DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-50,737
AUSTIN POWDER COMPANY
BEND, OREGON

TA-W-50,737A
AUSTIN POWDER COMPANY
ROSEBURG, OREGON

TA-W-50,737B
AUSTIN POWDER COMPANY
CLEVELAND, OHIO


Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application of April 18, 2003, a state agency
representative 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 applicable to
workers of General Electric Industrial Systems, Drives and
Controls, Inc., Salem, Virginia was signed on March 11, 2003, and
published in the Federal Register on March 26, 2003 (68 FR
14706).
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 was filed on behalf of workers at Austin
Powder Company, Bend, Oregon engaged in storage and distribution
services. The petition was denied because the petitioning
workers did not produce an article within the meaning of Section
222(3) of the Act.
In the initial decision, the Department did not acknowledge
the state representative’s petition filing on behalf of workers
at two additional company facilities other than that of Austin
Powder, Bend, Oregon. These two additional facilities are Austin,
Powder, Roseburg, Oregon, and Austin Powder, Cleveland, Ohio.
Upon further review and contact with a company official, it
was revealed that workers at the Roseburg facility perform
distribution services and the Cleveland, Ohio facility serves as
the corporate headquarters. No production occurs at either
facility.
Only in very limited instances are service workers certified
for TAA, namely the worker separations must be caused by a
reduced demand for their services from a parent or controlling
firm or subdivision whose workers produce an article and who are
currently under certification for TAA.


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 13th day of June, 2003.
/s/ Elliott S. Kushner

___________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance