[Federal Register: June 18, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 116)]
[Notices]               
[Page 28961-28962]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18jn09-54]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,467]

 
Kenworth Truck Company, a Subsidiary of Paccar, Inc., Renton, WA; 
Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for 
Reconsideration

    By application dated May 7, 2009, International Association of 
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge, No. 160 requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment 
Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA), 
applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The 
denial notice was signed on April 14, 2009 and published in the Federal 
Register on April 30, 2009 (74 FR 19996).
    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 initial investigation resulted in a negative determination 
based on the finding that imports of class 8 heavy duty trucks did not 
contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject facility 
and there was no shift of production to a foreign country. The subject 
firm did not import class 8 heavy duty trucks during the relevant 
period. The ``contributed importantly'' test is generally demonstrated 
through a survey of the workers' firm's declining domestic customers. 
In this case the survey was not conducted because the customers 
purchased all Class 8 heavy duty trucks exclusively from the subject 
firm.
    The petitioner alleged that subject firm's competitors import heavy 
trucks and parts of heavy trucks, thus having an advantage over the 
subject firm in locating potential customers.
    The impact of competitors on the domestic firms is revealed in an 
investigation through customer surveys and aggregate import analysis. 
In the case at hand, the Department solicited information from the 
customers of the subject firm to determine if customers purchased 
imported Class 8 heavy duty trucks. The information was intended to 
determine if competitor imports contributed importantly to layoffs at 
the subject firm. The investigation revealed no imports of Class 8 
heavy duty trucks during the relevant period. The subject firm did not 
import class 8 heavy duty trucks nor was there a shift in production of 
class 8 heavy duty trucks from subject firm abroad during the relevant 
period. Furthermore, U.S. aggregate imports of Class 8 heavy duty 
trucks have been declining since 2006.

[[Page 28962]]

    The petitioner also stated that other divisions of Kenworth Truck 
Company and a supplier of interior components for heavy duty trucks 
have been recently certified for TAA and thus workers of the subject 
facility should also be eligible for TAA.
    The Kenworth Truck Company divisions indicated by the petitioner 
were certified eligible for TAA in January 2009 since the company 
shifted production of cabs for Class 8 trucks to Mexico. The 
certifications of these divisions are not relevant to this 
investigation as certified workers engaged in production of cabs are 
separately identifiable from workers of the subject firm who are 
engaged in production of Class 8 heavy duty trucks. The certification 
of a company supplying interior components for heavy duty trucks is 
also not relevant to this investigation.
    When assessing eligibility for TAA, the Department exclusively 
considers shift in production of articles like or directly competitive 
with the ones manufactured at the subject firm during the relevant 
period (one year prior to the date of the petition). The issue of a 
shift in production by the subject firm to a foreign country was 
addressed during the initial investigation. It was revealed that the 
subject firm did not shift production of Class 8 heavy duty trucks 
during the relevant period.
    The petitioner did not supply facts not previously considered; nor 
provide additional documentation indicating that there was either (1) a 
mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered or (2) 
a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justifying reconsideration 
of the initial determination.
    After careful review of the request for reconsideration, the 
Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.

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 in Washington, DC, this 19th day of May 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-14323 Filed 6-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P