DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-72,554

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY
PONTIAC ASSEMBLY
PONTIAC, MICHIGAN

Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

On October 7, 2010, the Department of Labor (Department)
issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for
Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of General
Motors Company, Pontiac Assembly, Pontiac, Michigan (GM-Pontiac).
The Department’s Notice of determination was published in the
Federal Register on October 25, 2010 (75 FR 65513). Workers at
GM-Pontiac are engaged in employment related to the production of
the GMC Sierra and Chevrolet Silverado vehicles.
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 there was no increase in imports by the
subject firm or its customers or a shift to/acquisition from a
foreign country by the workers’ firm of articles like or directly
competitive with the automobiles produced by the workers. The
investigation also revealed that the workers did not produce a
component part that was used by a firm that both employed workers
eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance and directly
incorporated the component parts into the article that was the
basis for the TAA certification.
In the request for reconsideration, the International Union of
United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW) stated that production of standard cab and extended
cab GMC Sierra and Chevrolet Silverado vehicles shifted to an
affiliated GM facility in Mexico (“Pontiac Assembly ceased
producing . . .production from Pontiac . . . shifted, at least in
part, to Silao, Mexico.”
Information obtained during the reconsideration investigation
confirmed that the subject firm did not shift to/acquire from an
affiliated facility in Mexico or any other foreign country the
production of standard cab and extended cab GMC Sierra and
Chevrolet Silverado vehicles (or like or directly competitive
articles). The company official also confirmed that production of
the aforementioned vehicles was shifted to affiliated locations
within the United States.
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 General
Motors, Pontiac Assembly, Pontiac, Michigan.
Signed in Washington, D.C. on this 4th day of February, 2011
/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
_______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-FN-P


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-72,554

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY
PONTIAC ASSEMBLY
PONTIAC, 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.

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 October 9, 2009 by an official from the United Auto
Workers (UAW) Legal Department on behalf of workers of General
Motors, Pontiac Assembly, Pontiac, Michigan. The workers
produced the GMC Sierra and Chevrolet Silverado.
The petitioner alleges that production ceased at the Pontiac
facility because of a production increase at foreign assembly
plants. The investigation included a review of data provided by a
company official and as well as market share data from Automotive
News.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that there was no increase in imports by the firm or
customers or a shift/acquisition from a foreign country by the
workers’ firm. Rather, the investigation revealed that U.S. sales
of imported vehicles like or directly competitive with the GMC
Sierra and Chevrolet Silverado decreased more than sales of the
GMC Sierra and Chevrolet Silverado decreased from 2007 to 2008
and from January through September 2008 compared to the same
period in 2009.
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 General Motors, Pontiac
Assembly, Pontiac, Michigan 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 12th day of April, 2010


/s/Michael W. Jaffe
______________________________
MICHAEL W. JAFFE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance





- 8 -