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, WISCONSIN

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.
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, D.C., this 5th day of May, 2005

/s/ Linda G. Poole


LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance