[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 243 (Monday, December 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67912-67913]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-30251]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-70,078]


Eaton Aviation Corporation, Aviation and Aerospace Components 
Division, Aurora, CO; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding 
Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated September 21, 2009, a company official 
requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of 
the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). The 
denial notice was signed on August 28, 2009 and will soon be published 
in the Federal Register.
    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 
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of 
the decision.
    The TAA petition filed on behalf of workers at Eaton Aviation 
Corporation, Aviation and Aerospace Components Division, Aurora, 
Colorado was based on the finding that imports of services like or 
directly competitive with services provided by workers of the subject 
firm did not contribute to worker separations at the subject firm 
during the relevant period. The investigation revealed that workers of 
the subject firm were engaged in facilities maintenance related to the 
closing of the location, disposing of equipment and materials through 
sale or discard, and archiving paper manufacturing records. The subject 
firm did not import, nor acquire services from a foreign country and 
also did not shift the provision of these services to a foreign 
country.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner stated that 
workers of the subject firm were previously certified eligible for TAA 
based on a shift in production of aviation and aerospace parts and 
components to Mexico. The petitioner further stated that even though 
production of aviation and aerospace parts and components did not occur 
at the subject facility in the relevant period, workers of the subject 
firm were retained by the subject firm to close the plant ``through no 
fault or decision of their own.'' The petitioner appears to allege that 
because the subject firm asked the petitioning workers to remain 
employed at the subject facility beyond the expiration date of the 
previous certification, the workers of the subject firm should be 
granted another TAA certification.
    The workers of Eaton Aviation Corporation, Aviation and Aerospace 
Components Division, Aurora, Colorado were previously certified 
eligible for TAA under petition numbers TA-W-60,965, which expired on 
May 1, 2009. The investigation revealed that at that time workers of 
the subject firm were engaged in production of aviation and aerospace 
parts and components and the employment declines at the subject 
facility were attributed to a shift in production of aviation and 
aerospace parts and components to Mexico. The current investigation 
revealed that production of aviation and aerospace parts and components 
at the subject firm ceased in June, 2007.
    When assessing eligibility for TAA, the Department exclusively 
considers worker activities during the relevant period (from one year 
prior to the date of the petition). Therefore, events occurring in 2007 
are outside of the relevant period and are not considered in this 
investigation.
    The investigation revealed that workers of the subject firm were 
engaged in facilities maintenance, disposing of equipment and materials 
through sale or discard, and archiving paper manufacturing records 
during the relevant period. No production took place at the subject 
facility in 2008 and 2009. In order for workers of the subject firm to 
be eligible for TAA under Section 222(a), there has to be evidence of 
increased imports of services or a shift abroad in provision of 
services supplied by workers of the subject firm. The functions 
performed by workers of Eaton Aviation Corporation, Aviation and 
Aerospace Components Division, Aurora, Colorado, as described above, 
were not imported, or shifted abroad nor were the services acquired 
from a foreign country during the relevant period. Therefore, criteria 
II.A. and II.B.

[[Page 67913]]

of Section 222(a) of the Act were not met.
    Furthermore, because there were no imports of services supplied by 
workers of the subject firm and the subject firm did not shift 
facilities maintenance, disposing of equipment and materials through 
sale or discard, and archiving paper manufacturing records abroad, 
criterion II.C is not met. Imports or shift/acquisition in services 
provided by workers of the subject firm did not contribute importantly 
to the workers' separation.
    Furthermore, with the respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the 
investigation revealed that criterion 2 was not met because the workers 
did not supply a service that was used by a firm with TAA-certified 
workers in the production of an article or supply of a service that was 
a basis for TAA certification.
    The petitioner did not supply facts not previously considered; nor 
provide additional documentation indicating that there was either (1) a 
mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered or (2) 
a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justifying reconsideration 
of the initial determination.
    After careful review of the request for reconsideration, the 
Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.

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, DC, this 10th day of December, 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-30251 Filed 12-18-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P