DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-65,467

KENWORTH TRUCK COMPANY
A SUBSIDIARY OF PACCAR, INC.
RENTON, WASHINGTON

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 mis-
interpretation of facts or of the law justified
reconsideration of the decision.
The initial investigation resulted in a negative
determination was 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.
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, D.C., this 19th day of May, 2009


/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
______________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance

4510-FN-P


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-65,467

KENWORTH TRUCK COMPANY
A SUBSIDIARY OF PACCAR, INC.
RENTON, WASHINGTON

Negative Determinations Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance
And Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance


In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended (19 USC 2273), the Department of Labor herein presents the
results of an investigation regarding certification of eligibility
to apply for worker adjustment assistance. The group eligibility
requirements for directly-impacted (primary) workers under Section
222(a) the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, can be satisfied in
either of two ways:
I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied:
A. a significant number or proportion of the workers in such
workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm,
have become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated;
B. the sales or production, or both, of such firm or
subdivision have decreased absolutely; and
C. increased imports of articles like or directly competitive
with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have
contributed importantly to such workers’ separation or
threat of separation and to the decline in sales or
production of such firm or subdivision; or

II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied:

A. a significant number or proportion of the workers in such
workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm,
have become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated;
B. there has been a shift in production by such workers’ firm
or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or
directly competitive with articles which are produced by
such firm or subdivision; and

C. One of the following must be satisfied:
1. the country to which the workers’ firm has shifted
production of the articles is a party to a free trade
agreement with the United States;
2. the country to which the workers’ firm has shifted
production of the articles is a beneficiary country
under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth
and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic
Recovery Act; or
3. there has been or is likely to be an increase in
imports of articles that are like or directly
competitive with articles which are or were produced
by such firm or subdivision.

The investigation was initiated on March 4, 2009, in response
to a petition filed by the International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers on behalf of workers of Kenworth Truck
Company, a subsidiary of PACCAR, Inc., Renton, Washington. The
workers produce class 8 heavy duty trucks.
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) and
(a)(2)(B)(II.B.) have not been met.
The investigation revealed that subject firm did not import of
class 8 heavy duty trucks nor did they shift production of class 8
heavy duty trucks to a foreign country during the period under
investigation.
Workers at Kenworth Truck Company, a subsidiary of Paccar,
Inc., Cab Build Department, Cab Trim Department, Paint Department,
Material Handling Department, Quality Assurance Department, and
Maintenance Department, Renton, Washington, were certified eligible
to apply for adjustment assistance based on a shift in production
of cabs to a country (Mexico) party to a free trade agreement with
the United States (TA-W-64,784).
In addition, in accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of
1974 (26 USC 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor herein
presents the results of its investigation regarding certification
of eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance
(ATAA) for older workers.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for ATAA, the worker group must be certified
eligible to apply for trade adjustment assistance (TAA). Since the
workers are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot
be certified eligible for ATAA.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that workers of Kenworth Truck Company,
a subsidiary of PACCAR, Inc., Renton, Washington, excluding those
workers covered by TA-W-64,784, are denied eligibility to apply for
adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974,


and are also denied eligibility to apply for alternative trade
adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 14th day of April 2009

/s/ Linda G. Poole

______________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance







- 8 -