[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 30, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15171-15172]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-7730]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-34,803 and NAFTA-2574]
United Technologies Automotive, Bay City, Michigan; Notice of
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated January 5, 1999, petitioners requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative
determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment
[[Page 15172]]
Assistance (TAA) and NAFTA-Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-
TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The
denial notices applicable to workers of the subject firm located in Bay
City, Michigan, were signed on September 15, 1998. The TAA and NAFTA-
TAA decisions were published in the Federal Register on October 9, 1998
(63 FR 54495) and September 28, 1998 (63 FR 51606), respectively.
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 of United Technologies
Automotive, Bay City, Michigan, producing automotive interior trim was
denied because the ``contributed importantly'' group eligibility
requirement of Section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was
not met. The ``contributed importantly'' test is generally demonstrated
through a survey of the workers' firm's customers. The investigation
revealed that none of the subject firm customers reported increased
import purchases of articles like or directly competitive with those
produced at United Technologies Automotive's Bay City plant.
The NAFTA-TAA petition for the same worker group was denied because
criteria (3) and (4) of the group eligibility requirements in paragraph
(a)(1) of Section 250 of the Trade Act, as amended, were not met. There
was no shift of production from the subject firm to Canada or Mexico,
nor did the company import automotive interior trim from Canada or
Mexico. The subject firm is transferring production of automotive
interior trim to other domestic plants of United Technologies. The
Department conducted a survey of major customers of the subject firm
regarding purchases of automotive interior trim. The survey revealed
that the customers were not purchasing from Canada or Mexico automotive
interior trim like or directly competitive with that produced in Bay
City.
In support of their application for reconsideration, the
petitioners assert that ``tools and parts have been sent to Mexico and
these parts are then sent back to the United States.'' Shipping
information was attached to the application. The documents support
evidence of shipments being made from Bay City to Mexico and other
foreign countries, and thus must be considered exports. The Department
did however, request that the subject firm provided additional
information regarding the petitioners assertion that (1) machinery was
transferred from Bay City to Mexico, and (2) product is being imported
from Mexico. Review of the information provided by the subject firm
revealed that some presses and related equipment were sent to Mexico,
but the amount accounted for an insignificant portion of total Bay City
assets. The company official once again confirmed that all of the Bay
City automotive interior trim production was shifted to other domestic
plants of United Technologies, and that none of the production in
Mexico is returned to the United States.
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 decisions. Accordingly, the application is denied.
Signed at Washington, D.C. this 12th day of March 1999.
Grant D. Beale,
Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 99-7730 Filed 3-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
