DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-70,466

DMAX, LTD, LLC
A JOINT VENTURE BETWEEN GENERAL MOTORS AND ISUZU
DAYTON, OHIO

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated November 6, 2009, International Union
of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Machine and Furniture
Workers - Communications Workers of America (IUE-CWA), Local 755
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 the subject firm. The denial notice was signed on
October 29, 2009 and will soon be published in the Federal
Register.
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, based on the finding that imports of light duty
diesel engines did not contribute to worker separations at the
subject facility and there was no shift in production from the
subject firm to foreign country during the period under
investigation.
The petitioner stated that General Motors is “getting out of
the light truck business” and that the workers of the subject
firm should be eligible for TAA due to the changes in the
program.
The investigation revealed that workers of DMAX Ltd., LLC,
Dayton, Ohio produced light duty diesel engines. The
investigation also revealed that worker separations at the
subject facility were not caused by increased imports of light
duty diesel engines into the United States nor by a shift in
production of light duty diesel engines from the subject facility
to a foreign country. DMAX, Ltd, LLC did not import light duty
diesel engines and did not shift production abroad. The
Department surveyed subject firm’s major customer regarding its
purchases of light duty diesel engines in 2007, 2008, January
through May 2008 and January through May 2009. The survey
revealed no imports 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 2nd day of December, 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-70,466

DMAX, LTD, LLC
A JOINT VENTURE BETWEEN GENERAL MOTORS AND ISUZU
DAYTON, OHIO

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.

Workers of a firm may also be considered eligible if they
are publicly identified by name by the International Trade
Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation
resulting in a category of determination that is listed in
Section 222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f).
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm under
Section 222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), can be satisfied if
the following criteria are met:
(1) the workers’ firm is publicly identified by name by the
International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic
industry in an investigation resulting in--
(A) an affirmative determination of serious injury or
threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) an affirmative determination of market disruption
or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) an affirmative final determination of material
injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A)
or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A));
(2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning
on the date on which--
(A) a summary of the report submitted to the President
by the International Trade Commission under section
202(f)(1) with respect to the affirmative
determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is
published in the Federal Register under section
202(f)(3); or
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described in
subparagraph (1) is published in the Federal
Register; and
(3) the workers have become totally or partially
separated from the workers’ firm within--
(A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year
period preceding the 1-year period described in
paragraph (2).

The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on May 22, 2009 by a company official on behalf of workers of
DMAX, LTD, LLC, a joint venture between General Motors and Isuzu,
Dayton, Ohio. The workers are engaged in the production of light
duty diesel engines.
The petitioner alleges that a declining demand for light
duty trucks equipped with diesel engines led to workers’
separation. The investigation included obtaining written and oral
information from company officials and a survey a major customers
of the subject firm.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that Criteria II and III have not been met.
Criterion II has not been met because DMAX did not shift
production abroad nor acquire light duty diesel engines from a
foreign country in 2007, 2008, and January through May, 2009.
Additionally, The Department of Labor surveyed the subject
firm’s principal customers regarding their purchases of diesel
engines in 2007, 2008, January to May 2008, and January to May
2009. Results of the survey revealed that customers did not import
articles like or directly competitive with those manufactured by
the subject firm during the period under investigation. Customers
also did not import like or directly competitive vehicles that
incorporate light diesel engines manufactured abroad.
Analysis of Unites States aggregate imports of light duty
diesel engines incorporated in vehicles imported into the United
States revealed that such imports were very minimal.
Criterion III has not been met because the workers’ separation
or threat of separation was not related to any increase in imports
of light duty diesel engines or a shift in production/acquisition
abroad.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that 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 or
supply of a service that was the basis for TAA-certification.
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 DMAX, LTD, LLC, a joint
venture between General Motors and Isuzu, Dayton, Ohio 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 29th day of October, 2009


/s/ Richard Church

______________________________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance





- 8 -