DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-70,078

EATON AVIATION CORPORATION
AVIATION AND AEROSPACE COMPONENTS DIVISION
AURORA, COLORADO

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 mis-
interpretation 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. 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 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, D.C., this 10th day of December, 2009



/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
______________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance

4510-FN-P



DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-70,078

EATON AVIATION CORPORATION
AVIATION AND AEROSPACE COMPONENTS DIVISION
AURORA, COLORADO

Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. § 2273, the Department of Labor herein
presents the results of an investigation regarding certification of
eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance.
Workers of a firm may be eligible for worker adjustment
assistance if they satisfy the criteria of subsection (a), (c) or
(f) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (c), (f). For
the Department of Labor to issue a certification for workers under
Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), the following three
criteria must be met:
I. The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2282(a)(1)) requires that a significant
number or proportion of the workers in the workers’ firm must
have become totally or partially separated or be threatened
with total or partial separation.

II. The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied in one of two
ways:
(A) Increased Imports Path:
(i) sales or production, or both, at the workers’ firm must
have decreased absolutely, AND
(ii) (I) imports of articles or services like or directly
competitive with articles or services produced or
supplied by the workers’ firm have increased, OR
(II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles into which the component
part produced by the workers’ firm was directly
incorporated have increased; OR
(II)(bb) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles which are produced
directly using the services supplied by the
workers’ firm have increased; OR
(III) imports of articles directly incorporating
component parts not produced in the U.S. that are
like or directly competitive with the article into
which the component part produced by the workers’
firm was directly incorporated have increased.

(B) Shift in Production or Supply Path:
(i)(I) there has been a shift by the workers’ firm to a
foreign country in the production of articles or supply
of services like or directly competitive with those
produced/supplied by the workers’ firm; OR
(i)(II) there has been an acquisition from a foreign country
by the workers’ firm of articles/services that are like
or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by
the workers’ firm.

III. The third criterion requires that the increase in imports or
shift/acquisition must have contributed importantly to the
workers’ separation or threat of separation. See Sections
222(a)(2)(A)(iii) and 222(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
§§ 2272(a)(2)(A)(iii), 2272(a)(2)(B)(ii).

Section 222(d) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(d), defines the
terms “Supplier“ and “Downstream Producer.“ For the Department to
issue a secondary worker certification under Section 222(c) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), to workers of a Supplier or a Downstream
Producer, the following criteria must be met:
(1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in the
workers’ firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm
have become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated;

(2) the workers’ firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer to
a firm that employed a group of workers who received a
certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), and such supply or production
is related to the article or service that was the basis
for such certification; and

(3) either
(A) the workers’ firm is a supplier and the component parts
it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2)
accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or
sales of the workers’ firm; or
(B) a loss of business by the workers’ firm with the firm
described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the
workers’ separation or threat of separation.

The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on May 18, 2009 by a company official on behalf of workers
of Eaton Aviation Corporation, Aviation and Aerospace Components
Division, Aurora, Colorado. The workers were engaged in
facilities maintenance related to closure preparation for the
subject firm.
Workers of Eaton Aviation Corporation, Aviation and
Aerospace Components Division, Aurora, Colorado were previously
certified for trade adjustment assistance (TAA) under petition
TA-W-60,965 which expired on May 1, 2009.
The petitioner alleges that the remaining workers on-site at
the facility have been affected by a shift in production of
aerospace components that began in 2006. Production ceased in
December 2007.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that criterion II and III were not met.
The subject firm did not import services like or directly
competitive with the services performed by the remaining workers
at the subject firm in 2007, 2008, or in January through May 2009
nor did they shift those services abroad during the relevant
period.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that criterion II has not been met.
The subject firm is not a supplier or downstream producer to a
firm with a TAA-certification.
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), have not been satisfied
because the workers’ firm has not been identified in an affirmative
finding of injury by the ITC.


Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that workers of Eaton Aviation in the
Aviation and Aerospace Components Division, Aurora, Colorado,
engaged in facilities maintenance related to closure preparation
are denied eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance under
Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.


Signed in Washington, D.C., this 28th day of August, 2009.


/s/Linda G. Poole
______________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance



- 6 -