[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 9, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23732-23733]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11628]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-38,461 and NAFTA-4357]


Oxford Automotive, Argos, Indiana; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of February 1, 2001, the International Union, United 
Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America 
(UAW), Local 2088, request administrative reconsideration of the 
Department's negative determination regarding eligibility for workers 
and former workers of the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment 
Assistance (TAA) and North American Free Trade Agreement-Transitional 
Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-TAA). The denial notices applicable to 
workers of Oxford Automotive, Argos, Indiana, were signed on January 
24, 2001. The TAA decision will soon be published in the Federal 
Register. The notice for the NAFTA-TAA decision was published in the 
Federal Register on February 20, 2001 (66 FR 10917).
    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 producing side panels 
for vehicles in Argos, Indiana, was denied because the ``contributed 
importantly'' criterion of the group eligibility requirements of 
Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met. The 
primary customer of the subject firm is going to produce the side 
panels at their own U.S. plants and ceased doing business with Oxford 
Automotive.
    The NAFTA-TAA petition for the same worker group was defined 
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 were no company or customer imports from Mexico or Canada of 
side panels for vehicles. The subject firm did not shift the production 
of side panels for vehicles from Argos, Indiana to Mexico or Canada.
    The petitioner provided a copy of a memorandum dated August 1, 
2000, addressed to Local 2988 from an individual (title not provided), 
notifying the Union of equipment that will be moving to another Oxford 
Automotive location, or a request for equipment from another Oxford 
Automotive location. In that listing, it is noted that authorization 
was being sought to move the 180" press line and two single post spot 
welders to Mexico.
    During the investigation that information was available and the 
Department found that some of the machinery was sent to Mexico but it 
was not being used. The shift of production of equipment to Mexico or 
Canada, or any other foreign country, does not in of itself provide a 
basis for worker group certification under TAA or NAFTA-TAA. With 
respect to the TAA petition, the Department could issue a certification 
only if the equipment shifted is being used to produce the articles and 
replace the production at the workers' firm and that there are 
increases in imports of articles like or directly competitive with side 
panels for vehicles produced on that machinery. With respect to the 
NAFTA-TAA petition, the Department could issue a certification only if 
the equipment shifted is being used to produce the articles and replace 
the production at the workers' firm. This is not the case for the 
petitioning workers, as was described in the initial findings.

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

[[Page 23733]]

reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decisions. 
Accordingly, the application is denied.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 30th day of April, 2001.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-11628 Filed 5-8-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M