DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-70,326

FORD MOTOR COMPANY
DEARBORN TRUCK PLANT
DEARBORN, MICHIGAN

Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

By application dated September 18, 2009, a petitioner
requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's
negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former
workers of Ford Motor Company, Dearborn Truck Plant, Dearborn,
Michigan. The Department’s Notice of Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration was signed on September
29, 2009, and published in the Federal Register on October 20,
2009 (74 FR 53766).
The investigation resulted in a negative determination based
on the finding that workers’ separations or threat of separations
were not related to an increase in imports of like or directly
competitive products with Ford F Series pickups and Lincoln Mark
LR sports-utility pickups and there was no shift/acquisition of
production of Ford F Series pickups and Lincoln Mark LR sports-
utility pickups to/from a foreign country.
The petitioners alleged that production at the subject
facility was negatively impacted by increased imports of directly
competitive products. The petition further states that “any brand
of new vehicle available for purchase” should be considered like
or directly competitive with the products manufactured by the
subject firm, thus imports of all vehicles should be considered
in the investigation.
In order to establish import impact, the Department solicits
relevant information from the subject firm, customers of the
subject firm and analyzes available United States aggregate data
regarding imports of articles, including articles like or directly
competitive with the products manufactured by the subject firm for
the relevant period (one year prior to the date of the petition).
Like or directly competitive means that like articles are those
which are substantially identical in inherent or intrinsic
characteristics; and directly competitive articles are those which,
although not substantial identical, are substantially equivalent
for commercial purposes (i.e., adapted to the same uses and
essentially interchangeable therefore).
In case at hand, the like articles are specifically Ford F
Series pickups and Lincoln Mark LT sports-utility pickups, while
directly competitive products include other equivalent for
commercial purposes vehicles, which are adapted to the same use and
can be classified under the same category of vehicles. Therefore,
any vehicles that can be categorized under the full-sized pickups
and sport-utility pickups are considered to be directly competitive
with the vehicles manufactured by the subject firm. The analysis
of the data revealed that U.S. aggregate imports of full-sized
pickups and sport utility pickups declined absolutely and
relatively in comparison with sales of U.S.-manufactured full-sized
pickups and sport utility pickups from 2007 to 2008 and from
January through July 2009 over the corresponding 2008 period.
To support the allegation, the petitioner attached several
newspaper articles, alleging that Ford manufactures pickups in
Australia, South Africa and Thailand and is increasing its
production capacity of Fiesta in Mexico and Canada.
The Department contacted company officials of Ford Motor
Company to address the above allegations. The company officials
stated that Ford does not produce like or directly competitive
products with Ford F Series pickups and Lincoln Mark LT sports-
utility pickups in Australia, South Africa and Thailand. The
official also stated that vehicles manufactured in Canada are
also not like or directly competitive with Ford F Series and
Lincoln Mark LT pickups. Moreover, the official stated that Ford
Motor Company does not manufacture pickups in Mexico and Canada.
The company official confirmed that Ford Motor Company did not
shift production of Ford F Series and Lincoln Mark LT pickups
from Dearborn, Michigan abroad during the relevant period.
The investigation revealed that the reduction in market
share resulted in over-capacity at Ford facilities, and that the
layoffs at the subject facility were not related to increased
imports of like or directly competitive vehicles with Ford F
Series and Lincoln Mark LT pickups and there was no shift of
production of these vehicles abroad during the period under
investigation.
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 reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of
negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Ford
Motor Company, Dearborn Truck Plant, Dearborn, Michigan.
Signed at Washington, D.C., this 8th day of January 2010.


/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-70,326

FORD MOTOR COMPANY
DEARBORN TRUCK PLANT
DEARBORN, MICHIGAN

Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. § 2273, the Department of Labor herein
presents the results of an investigation regarding certification of
eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance.
Workers of a firm may be eligible for worker adjustment
assistance if they satisfy the criteria of subsection (a), (c) or
(f) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (c), (f). For
the Department of Labor to issue a certification for workers under
Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), the following three
criteria must be met:
I. The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2282(a)(1)) requires that a significant
number or proportion of the workers in the workers’ firm must
have become totally or partially separated or be threatened
with total or partial separation.

II. The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied in one of two
ways:
(A) Increased Imports Path:
(i) sales or production, or both, at the workers’ firm must
have decreased absolutely, AND
(ii) (I) imports of articles or services like or directly
competitive with articles or services produced or
supplied by the workers’ firm have increased, OR
(II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles into which the component
part produced by the workers’ firm was directly
incorporated have increased; OR
(II)(bb) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles which are produced
directly using the services supplied by the
workers’ firm have increased; OR
(III) imports of articles directly incorporating
component parts not produced in the U.S. that are
like or directly competitive with the article into
which the component part produced by the workers’
firm was directly incorporated have increased.

(B) Shift in Production or Supply Path:
(i)(I) there has been a shift by the workers’ firm to a
foreign country in the production of articles or supply
of services like or directly competitive with those
produced/supplied by the workers’ firm; OR
(i)(II) there has been an acquisition from a foreign country
by the workers’ firm of articles/services that are like
or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by
the workers’ firm.

III. The third criterion requires that the increase in imports or
shift/acquisition must have contributed importantly to the
workers’ separation or threat of separation. See Sections
222(a)(2)(A)(iii) and 222(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
§§ 2272(a)(2)(A)(iii), 2272(a)(2)(B)(ii).

Section 222(d) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(d), defines the
terms “Supplier” and “Downstream Producer.” For the Department to
issue a secondary worker certification under Section 222(c) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), to workers of a Supplier or a Downstream
Producer, the following criteria must be met:
(1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in the
workers’ firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm
have become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated;

(2) the workers’ firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer to
a firm that employed a group of workers who received a
certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), and such supply or production
is related to the article or service that was the basis
for such certification; and

(3) either
(A) the workers’ firm is a supplier and the component parts
it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2)
accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or
sales of the workers’ firm; or
(B) a loss of business by the workers’ firm with the firm
described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the
workers’ separation or threat of separation.

The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on May 20, 2009 on behalf of workers of Ford Motor Company,
Dearborn Truck Plant, Dearborn, Michigan. The workers currently
assemble Ford F Series pickups and formerly assembled a
relatively minor number of Lincoln Mark LT sports-utility
pickups. Workers are not separately identifiable by vehicle.
The petitioners allege that increased customer imports of like
products have resulted in decreased sales and worker separations.
The investigation included collection of data from the subject
firm and an analysis of the United States market for pickup trucks.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that the workers of the Dearborn Truck Plant did not meet
the criteria for certification.
Criterion II has not been met because there was no increase in
imports or shift/acquisition by the subject firm of articles like
or directly competitive with the pickup trucks assembled at the
Dearborn Truck Plant.
The Department of Labor conducted an analysis of the United
States market share of vehicles like or directly competitive with
the vehicles produced at the Dearborn Truck Plant. The Ford F
Series is a full-sized pickup truck; Lincoln Mark LT is a sport-
utility pickup truck. The investigation determined that imports of
such vehicles declined both absolutely and relative to domestic
sales of the subject vehicles. Together, the Ford F Series and
Lincoln Mark LT increased their share of the U.S. market from 2007
to 2008 and in January through July 2009 compared with the same
period in 2008.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that the workers of the Dearborn Truck Plant did not meet
the criteria for certification as secondarily affected workers.
Criterion (2) has not been met because the workers did not
produce an article or supply a service that was used by a firm with
TAA-certified workers in the production of an article.
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), have not been satisfied
because the workers’ firm has not been identified in an affirmative
finding of injury by the ITC.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that workers of Ford Motor Company,
Dearborn Truck Plant, Dearborn, Michigan who assemble pickup
trucks are denied eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance
under Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 14th day of August, 2009


/s/Richard Church
______________________________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance





- 9 -