that General Dynamics OTS (Pennsylvania),
Inc., a subsidiary of General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical
Systems, Inc., Scranton, Pennsylvania, 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 General Dynamics OTS (Pennsylvania),
Inc., a subsidiary of General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical
Systems, Inc., Scranton, Pennsylvania, 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 either because Criterion
(1) has not been met since 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, 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 General
Dynamics OTS (Pennsylvania), Inc., a subsidiary of General
Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems, Inc., Scranton,
Pennsylvania, who were engaged in employment related to the
production of forged, machined, heavy steel, cylindrical parts to
apply for adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of
the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.

Signed in Washington, D.C. this 21st day of February, 2016.


/s/Jacquelyn R. Mendelsohn
______________________________
JACQUELYN R. MENDELSOHN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance




DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,630

GENERAL DYNAMICS OTS (PENNSYLVANIA), INC.,
A SUBSIDIARY OF GENERAL DYNAMICS ORDNANCE
AND TACTICAL SYSTEMS, INC.,
SCRANTON, 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 November 6, 2014 by the International Association of
Machinists & Aerospace Workers (IAMAW), Local Lodge 847, on behalf
of workers of General Dynamics OTS (Pennsylvania), Inc., a
subsidiary of General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems,
Inc., Scranton, Pennsylvania. The workers' firm is engaged in
activities related to the production of forged, machined, heavy
steel, cylindrical parts used in both commercial and military
applications.
The petitioner claimed that the firm had lost competitive
bids contributing to employment declines at the Scranton
facility. During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers' firm and the petitioning union
official.
With regard to Section 222(a)(2)(A) and Section 222(a)(2)(B)
of the Act, the investigation revealed that the worker
separations are not attributable to increased imports of articles
or a shift in production of articles to a foreign country.
Rather, the investigation confirmed that worker separations are
attributable to decreasing sales to the United States military.
With regard to Section 222(b) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that the workers' firm is not a Supplier or Downstream
Producer to a firm that employs a TAA-certified worker group.
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 General Dynamics
OTS (Pennsylvania), Inc., a subsidiary of General Dynamics
Ordnance and Tactical Systems, Inc., Scranton, Pennsylvania,
engaged in activities related to the production of forged,
machined, heavy steel, cylindrical parts 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 18th day of November, 2014.


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