Eaton Aviation Corporation, Aviation and Aerospace Components Division, Aurora, CO; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 67912-67913 [E9-30251]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
67912
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 243 / Monday, December 21, 2009 / Notices
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
(3) if in the opinion of the Certifying
Officer, a misinterpretation of facts or of
the law justified reconsideration of the
decision.
The initial investigation resulted in a
negative determination, based on the
finding that imports of graphite and
carbon parts did not contribute to
worker separations at the subject facility
and there was no shift in production
from the subject firm to foreign country
during the period under investigation.
The ‘‘contributed importantly’’ test is
generally demonstrated through a
survey of the workers’ firm’s declining
customers. The survey revealed no
imports of graphite and carbon parts by
declining customers during the relevant
period. The subject firm did not import
graphite and carbon parts nor shift
production to a foreign country during
the relevant period.
The petitioner states that workers of
the subject firm indirectly supplied
parts that were integral in petroleum
production. The petitioner further states
that demand for drilling equipment has
diminished because of the new fuel
efficiency standards and seems to allege
that the workers of the subject firm
should be eligible for TAA as secondary
impacted workers under Section 222(c).
For the Department to issue a
secondary worker certification under
Section 222(c), to workers of a
secondary upstream supplier, the
subject firm must produce for a certified
customer a component part of the article
that was the basis for the customers’
certification.
In this case, however, the subject firm
does not act as an upstream supplier,
because graphite and carbon parts do
not form a component part of petroleum
products. Thus the subject firm workers
are not eligible under secondary impact
as suppliers to companies producing
petroleum fuel.
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:14 Dec 18, 2009
Jkt 220001
Labor’s prior decision. Accordingly, the
application is denied.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 10th day of
December, 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9–30252 Filed 12–18–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
E:\FR\FM\21DEN1.SGM
21DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 243 / Monday, December 21, 2009 / Notices
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
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Petitions for Modification
AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health
Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Notice of petitions for
modification of existing mandatory
safety standards.
SUMMARY: Section 101(c) of the Federal
Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:14 Dec 18, 2009
Jkt 220001
30 CFR Part 44 govern the application,
processing, and disposition of petitions
for modification. This notice is a
summary of petitions for modification
filed by the parties listed below to
modify the application of existing
mandatory safety standards published
in Title 30 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
DATES: All comments on the petitions
must be received by the Office of
Standards, Regulations and Variances
on or before January 20, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit your
comments, identified by ‘‘docket
number’’ on the subject line, by any of
the following methods:
1. Electronic Mail: StandardsPetitions@dol.gov.
2. Facsimile: 1–202–693–9441.
3. Regular Mail: MSHA, Office of
Standards, Regulations and Variances,
1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350,
Arlington, Virginia 22209, Attention:
Patricia W. Silvey, Director, Office of
Standards, Regulations and Variances.
4. Hand-Delivery or Courier: MSHA,
Office of Standards, Regulations and
Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard,
Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209,
Attention: Patricia W. Silvey, Director,
Office of Standards, Regulations and
Variances.
MSHA will consider only comments
postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or
proof of delivery from another delivery
service such as UPS or Federal Express
on or before the deadline for comments.
Individuals who submit comments by
hand-delivery are required to check in
at the receptionist desk on the 21st
floor.
Individuals may inspect copies of the
petitions and comments during normal
business hours at the address listed
above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Barbara Barron, Office of Standards,
Regulations and Variances at 202–693–
9447 (Voice), barron.barbara@dol.gov
(E-mail), or 202–693–9441 (Telefax).
[These are not toll-free numbers].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine
Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine
Act) allows the mine operator or
representative of miners to file a
petition to modify the application of any
mandatory safety standard to a coal or
other mine if the Secretary determines
that: (1) An alternative method of
achieving the result of such standard
exists which will at all times guarantee
no less than the same measure of
protection afforded the miners of such
mine by such standard; or (2) that the
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
67913
application of such standard to such
mine will result in a diminution of
safety to the miners in such mine. In
addition, the regulations at 30 CFR
44.10 and 44.11 establish the
requirements and procedures for filing
petitions for modification.
II. Petitions for Modification
Docket Number: M–2009–020–C.
Petitioner: Consolidation Coal
Company, 1800 Washington Road,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15241.
Mine: Blacksville No. 2 Mine, MSHA
I.D. No. 46–01968, located in
Monongalia County, West Virginia.
Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1700
(Oil and gas wells).
Modification Request: The petitioner
requests a modification of the existing
standard to permit an alternative
method of compliance with respect to
vertical Coal Bed Methane (CBM)
degasification wells with horizontal
laterals into the underground coal seam.
The petitioner proposes to plug
vertically drilled CBM degasification
wells in order to mine through them.
The petitioner states that: (1) Prior to the
anticipated mine through, the borehole
will be filled with cementatious grout,
polyurethane grout, silica gel, flexible
gel, or another material approved by the
District Manager; (2) a packer with a
one-way check valve, will be installed at
a location in the borehole to ensure that
an appropriate amount of the borehole
is filled with the plugging material, and
any water present in the borehole will
be tested for chlorides prior to plugging;
(3) a directional deviation survey
completed during the drilling of the
borehole will be used to determine the
location of the borehole within the coal
seam; (4) where suitable plugging
procedures have not yet been developed
or are impractical, water infusion and
ventilation of vertical CBM wells with
horizontal laterals may be used in lieu
of plugging; (5) when mining through a
CBM degasification well with horizontal
laterals, the operator will notify the
District Manager or designee prior to
mining within 300 feet of the well, and
when a specific plan is developed for
mining through each well; (6) when
using the continuous mining method,
drivage sights will be installed at the
last open crosscut near the place to be
mined to ensure intersection of the well.
The drivage sights will not be more than
250 feet from the well. When using the
longwall mining method, drivage sights
will be installed on 10-foot centers, 50
feet in advance of the initial anticipated
intersection of the well, in both the
headgate and tailgate entry; (7)
firefighting equipment, including fire
extinguishers, rock dust, and enough
E:\FR\FM\21DEN1.SGM
21DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 243 (Monday, December 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67912-67913]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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
