Specialty Bar Products Company; A Subsidiary of Doncasters, Inc., Blairsville, PA; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration, 40644 [2012-16735]

Download as PDF 40644 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2012 / Notices [FR Doc. 2012–16745 Filed 7–9–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–80,511] mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Specialty Bar Products Company; A Subsidiary of Doncasters, Inc., Blairsville, PA; 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:28 Jul 09, 2012 Jkt 226001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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, DC, on this 26th day of June, 2012. Del Min Amy Chen, Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. 2012–16735 Filed 7–9–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–81,047, TA–W–81,047A] ERA Systems, LLC, Formerly ERA Systems Corporation, a Subsidiary of Systems Research and Applications Corporation, 6647 Old Thompson Road, Syracuse, NY; ERA Systems, LLC, Formerly ERA Systems Corporation, a Subsidiary of Systems Research and Applications Corporation, 6712 Brooklawn Parkway, Suite 106, Syracuse, NY; Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration The initial investigation, initiated on November 2, 2011, resulted in a negative determination, issued on January 13, 2012. The determination was applicable to workers and former workers of Era Systems, LLC, formerly Era Systems Corporation, a subsidiary of Systems Research and Applications Corporation, Syracuse, New York. The notice of the Affirmative Determination Regarding the Application for Reconsideration was published in the Federal Register on February 28, 2012 (77 FR 12080). During the reconsideration investigation, the Department clarified the worker group. Specifically, the Department determined that the subject worker group consists of workers and former workers of Era Systems, LLC, formerly Era Systems Corporation, a subsidiary of Systems Research and Applications Corporation, 6647 Old Thompson Road, Syracuse, New York (TA–W–81,047) and Era Systems, LLC, formerly Era Systems Corporation, a subsidiary of Systems Research and Applications Corporation, 6712 Brooklawn Parkway, Suite 106, Syracuse, New York (TA–W–81,047A). Both locations are engaged in activities related to the supply of research and development services for air traffic components and software used for tracking and transmitting flight-related data. E:\FR\FM\10JYN1.SGM 10JYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 40644]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16735]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-80,511]


Specialty Bar Products Company; A Subsidiary of Doncasters, Inc., 
Blairsville, PA; 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, DC, on this 26th day of June, 2012.
 Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2012-16735 Filed 7-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P