[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 49 (Friday, March 12, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11882-11883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-5613]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-53,084]


Eaton Corporation, Watertown, WI; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of December 19, 2003, a petitioner requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's

[[Page 11883]]

negative determination regarding eligibility for workers and former 
workers of the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance 
(TAA). The denial notice was published in the Federal Register on 
December 29, 2003 (68 FR 74977).
    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 TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at Eaton Corporation, 
Watertown, Wisconsin engaged in the production of printed circuit 
boards, was denied because criteria I.C and II.B and the ``contributed 
importantly'' group eligibility requirement of Section 222 of the Trade 
Act of 1974, as amended, were not met. The ``contributed importantly'' 
test is generally demonstrated through a survey of the workers' firm's 
customers. It was revealed that printed circuit boards produced by the 
subject firm are used internally within the Eaton Corporation. The 
survey of affiliated plants which receive the vast majority of the 
subject firm's products revealed no imports of like or directly 
competitive products. The subject firm has not shifted production of 
printed circuit boards abroad during the relevant period.
    The petitioner alleges that the company shifted several production 
lines abroad. In particular, the petitioner alleges that while the 
printed circuit boards are processed at the subject firm, the final 
assembly of arc fault circuit breaker is completed at a plant in 
Mexico.
    A company official was contacted in regard to these allegations. 
The official clarified that the automation process of production of arc 
fault circuit breakers was and is currently done by Eaton Corporation 
in Watertown, Wisconsin, while the manual assembly work has always been 
performed in Mexico and never in Watertown, Wisconsin. There never was 
a shift of arc fault circuit breaker production from the subject 
facility abroad.
    The petitioner also alleges that there was a shift in the final 
assembly of Westinghouse products from the subject firm to Canada in 
the relevant period.
    The official stated that the final assembly for the Westinghouse 
electronic assembly line was transferred to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 
1996-1997. This process stayed in Pittsburgh for approximately three 
years and then was moved to Calgary, Canada.
    Finally, the petitioner alleges that the production of truck, which 
represented about one-third of the production of the Watertown 
facility, went to Motorola and possibly abroad.
    The official reported that in 2000, the truck printed circuit board 
business was requoted and was removed from the Watertown, Wisconsin 
location. Motorola was awarded the business, and manufactured this 
product in the USA (Texas). It was revealed that Watertown facility has 
the same amount of printed circuit board business as it had in 2000. 
Finally, the official confirmed directly that there was no shift in 
production from the subject firm to any facility abroad in the relevant 
period.

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 decisions. Accordingly, the application is denied.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th day of February, 2003.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 04-5613 Filed 3-11-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P