Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 18, 1995 / Notices 19413

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 shelflife.

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

[TA–W–30,683]

Amphenol Aerospace, Sidney, New

York; Amended Certification

Regarding Eligibility To Apply for

Worker Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with section 223 of the

Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 2273) the

Department of Labor issued a

Certification of Eligibility to Apply for

Worker Adjustment Assistance on

February 23, 1995 applicable to the

workers engaged in employment related

to the production of electrical

connectors at the subject firm.

The certification notice will soon be

published in the Federal Register.

At the request of the State Agency, the

Department reviewed the certification

for workers of the subject firm. The

findings show that a coverage overlap

exists between this certification and

TA–W–27,901 issued on January 26,

1993 for workers of the same worker

group in Sidney, New York.

Accordingly, the Department is

amending the subject certification to

reflect the proper coverage.

The amended notice applicable to

TA–W–30,683 is hereby issued as

follows:

‘‘All workers of Amphenol Aerospace,

Sidney, New York engaged in employment

related to the production of electrical

connectors who became totally or partially

separated from employment on or after

January 26, 1995 are eligibile to apply for

adjustment assistance under Section 223 of

the Trade Act of 1974.’’

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 7th day of

April, 1995.

Victor J. Trunzo,

Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment

Services, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 95–9562 Filed 4–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

[TA–W–30,734]

Artex Manufacturing Company, Inc.,

Yates Center, Kansas; Notice of

Termination of Investigation

Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade

Act of 1974, an investigation was

initiated on February 13, 1995 in

response to a worker petition which was

filed on January 30, 1995 on behalf of