[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 7, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Page 51296]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-19964]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-40,018 and NAFTA-05269]


Trailmobile Trailer, LLC, Liberal, KS; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application postmarked May 14, 2002, the petitioners requested 
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) under 
petition TA-W-40,018 and North American Free Trade Agreement-
Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-TAA) under petition NAFTA-
5269. The TAA and NAFTA-TAA denial notices applicable to workers of 
Trailmobile Trailer, LLC, Liberal, Kansas were signed on April 26, 2002 
and April 29, 2002, respectively and published in the Federal Register 
on May 17, 2002 (67 FR 35143 & 35144, respectively).
    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 at Trailmobile 
Trailer, LLC, Liberal, Kansas engaged in employment related to the 
production of dry freight and refrigerator trailers, was denied because 
the ``contributed importantly'' group eligibility requirement of 
Section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met. The 
investigation revealed that the subject firm did not import dry freight 
trailers and refrigerator trailers during the relevant period. The 
investigation also revealed that the predominant cause of worker 
separations at the subject firm was a domestic shift of production to 
an affiliated facility.
    The NAFTA-TAA petition for the same worker group was denied 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. The 
investigation revealed that the subject firm neither imported dry 
freight or refrigerator trailers from Canada or Mexico nor shifted 
production of dry freight or refrigerator trailers to Canada or Mexico. 
The investigation further revealed that the predominant cause of worker 
separations at the subject firm was a domestic shift of production to 
an affiliated facility.
    The petitioner alleges that since all (three) domestic company 
plants closed and the company maintains a production plant in Canada, 
it is only logical that subject plant production would have been 
shifted to the affiliated Canadian plant.
    A review of the initial decision and further contact with the 
company show that subject plant production was shifted to Charleston, 
Illinois. Based on information provided by the company, the subject 
plant was designed to produce only refrigerated truck trailers and was 
the only company location to produce these products. The plant never 
reached full planned employment or production. The plant was built in 
anticipation of acquiring new customers for a fleet type refrigerated 
trailer. These customers did not materialize. For a short time, dry van 
trailers with insulated panels were built in Liberal in addition to 
refrigerated trailers in an attempt to bring some production into the 
plant. Production of the fleet type refrigerated trailers ceased as of 
January 12, 2001. Specialty refrigerated trailers continued to be built 
in the affiliated Charleston, Illinois plant. No subject plant 
production of refrigerated trailers was ever shifted to Canada. With 
the closure of the three domestic sites by the latter part of 2001, the 
refrigerated trailer production was eliminated by the company and not 
shifted to Canada. The dry van trailers (3-4 percent of plant 
production) accounted for an extremely small portion of the work 
performed at the subject plant and thus any potential imports of this 
product cannot be considered as contributing importantly to the layoffs 
at the subject plant.
    The petitioner further indicated that the plant worked in concert 
with an affiliated plant located in Missisaugua (Toronto), Canada and 
that on several occasions the plant sent equipment used in the trailer 
manufacturing to Canada, such as a vacuum lifter for roof mounting. The 
petitioner also indicated that one of the plant's C-frames for 
hydraulic punch Huck units was also sent to Canada.
    The Canadian plant did not produce the major product the subject 
plant produced (refrigerated trailers) and therefore the working of the 
two plants in concert is not relevant in meeting the eligibility 
requirements of Section 222 or Section 250 of the Trade Act. Also, any 
machinery shipped to Canada was used to produce products other than 
those produced by the subject plant, and thus are not relevant factors 
in meeting eligibility requirements of Section 222 or Section 250 of 
the Trade Act.

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 decisions. Accordingly, the application is denied.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 26th day of July, 2002.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 02-19964 Filed 8-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P