DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-40,018
AND
NAFTA-05269

TRAILMOBILE TRAILER, LLC
LIBERAL, KANSAS

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application postmarked May 14, 2002, the petitioners
requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's
negative determination regarding eligibility for workers and
former workers of the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) under petition TA-W-40,018 and North American
Free Trade Agreement-Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-
TAA) under petition NAFTA-5269. The TAA and NAFTA-TAA denial
notices applicable to workers of Trailmobile Trailer, LLC,
Liberal, Kansas were signed on April 26, 2002 and April 29, 2002,
respectively and published in the Federal Register on May 17,
2002 (67 FR 35143 & 35144, respectively).
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 TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at Trailmobile
Trailer, LLC, Liberal, Kansas engaged in employment related to
the production of dry freight and refrigerator trailers, was
denied because the "contributed importantly" group eligibility
requirement of Section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended, was not met. The investigation revealed that the
subject firm did not import dry freight trailers and refrigerator
trailers during the relevant period. The investigation also
revealed that the predominant cause of worker separations at the
subject firm was a domestic shift of production to an affiliated
facility.
The NAFTA-TAA petition for the same worker group was denied
because criteria (3) and (4) of the group eligibility
requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of Section 250 of the Trade Act,
as amended, were not met. The investigation revealed that the
subject firm neither imported dry freight or refrigerator
trailers from Canada or Mexico nor shifted production of dry
freight or refrigerator trailers to Canada or Mexico. The
investigation further revealed that the predominant cause of
worker separations at the subject firm was a domestic shift of
production to an affiliated facility.
The petitioner alleges that since all (three) domestic
company plants closed and the company maintains a production
plant in Canada, it is only logical that subject plant production
would have been shifted to the affiliated Canadian plant.
A review of the initial decision and further contact with
the company show that subject plant production was shifted to
Charleston, Illinois. Based on information provided by the
company, the subject plant was designed to produce only
refrigerated truck trailers and was the only company location to
produce these products. The plant never reached full planned
employment or production. The plant was built in anticipation of
acquiring new customers for a fleet type refrigerated trailer.
These customers did not materialize. For a short time, dry van
trailers with insulated panels were built in Liberal in addition
to refrigerated trailers in an attempt to bring some production
into the plant. Production of the fleet type refrigerated
trailers ceased as of January 12, 2001. Specialty refrigerated
trailers continued to be built in the affiliated Charleston,
Illinois plant. No subject plant production of refrigerated
trailers was ever shifted to Canada. With the closure of the
three domestic sites by the latter part of 2001, the refrigerated
trailer production was eliminated by the company and not shifted
to Canada. The dry van trailers (3-4 percent of plant
production) accounted for an extremely small portion of the work
performed at the subject plant and thus any potential imports of
this product cannot be considered as contributing importantly to
the layoffs at the subject plant.
The petitioner further indicated that the plant worked in
concert with an affiliated plant located in Missisaugua
(Toronto), Canada and that on several occasions the plant sent
equipment used in the trailer manufacturing to Canada, such as a
vacuum lifter for roof mounting. The petitioner also indicated
that one of the plant's C-frames for hydraulic punch Huck units
was also sent to Canada.
The Canadian plant did not produce the major product the
subject plant produced (refrigerated trailers) and therefore the
working of the two plants in concert is not relevant in meeting
the eligibility requirements of Section 222 or Section 250 of the
Trade Act. Also, any machinery shipped to Canada was used to
produce products other than those produced by the subject plant,
and thus are not relevant factors in meeting eligibility
requirements of Section 222 or Section 250 of the Trade Act.
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 decisions. Accordingly, the
application is denied.

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 26th day of July, 2002.
/s/ Edward A. Tomchick

EDWARD A. TOMCHICK
Director, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance