Tower Automotive Milwaukee, LLC, Milwaukee Business Unit, a Division of Tower Automotive, Inc., Milwaukee, WI; Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 25852-25853 [E5-2426]
Download as PDF
25852
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 93 / Monday, May 16, 2005 / Notices
that Roseburg respond to the petitioner’s
allegation. According to the company
officials, the decline in the fourth
quarter of 2004 was a seasonal decline
due to difficulties of the building trades
during extremely harsh winter
conditions. Further, workers who were
separated during the building lull are
usually re-hired once the orders
increase as the weather becomes less
inclement.
The Department conducts its petition
investigations for the one year period
prior to the date of the petition. In this
case the petition for workers of
Roseburg Forest Products Particleboard
Plant, Roseburg, Oregon, was dated
January 11, 2005. Although the
company concurs that there was decline
in production during the forth quarter of
2004, during the full year 2004 both
sales and production at the subject firm
increased.
Conclusion
After reconsideration, I affirm the
original notice of negative
determination of eligibility to apply for
worker adjustment assistance for
workers and former workers of Roseburg
Forest Products, Particleboard Plant, a
Subsidiary of RLC Industries, Roseburg,
Oregon.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 6th day of
May 2005.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–2425 Filed 5–13–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–56,917]
S&H Precision Mfg. Co. Inc.;
Newmarket, NH; Notice of Termination
of Investigation
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on April 7,
2005 in response to a petition filed by
a company official on behalf of workers
at S&H Precision Mfg. Co. Inc.,
Newmarket, New Hampshire.
The petitioner has requested that the
petition be withdrawn. Consequently,
the investigation has been terminated.
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:37 May 13, 2005
Jkt 205001
Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th day of
April, 2005.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–2431 Filed 5–13–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–56,369]
Tower Automotive Milwaukee, LLC,
Milwaukee Business Unit, a Division of
Tower Automotive, Inc., Milwaukee, WI;
Negative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration
By application of April 13, 2005, a
petitioner requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department’s
negative determination regarding
eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers
and former workers of the subject firm.
The denial notice was signed on March
15, 2005, and was published in the
Federal Register on May 2, 2005 (70FR
22710).
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 mis-interpretation of facts or
of the law justified reconsideration of
the decision.
The petition for the workers of Tower
Automotive Milwaukee, LLC,
Milwaukee Business Unit, a Division of
Tower Automotive, Inc., Milwaukee,
Wisconsin engaged in production of
automotive stampings and frames was
denied because the ‘‘contributed
importantly’’ group eligibility
requirement of Section 222 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, was not met,
nor was there a shift in production from
that firm to a foreign country.
The ‘‘contributed importantly’’ test is
generally demonstrated through a
survey of the workers’ firm’s customers.
The survey revealed no increase in
imports of automotive stampings and
frames during the relevant period. The
subject firm did not import automotive
stampings or frames in the relevant
period.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The petitioner alleges that the subject
firm is planning to move production of
the Dodge RAM light truck frame
assembly ‘‘from Milwaukee to Tower
Automotive’s joint venture partner’’ in
Mexico in mid-2005.
An official of Tower Automotive was
contacted in regards to this allegation.
The company official stated that Tower
Automotive is not ‘‘shifting its
production of Dodge RAM light truck
frame assembly from Milwaukee to
Mexico.’’ Tower Automotive will no
longer be producing the Dodge RAM
light truck frame beginning with the
2006 model year in Milwaukee or
anywhere else. The production will end
during the period of June 29, 2005 to
July 12, 2005. The official further stated
that Dodge RAM light truck frame will,
however, be produced in Mexico by a
different company for the subject firm’s
customer. It was further revealed that
the production of the frame in Mexico
by the other company will
approximately coincide with when
Tower Automotive ceases production of
the frame in Milwaukee.
The Department considers import
impact for the relevant period of the
investigation, which is the one year
prior to the date of the petition. In this
case, the petition was dated January 19,
2005, and events that may occur in
June-July of 2005 are outside of the
scope of the investigation. As noted
above, the petition investigation
determined that there were no increased
imports of automotive stampings and
frames during the relevant time period.
The petitioner further states that the
subject firm’s customers are importing
automotive stampings and frames and,
thus, these imports have contributed to
the threat of separation of workers of the
subject firm. As a proof, the petitioner
attached correspondence and a Bill of
Lading for ‘‘Body autoparts chassis’’
dated January 11, 2005, showing Mexico
as the point of origin of the parts.
A Tower Automotive official for the
Milwaukee facility confirmed that its
customer has been purchasing frames
from Mexico. For convenience, the
customer is shipping them to its
domestic assembly plant through Tower
Automotive’s sequencing center.
The review of the investigation file for
this petition confirmed that this
declining customer is indeed importing
automotive stampings and frames.
However, the survey shows a decrease
in import purchases of automotive
stampings and frames and an increase in
purchases from the subject firm during
the relevant period.
The petitioner is encouraged to file a
new petition should conditions change.
E:\FR\FM\16MYN1.SGM
16MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 93 / Monday, May 16, 2005 / Notices
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 5th day of
May, 2005.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–2426 Filed 5–13–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–56,728]
Alcan Packaging, Including Leased
Workers of HTSS, Allied Personnel
Services, Aerotek, On Assignment
(Lab Support), Barton Associates,
Synerfac Technical Staffing, Remedy
Intelligent Staffing, Accountemps,
Office Team, Kelly Services,
Manpower, and Centrix, Bethlehem,
PA; Amended Certification Regarding
Eligibility to Apply for Worker
Adjustment Assistance and Alternative
Trade Adjustment Assistance
In accordance with Section 223 of the
Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the
Department of Labor issued a
Certification of Eligibility to Apply for
Worker Adjustment Assistance and
Alternative Trade Adjustment
Assistance on April 20, 2005, applicable
to workers of Alcan Packaging,
including leased workers of HTSS,
Allied Personnel Services, Aerotek, On
Assignment (Lab Support), Barton
Associates, Synerfac Technical Staffing,
Remedy Intelligent Staffing,
Accountemps and Office Team,
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The notice
will be published soon in the Federal
Register.
At the request of the State agency, the
Department reviewed the certification
for workers of the subject firm. New
information shows that leased workers
of Kelly Services, Manpower and
Centrix were employed at the
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania location of
Alcan Packaging.
Based on these findings, the
Department is amending this
certification to include leased workers
of Kelly Services, Manpower and
Centrix working at Alcan Packaging,
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:37 May 13, 2005
Jkt 205001
The intent of the Department’s
certification is to include all workers
employed at Alcan Packaging Company
who were adversely affected by a shift
in production to Canada.
The amended notice applicable to
TAW–56,728 is hereby issued as
follows:
All workers of Alcan Packaging,
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, including on-site
leased workers from HTSS, Aerotek, On
Assignment (Lab Support), Barton
Associated, Synerfac Technical Staffing,
Remedy Intelligent Staffing, Accountemps,
Office Team, Kelly Services, Manpower, and
Centrix, who became totally or partially
separated from employment on or after
March 9, 2004, through September 20, 2007,
are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance
under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974,
and are also eligible to apply for alternative
trade adjustment assistance under Section
246 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of
April, 2005.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–2406 Filed 5–13–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–57,037]
Ametek, U.S. Gauge; Bartow, FL;
Notice of Termination of Investigation
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on April 25,
2005 in response to a petition filed by
a company official on behalf of workers
at Ametek, U.S. Gauge, Bartow, Florida.
The petitioner has requested that the
petition be withdrawn. Consequently,
the investigation has been terminated.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of
April, 2005.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–2421 Filed 5–13–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
PO 00000
25853
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–56,708]
AVX Corporation, Subsidiary of
Kyocera Corporation, Including OnSite Leased Workers of Express
Personnel Services, Raleigh, NC;
Notice of Revised Determination on
Reconsideration of Alternative Trade
Adjustment Assistance
By letter dated April 25, 2005, the
United Steel Workers of America, Local
1028T requested administrative
reconsideration regarding Alternative
Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA)
applicable to workers of the subject
firm. The negative determination was
signed on March 25, 2005, and amended
on April 25, 2005, and will soon be
published in the Federal Register.
The workers of AVX Corporation,
subsidiary of Kyocera Corporation,
including on-site leased workers of
Express Personnel Services, Raleigh,
North Carolina were certified eligible to
apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA) on March 25, 2005.
The initial ATAA investigation
determined that the skills of the subject
worker group are easily transferable to
other positions in the local area.
The petitioner provided additional
information regarding the skills of the
workers of the subject firm and the
current situation in the electronics
industry in the local area.
Upon further contacts with the
company official it was confirmed that
the skills of the workers at the subject
firm are not easily transferable in the
local commuting area.
Additional investigation has
determined that the workers possess
skills that are not easily transferable. A
significant number or proportion of the
worker group are age fifty years or over.
Competitive conditions within the
industry are adverse.
Conclusion
After careful review of the additional
facts obtained on reconsideration, I
conclude that the requirements of
Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended, have been met for workers at
the subject firm.
In accordance with the provisions of
the Act, I make the following
certification:
All workers of AVX Corporation,
subsidiary of Kyocera Corporation, including
on-site leased workers of Express Personnel
Services, Raleigh, North Carolina, who
became totally or partially separated from
employment on or after March 8, 2004
Frm 00052
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\16MYN1.SGM
16MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 93 (Monday, May 16, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25852-25853]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-2426]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-56,369]
Tower Automotive Milwaukee, LLC, Milwaukee Business Unit, a
Division of Tower Automotive, Inc., Milwaukee, WI; Negative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application of April 13, 2005, a petitioner requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative
determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the
subject firm. The denial notice was signed on March 15, 2005, and was
published in the Federal Register on May 2, 2005 (70FR 22710).
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 mis-
interpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the
decision.
The petition for the workers of Tower Automotive Milwaukee, LLC,
Milwaukee Business Unit, a Division of Tower Automotive, Inc.,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin engaged in production of automotive stampings and
frames was denied because the ``contributed importantly'' group
eligibility requirement of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended, was not met, nor was there a shift in production from that
firm to a foreign country.
The ``contributed importantly'' test is generally demonstrated
through a survey of the workers' firm's customers. The survey revealed
no increase in imports of automotive stampings and frames during the
relevant period. The subject firm did not import automotive stampings
or frames in the relevant period.
The petitioner alleges that the subject firm is planning to move
production of the Dodge RAM light truck frame assembly ``from Milwaukee
to Tower Automotive's joint venture partner'' in Mexico in mid-2005.
An official of Tower Automotive was contacted in regards to this
allegation. The company official stated that Tower Automotive is not
``shifting its production of Dodge RAM light truck frame assembly from
Milwaukee to Mexico.'' Tower Automotive will no longer be producing the
Dodge RAM light truck frame beginning with the 2006 model year in
Milwaukee or anywhere else. The production will end during the period
of June 29, 2005 to July 12, 2005. The official further stated that
Dodge RAM light truck frame will, however, be produced in Mexico by a
different company for the subject firm's customer. It was further
revealed that the production of the frame in Mexico by the other
company will approximately coincide with when Tower Automotive ceases
production of the frame in Milwaukee.
The Department considers import impact for the relevant period of
the investigation, which is the one year prior to the date of the
petition. In this case, the petition was dated January 19, 2005, and
events that may occur in June-July of 2005 are outside of the scope of
the investigation. As noted above, the petition investigation
determined that there were no increased imports of automotive stampings
and frames during the relevant time period.
The petitioner further states that the subject firm's customers are
importing automotive stampings and frames and, thus, these imports have
contributed to the threat of separation of workers of the subject firm.
As a proof, the petitioner attached correspondence and a Bill of Lading
for ``Body autoparts chassis'' dated January 11, 2005, showing Mexico
as the point of origin of the parts.
A Tower Automotive official for the Milwaukee facility confirmed
that its customer has been purchasing frames from Mexico. For
convenience, the customer is shipping them to its domestic assembly
plant through Tower Automotive's sequencing center.
The review of the investigation file for this petition confirmed
that this declining customer is indeed importing automotive stampings
and frames. However, the survey shows a decrease in import purchases of
automotive stampings and frames and an increase in purchases from the
subject firm during the relevant period.
The petitioner is encouraged to file a new petition should
conditions change.
[[Page 25853]]
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 5th day of May, 2005.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5-2426 Filed 5-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P