[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 129 (Monday, July 7, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40296-40297]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-16887]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-41,288 & NAFTA-6104]


International Truck and Engine Corp., a Subsidiary of Navistar 
International Corp., Springfield, Ohio; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    On May 9, 2003, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination 
Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former 
workers of the subject firm. The notice was published in the Federal 
Register on May 29, 2003 (68 FR 32124).
    The Department initially denied trade adjustment assistance to 
workers of International Truck and Engine Corporation, a subsidiary of 
Navistar International Corporation, Springfield, Ohio because the 
``contributed importantly'' group eligibility requirement of section 
222(3) and section 250 of the Trade Act of 1974 were not met. The TAA 
investigation revealed that criterion (3) was not met; the company did 
not import medium, heavy or severe service trucks and aggregate U.S. 
imports of medium, heavy, and severe service trucks decreased during 
the relevant period. 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 subject firm did not import medium, heavy, 
or severe service trucks, nor was production of medium, heavy, or 
severe service trucks shifted from the workers' firm to Mexico or 
Canada.
    On reconsideration, as requested by the International Union, United 
Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Workers of America--UAW, Region 
2B, and Local Unions 402 and 658, the Department considered several 
allegations and supporting documentation provided by the union to 
determine if an error had been made in the original negative 
determination.
    The first allegation concerns a shift in production of final cab 
assembly from the Springfield plant to an affiliated plant in Escobedo, 
Mexico. To support this allegation, the union provided testimony from 
two employees who were aware of ``knockdown cab assemblies'' being 
shipped to Mexico for final welding.
    In response to this allegation, a company official confirmed that 
the company has cab subassemblies shipped to Mexico from Springfield.

[[Page 40297]]

These cabs, used in the production of NGV (New Generation Vehicles) 
that replaced the company's legacy line of trucks, can be considered 
directly competitive with those previously welded at the subject 
facility. However, although the welding of cabs for final truck 
production at another domestic facility was shifted from Springfield to 
Mexico, the quantity of cab welding that shifted was and is extremely 
small relative to cab welding performed at the subject facility, and 
thus constituted an insignificant portion of overall production at the 
subject facility.
    The union also contends that the Springfield facility and its 
affiliate in Mexico produce like or directly competitive trucks, and 
that this fact might be used in support of petitioning workers meeting 
eligibility requirements for TAA and NAFTA-TAA. To support this claim, 
the union provides a statement from a company employee who witnessed 
similar trucks being produced at the Mexican plant, and a set of 
production schedules that show similar truck lines (4200, 4300, 4400 
medium duty trucks) being produced both in Mexico and Springfield.
    When contacted in regard to this allegation, the company official 
confirmed that the Mexican and Springfield plants produce similar 
trucks. However, the Mexican plant has always produced trucks 
exclusively for the Mexican market, and its production volume was and 
is determined exclusively by local consumer demand.
    Finally, the union alleged that trucks competitive with those 
produced in Springfield were imported to the U.S. from Mexico. To 
support this allegation, they provided a multi-page inventory of truck 
orders that indicate a large number of trucks sent from the Escobedo 
facility to the U.S.
    A copy of this import inventory was sent to a company official for 
comment. In his response, it was revealed that the company did in fact 
import competitive trucks for a brief period in the fall of 2003, as a 
pre-emptive measure in preparation for a potential strike. The official 
clarified that the company wanted to make sure that they could meet 
production orders in the event of a work stoppage and that the Mexican 
production occurred between September 11 and November 26 of 2002, and 
that there was a work stoppage at the Springfield facility between 
October 18 and November 11, 2002. All employees were retained following 
this stoppage. Further, the Mexican production for this contingency 
commenced after the relevant period of the investigation. In conclusion 
the company official confirmed that which was established in the 
initial investigation; no production was imported by the company to the 
U.S. in 2000, 2001, and in January through July of 2002.

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 13th day of June, 2003.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-16887 Filed 7-3-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P