[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9557]



[[Page 19413]]

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-27,496]


Allied-Signal Aerospace Company, Garrett Fluid Systems Division, 
Tempe, AZ; Negative Determination On Reconsideration

    On November 18, 1994 the United States Court of International Trade 
(USCIT) remanded for further investigation the Department's negative 
determination for workers at the subject firm in Bennett v. Secretary 
of Labor (93-02-00080).
    The workers filing under petition TA-W-29,426 were initially denied 
eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance (TAA) on September 
18, 1992. The notice was published in the Federal Register on October 
13, 1992 (57 FR 46880). The workers were denied on application for 
reconsideration on December 4, 1992. This notice was published in the 
Federal Register on December 11, 1992 (57 FR 58826).
    The Department's denial was based on the fact that the increased 
import criterion and the ``contributed importantly'' test of the Worker 
Group Eligibility Requirements of the Trade Act were not met. U.S. 
imports of parts for military aircraft decreased in the latest 12-month 
period May through April 1991-1992 compared with the same period in 
1990-1991.
    The ``contributed importantly'' test is generally demonstrated 
through a survey of the workers' firm's customers. The Department 
conducted a bid survey on 11 major customers of Allied Signal for 
engine starters, valve, actuation systems and aerospace hardware. The 
survey showed no foreign impact since the successful awardees were all 
domestic firms.
    The petition shows that the workers in question were from the Tool 
Room which did not produce an article which actually went on the 
market. The Tool Room is a support group to production operations.
    Other findings show that the production workers were not separately 
identifiable by product and that only a negligible amount of production 
was shifted to Singapore. The findings also show that sales are equal 
to production. None of the systems produced at Tempe were produced for 
inventory or shelf-life.
    The Department, on reconsideration, was able to contact most of 
persons indicated on petitioner Jeffrey Whitehead petition attachment. 
None of the company officials or former company officials had any 
evidence which would contradict the Department's negative decision.
    Also, a reconsideration, the Department obtained a breakout of 
Tempe's sales for 1990, 1991 and 1992 together with Tempe's purchases 
from Singapore. All of Singapore's sales went to Allied Signal at 
Tempe. Tempe's purchases from Singapore declined in 1991 and 1992 
compared to the year immediately prior. Although production was 
resourced to Singapore, the major share came from Allied Signal's 
outside domestic subcontractors and as such did not have any adverse 
effect on Allied Signal's Tempe facility.
    Further, Tempe's purchases from Singapore were insignificant when 
compared to total Tempe's sales and would not form a basis for a worker 
group certification. Tempe's Singapore purchases accounted for only 1.4 
percent of Tempe's sales in both 1990 and 1991 and declined to 1.2 
percent of Tempe's sales in 1992.
    Tempe's sales in 1992 were relatively constant declining only about 
1.2 percent compared to 1991. Some major categories of sales (pneumatic 
systems and jet engine starters) actually increased in 1992 compared to 
1991.
    Certification under the Trade Act of 1974 is based on increased 
imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with those 
articles produced at the workers' firm. The subject firm produces 
mainly pneumatic systems, engine starters, air valve systems and 
actuation systems for the aerospace industry. The shipment of tooling 
(holding fixtures and gauges) and the construction of new tooling for 
the Singapore plant would not form a basis for a worker group 
certification. Tooling and the shipment of capital goods to Singapore 
are not like or directly competitive with the articles produced at 
Tempe which go into the market as final articles or systems. Much of 
the weight behind the petitioners allegations comes from a former tool 
room supervisor who was contacted but could not provide any 
documentation or evidence to support the petitioners' claim.
    The findings show that worker separations occurred because of 
corporate reorganizing and redesigning.

Conclusion

    After review of the application and investigative findings, I 
conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law 
or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department 
of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied.

    Signed at Washington, D.C., this 3rd day of April, 1995.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Director, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-9557 Filed 4-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M