[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
