Allied Signal Automotive Friction Materials, Troy, NY; Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration |
---|
|
Robert O. Deslongchamps (Federal Register)
January 7, 1994
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 5 (Friday, January 7, 1994)] [Unknown Section] [Page 0] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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