DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-41,695

P.C.C. AIRFOILS, INC.
MINERVA, OHIO

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application received on September 18, 2002, petitioners
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
P.C.C. Airfoils, Inc., Minerva, Ohio was signed on August 26,
2002, and published in the Federal Register on September 10, 2002
(67 FR 57455).
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 P.C.C.
Airfoils, Inc., Minerva, Ohio, engaged in activities related to
blades and vanes for aerospace and land based turbo engines, was
denied because the "contributed importantly" group eligibility
requirement of Section 222(3) of the Trade Act was not met. The
contributed importantly test is generally demonstrated through a
survey of customers of the workers' firm. Results of the survey
revealed that customers did not increase their imports of
competitive products during the relevant period. The subject
firm did not import blades and vanes for aerospace and land based
turbo engines during the relevant period. A domestic shift in
production was cited as the cause of layoffs.
In requesting reconsideration, the petitioner(s) alleged
that production equipment had been moved from the subject
facility to an offshore facility. The petitioners further allege
that company officials told them that their production work was
shifting to this facility.
Upon contact with a company official, it was confirmed that
the production equipment that was moved was shipped to the
domestic facility cited in the original investigation. Further,
it was confirmed that all production work that was shifted from
the subject facility was transferred to this same domestic
facility.
The petitioners also appear to claim that the company has
purchased duplicate tooling for a foreign facility for the
purpose of producing products like or directly competitive with
those produced at the subject firm.
Upon further review, it was revealed that the foreign
facility mentioned does not produce products like or directly
competitive with those produced by the subject firm.
Finally, the petitioners state that employees had been told
by company officials that the "finishing department will never
return to Minerva".
Although the petitioners' claim in this instance may be
correct, it is irrelevant, as it has already been established
that production of like or directly competitive products shifted
to a domestic facility. No plant production shifted to a foreign
facility.
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 February 2003.
/s/ Edward A. Tomchick


EDWARD A. TOMCHICK
Director, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance