94-324. Allied Signal Automotive Friction Materials, Troy, NY; Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 5 (Friday, January 7, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1032-1033]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-324]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: January 7, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-28,672]

 

Allied Signal Automotive Friction Materials, Troy, NY; Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By an application dated October 21, 1993, the company requested 
administrative reconsideration of the subject petition for trade 
adjustment assistance, TAA. The denial notice was published in the 
Federal Register on September 22, 1993 (58 FR 49321).
    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.
    Investigation findings show that the workers produce automotive and 
truck friction materials.
    The Department's denial was based on the fact that the 
``contributed importantly'' test of the Group Eligibility Requirements 
of the Trade Act was not met. The ``contributed importantly'' test is 
generally demonstrated through a survey of the firm's major customers. 
The Department's survey of the subject firm major declining customers 
shows that none of the respondents imported automotive or truck 
friction materials in the relevant period.
    Your petition indicates approximately 100 workers were laid off on 
October 8, 1990. These workers are covered under the certification the 
Department issued on July 3, 1991, TA-W-25,766.
    Investigation findings show that the worker separations in 1993 
involved the Engineering Department. However, that Department is being 
consolidated with an affiliate plant in Ohio. A domestic transfer of 
operations would not form a basis for a worker group certification.
    Further, your amended sales data shows either increased or constant 
sales and production of drum segments and cerametalix in 1992 compared 
to 1991 and in the first six months of 1993 compared to the same period 
in 1992. All manufacturing on medium and heavy truck disc brakes ceased 
in October, 1992. Worker separations resulting from the cessation of 
production on truck disc brakes in 1992 would have been covered under 
TA-W-25,766.
    Domesitc production from a foreign owned plant (transplant 
production) would not form a basis for a worker group certification. 
Such production is not considered an import.
    With respect to Allied Signal's lost bids, most occurred when the 
plant was under a worker group certification. Further, by the company's 
own admission, there were some company imports of friction materials 
but these were products which either were not available at Troy or for 
which retooling in the U.S. would be uneconomic.

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 27th day of December 1993.
Robert O. Deslongchamps,
Director, Office of Legislation & Actuarial Service, Unemployment 
Insurance Service.
[FR Doc. 94-324 Filed 1-6-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M