[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 28 (Friday, February 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8065-8066]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3404]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-29,927; NAFTA-00120]


Walker Manufacturing Company Hebron, Ohio; Negative Determination 
on Reconsideration

    On December 14, 1994 the United States Court of International Trade 
(USCIT) granted the Secretary of Labor's motion for a voluntary remand 
for further investigation in UAW Local 1927 and Employees and Former 
Employees of Walker Manufacturing v. Secretary of Labor (94-10-00584).
    The workers filing under petition TA-W-29,927 were initially denied 
eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance (TAA) on September 
2, 1994 (59 FR 45711) and denied on application for reconsideration on 
October 5, 1994 (59 52194). The Department's denial was based on the 
fact that increased import criterion and the ``contributed 
importantly'' test of the Worker Group Eligibility Requirements of the 
Trade Act were not met. U.S. imports of mufflers and exhaust pipes 
declined in 1993 compared to 1992 and in the latest twelve month period 
ending in May 1994 compared to the same twelve month period ending in 
May 1993.
    The ``contributed importantly'' test is generally demonstrated 
through a survey of the workers' firm's customers. The Department's 
survey of Hebron's sole customer shows that the sole customer's import 
purchases were not important relative to Hebron's sales during the 
relevant period.
    The workers were also denied under the NAFTA petition (NAFTA-00120) 
on June 30, 1994 (59 FR 3997) and on reconsideration on October 7, 1994 
(59 FR 53213). The Department's denial was based on the fact that 
neither the increased import criterion from Mexico or Canada nor the 
shift in production to Mexico or Canada criterion of the Worker Group 
Eligibility Requirements of the NAFTA provisions of the Trade Act were 
met.
    The record states that the Ohio Bureau of Employment Security 
(OBES) made a preliminary finding that the employment and production 
decline and the aggregate import criteria had been met. Under the 
NAFTA-TAA provisions, the State does not make a finding on the 
``contributed importantly'' test.
    On remand the Department contacted the plaintiff's counsel, and 
other witnesses to provide the Department with any information or 
documentation that would contradict the Department's negative 
determinations. The plaintiffs indicated that about 50 resonator 
workers were laid off in February, 1994 and that 40 percent of the 
plant's production was shipped to Mexico prior to the phasedown.
    The remand findings show that the Walker plant in Mexico does not 
produce any products for the workers' firm's only customer.
    The findings also show that no production was transferred to Mexico 
as a result of the closure of the Hebron plant. Only the production of 
resonator bodies was transferred to Canada; however, this accounted for 
only a very small portion of Hebron's total production and the workers 
were not separately identifiable by product. All other production was 
transferred to company owned domestic plants.
    The Department's survey showed that Hebron's customers did not 
decease their purchases of exhaust systems from Hebron and increase 
their imports from Mexico or Canada in the relevant period.
    The findings on remand show that as a result of the Hebron closure, 
the company is making its excess machinery available to other corporate 
North American plants including the one in Mexico. According to several 
company officials, the Hebron closing is the result of capacity issues 
within Walker Manufacturing in North America. [[Page 8066]] 
    The transfer of machinery from a domestic plant to a Mexican or 
Canadian plant would not form a basis for a worker group certification 
under the NAFTA provisions of the Trade Act. The NAFTA provisions to 
the Trade Act specifically state that there must be a transfer of 
production from a domestic firm to a Mexican or Canadian plant to be 
eligible to apply for transitional adjustment assistance, not machinery 
associated with that or any other type of production.
    Further, the Department has never considered in any of its 
investigations under the NAFTA provisions of the Trade Act that the 
transfer of machinery is tantamount to the transfer of production. 
Certification under the NAFTA provisions of the Trade Act is premised 
on increased imports of articles from Mexico or Canada that are like or 
directly competitive with those produced at the workers' firm or a 
shift in production to Mexico or Canada of articles that are like or 
directly competitive with those produced at the workers' firm. 
Accordingly a shift of machinery or other capital assets would not meet 
the shift in production criterion of the NAFTA Worker Group Eligibility 
Requirements.

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 27th day of January 1995.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Director, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-3404 Filed 2-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M