[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 96 (Monday, May 19, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27109-27110]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-12420]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-41,543]


General Electric Transportation Systems, A Subsidiary of General 
Electric Company, Erie, PA; Notice of Determinations on Reconsideration

    By application dated October 11, 2002, the United Electrical, Radio 
& Machine Workers of America, Local 506, requested administrative 
reconsideration regarding the Department's Negative Determination 
Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance, 
applicable to the workers of the subject firm.
    The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination 
issued on September 10, 2002, based on the finding that imports of 
diesel electric locomotive components including U-tubes and gear cases, 
diesel electric locomotives and off-highway drive systems did not 
contribute importantly to worker separations at the Erie plant. The 
denial notice was published in the Federal Register on September 27, 
2002 (67 FR 61160).
    To support the request for reconsideration, the union supplied 
additional information to supplement that which was gathered during the 
initial investigation. The union supplied a list of products (brush 
holder assemblies, 761,752 traction motors, alternators, traction motor 
field coils) that were allegedly shifted to foreign sources and 
potentially imported back to the United States.
    The company was contacted in regard to all imported products that 
were like or directly competitive with those produced at the subject 
facility, as well as those shifted from the subject facility, in 2000 
through 2002. In addition, a copy of the union's reconsideration 
request was forwarded to the company for their response. The company's 
response revealed that the only products shifted and subsequently 
imported during the relevant period which impacted subject firm layoffs 
were u-tubes and gear cases. Workers producing u-tubes and gear cases 
are separately identifiable from other functions conducted at the 
subject facility. Therefore, workers at the subject facility producing 
u-tubes and gear cases meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade 
Act of 1974.
    Further, the company reported shifting ``Design III'' functions 
(drafting) to a foreign country during the relevant period. These 
workers were engaged in a service, and did not supply a significant 
amount of support to workers producing u-tubes and gear cases, and thus 
do not meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act. Only in very 
limited instances are service workers certified for TAA, namely the 
worker separations must be caused by a reduced demand for their 
services from a parent or controlling firm or subdivision whose workers 
produce an article and who are currently under certification for TAA.
    The company indicated that the products listed by the union were 
shifted to foreign sources and imported back to the United States. 
However, the shift of these products did not affect the petitioning 
worker groups, thus it has no bearing on this investigation.
    The company also supplied a list of foreign competitors that 
produce locomotives, traction motors, alternators, OHV wheels, blowers 
and drill motors, apparently implying that potential imports from these 
competitors contributed importantly to purchasing trends of subject 
firm customers in the relevant period.
    The ``contributed importantly'' test is generally demonstrated 
through a survey of the subject firm's customers. The Department 
conducted a survey of the subject firm's major declining customers 
regarding their purchases of diesel electric locomotives and off-
highway drive systems in 2000, 2001, and January through April of 2002 
during the initial investigation. Results of this survey revealed no 
imports. Further, the Department shared the union's list of competitors 
and their products with the company. The company indicated that these 
competitors and associated products did not impact the petitioning 
worker groups, as no layoffs ensued from competitive product lines at 
the subject facility. As a result, the above-mentioned data provided by 
the union is irrelevant to the investigation.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the additional facts obtained on 
reconsideration, I conclude that increased imports of u-tubes and gear 
cases like or directly competitive with those produced at General 
Electric Transportation Systems, a subsidiary of General Electric 
Company, Erie, Pennsylvania, contributed importantly to the declines in 
sales or production and to the total or partial separation of workers 
at the subject firm. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I 
make the following certification:

    ``All workers of General Electric Transportation Systems, a 
subsidiary of

[[Page 27110]]

General Electric Company, Erie, Pennsylvania, engaged in activities 
related to the production of u-tubes and gear cases who became 
totally or partially separated from employment on or after April 29, 
2001 through two years from the date of this certification, are 
eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under section 223 of the 
Trade Act of 1974''; and
    ``I further determine that all other workers at General Electric 
Transportation Systems, a subsidiary of General Electric Company, 
Erie, Pennsylvania excluding workers engaged in the production of u-
tubes and gear cases are denied eligibility to apply for adjustment 
assistance under section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.''

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 30th day of April 2003.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-12420 Filed 5-16-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P