[Federal Register: July 7, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 129)]
[Notices]
[Page 40296-40297]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07jy03-112]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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