[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