You are on page 1of 1

25852 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No.

93 / Monday, May 16, 2005 / Notices

that Roseburg respond to the petitioner’s Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th day of The petitioner alleges that the subject
allegation. According to the company April, 2005. firm is planning to move production of
officials, the decline in the fourth Linda G. Poole, the Dodge RAM light truck frame
quarter of 2004 was a seasonal decline Certifying Officer, Division of Trade assembly ‘‘from Milwaukee to Tower
due to difficulties of the building trades Adjustment Assistance. Automotive’s joint venture partner’’ in
during extremely harsh winter [FR Doc. E5–2431 Filed 5–13–05; 8:45 am] Mexico in mid-2005.
conditions. Further, workers who were BILLING CODE 4510–30–P An official of Tower Automotive was
separated during the building lull are contacted in regards to this allegation.
usually re-hired once the orders The company official stated that Tower
increase as the weather becomes less DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Automotive is not ‘‘shifting its
inclement. production of Dodge RAM light truck
Employment and Training frame assembly from Milwaukee to
The Department conducts its petition Administration Mexico.’’ Tower Automotive will no
investigations for the one year period longer be producing the Dodge RAM
prior to the date of the petition. In this [TA–W–56,369] light truck frame beginning with the
case the petition for workers of 2006 model year in Milwaukee or
Roseburg Forest Products Particleboard Tower Automotive Milwaukee, LLC, anywhere else. The production will end
Plant, Roseburg, Oregon, was dated Milwaukee Business Unit, a Division of during the period of June 29, 2005 to
January 11, 2005. Although the Tower Automotive, Inc., Milwaukee, WI; July 12, 2005. The official further stated
company concurs that there was decline Negative Determination Regarding that Dodge RAM light truck frame will,
in production during the forth quarter of Application for Reconsideration however, be produced in Mexico by a
2004, during the full year 2004 both By application of April 13, 2005, a different company for the subject firm’s
sales and production at the subject firm petitioner requested administrative customer. It was further revealed that
increased. reconsideration of the Department’s the production of the frame in Mexico
negative determination regarding by the other company will
Conclusion approximately coincide with when
eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment
After reconsideration, I affirm the Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers Tower Automotive ceases production of
and former workers of the subject firm. the frame in Milwaukee.
original notice of negative
The denial notice was signed on March The Department considers import
determination of eligibility to apply for
15, 2005, and was published in the impact for the relevant period of the
worker adjustment assistance for
Federal Register on May 2, 2005 (70FR investigation, which is the one year
workers and former workers of Roseburg
22710). prior to the date of the petition. In this
Forest Products, Particleboard Plant, a case, the petition was dated January 19,
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c)
Subsidiary of RLC Industries, Roseburg, 2005, and events that may occur in
reconsideration may be granted under
Oregon. June-July of 2005 are outside of the
the following circumstances:
Signed at Washington, DC, this 6th day of (1) If it appears on the basis of facts scope of the investigation. As noted
May 2005. not previously considered that the above, the petition investigation
Linda G. Poole, determination complained of was determined that there were no increased
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade erroneous; imports of automotive stampings and
Adjustment Assistance. (2) If it appears that the determination frames during the relevant time period.
[FR Doc. E5–2425 Filed 5–13–05; 8:45 am] complained of was based on a mistake The petitioner further states that the
in the determination of facts not subject firm’s customers are importing
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
previously considered; or automotive stampings and frames and,
(3) If in the opinion of the Certifying thus, these imports have contributed to
Officer, a mis-interpretation of facts or the threat of separation of workers of the
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
of the law justified reconsideration of subject firm. As a proof, the petitioner
Employment and Training the decision. attached correspondence and a Bill of
Administration The petition for the workers of Tower Lading for ‘‘Body autoparts chassis’’
Automotive Milwaukee, LLC, dated January 11, 2005, showing Mexico
Milwaukee Business Unit, a Division of as the point of origin of the parts.
[TA–W–56,917] A Tower Automotive official for the
Tower Automotive, Inc., Milwaukee,
Wisconsin engaged in production of Milwaukee facility confirmed that its
S&H Precision Mfg. Co. Inc.;
automotive stampings and frames was customer has been purchasing frames
Newmarket, NH; Notice of Termination
denied because the ‘‘contributed from Mexico. For convenience, the
of Investigation customer is shipping them to its
importantly’’ group eligibility
requirement of Section 222 of the Trade domestic assembly plant through Tower
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, was not met, Automotive’s sequencing center.
Act of 1974, as amended, an
nor was there a shift in production from The review of the investigation file for
investigation was initiated on April 7,
that firm to a foreign country. this petition confirmed that this
2005 in response to a petition filed by The ‘‘contributed importantly’’ test is declining customer is indeed importing
a company official on behalf of workers generally demonstrated through a automotive stampings and frames.
at S&H Precision Mfg. Co. Inc., survey of the workers’ firm’s customers. However, the survey shows a decrease
Newmarket, New Hampshire. The survey revealed no increase in in import purchases of automotive
The petitioner has requested that the imports of automotive stampings and stampings and frames and an increase in
petition be withdrawn. Consequently, frames during the relevant period. The purchases from the subject firm during
the investigation has been terminated. subject firm did not import automotive the relevant period.
stampings or frames in the relevant The petitioner is encouraged to file a
period. new petition should conditions change.

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:37 May 13, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16MYN1.SGM 16MYN1

You might also like