[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 140 (Monday, July 22, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Page 47867]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-18422]



[[Page 47867]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[NAFTA-5983]


Freightliner LLC, Cleveland Manufacturing Plant, Cleveland, NC; 
Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for 
Reconsideration

    By application dated May 8, 2002, a petitioner requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding eligibility to apply for North American Free 
Trade Agreement-Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-TAA), 
applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The 
denial notice was signed on April 3, 2002, and was published in the 
Federal Register on April 17, 2002 (67 FR 18924).
    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 denial of NAFTA-TAA for workers engaged in activities related 
to the production of Class 8 heavy-duty trucks at Freightliner LLC, 
Cleveland Truck Manufacturing Plant, Cleveland, North Carolina was 
based on the finding that criteria (3) and (4) of the group eligibility 
requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of Section 250 of the Trade Act, as 
amended, were not met. There were no increased company imports of Class 
8 heavy-duty trucks from Mexico or Canada, nor did the subject firm 
shift production from Cleveland, North Carolina to Mexico or Canada. 
The survey conducted by the Department of Labor revealed that customer 
purchases of Class 8 heavy-duty trucks from Canada or Mexico were 
negligible during the relevant period.
    The petitioner appears to be alleging that the layoffs that 
occurred from July 2000 through October 2000 were the result of shifts 
in production to Mexico by their parent, Freightliner LLC, Portland, 
Oregon producing trucks and parts and a sister plant Freightliner LLC 
Truck Manufacturing, Mt. Holly, North Carolina producing parts used at 
the Cleveland plant, caused a decrease in production at the subject 
plant.
    The subject plant layoffs that occurred during July 2000 through 
October 2000 period are beyond the relevant period. In accordance with 
Section 250 of the Act, no certification may apply to any worker whose 
last total or partial separation from the subject firm occurred one 
year prior to the date of the petition. The layoffs were more than one 
year prior to the date of the petition (March 12, 2002). Therefore, the 
declines in plant production and employment during the July 2000 
through October 2000 period are not relevant.
    The petitioner also indicates that a meaningful portion of the 
subject plants' production declines were caused by an indirect affect 
of an increasing number of companies either closing throughout the 
United States or shifting their production to Mexico, thus reducing the 
demand for Freightliner Class 8 Trucks and causing the layoffs at the 
subject firm.
    Customers shifting their production to Mexico or going out of 
business are not relevant factors in meeting the eligibility 
requirement of section 250 of the Trade Act.
    The petitioner further states that they should be certified for 
NAFTA-TAA since the Portland and Mt. Holly facilities were certified 
eligible for NAFTA-TAA.
    A review of the two NAFTA-TAA certifications pertaining to the 
Portland (NAFTA-4636) and Mt. Holly (NAFTA-4550) plants were based on 
some products produced by those two plants being shifted to Mexico. In 
the case of the subject plant, there was no shift in plant production 
to either Canada or Mexico during the relevant period. To meet the 
eligibility requirement (criterion 4) of a shift in subject plant 
production to Canada or Mexico, there must be a shift in production by 
such workers' firm or subdivision to Mexico or Canada of articles 
``like or directly competitive'' with articles which are produced by 
the firm or subdivision.
    The Department of Labor conducted an investigation for the relevant 
period. The investigation revealed that criteria (3) and (4) were not 
met as depicted in the initial decision.

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 14th day of June, 2002.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 02-18422 Filed 7-19-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P