Interstate Tool and Die Company Madison Heights, MI; Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 25850 [E5-2428]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
25850
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 93 / Monday, May 16, 2005 / Notices
date of the petition. Consequently,
further investigation in this case would
serve no purpose, and the investigation
has been terminated.
1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f) (2000), the
Secretary determines that the
withdrawal shall be extended.
Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1714(a); 43 CFR
2310.3–3(b)(1).
Dated: April 29, 2005.
Rebecca W. Watson,
Assistant Secretary—Land and Minerals
Management.
[FR Doc. 05–9689 Filed 5–13–05; 8:45 am]
Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th day of
April, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–2432 Filed 5–13–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
BILLING CODE 4310–HC–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–56,850]
[TA–W–57,007]
Ametek, U.S. Gauge Division;
Sellersville, PA; Notice of Termination
of Investigation
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on April 19,
2005 in response to a worker petition
filed by a company official on behalf of
workers at Ametek, U.S. Gauge Division,
Sellersville, Pennsylvania.
The petitioner has requested that the
petition be withdrawn. Consequently,
the investigation has been terminated.
Signed at Washington, DC this 26th day of
April 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–2434 Filed 5–13–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
Hydro-Logic Services, LLC; Warren,
MI; Notice of Termination of
Investigation
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on March 30,
2005 in response to a petition filed on
behalf of workers at Hydro-Logic
Services, LLC, Warren, Michigan.
The petition has been deemed invalid.
Not all of the individuals filing the
petition were workers of the firm.
Consequently, further investigation
would serve no purpose, and the
investigation has been terminated.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of
April, 2005.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–2430 Filed 5–13–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–56,965]
[TA–W–56,560]
FMC Corporation, Phosphate Plant;
Green River, WY; Notice of
Termination of Investigation
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on April 14,
2005 in response to a worker petition
filed by the State of Wyoming
Department of Workforce Services on
behalf of workers at the Phosphate plant
of FMC Corporation, Green River,
Wyoming.
All workers of the Phosphate plant
were separated from the subject firm
more than one year before the date of
the petition. Section 223(b) of the Act
specifies that no certification may apply
to any worker whose last separation
occurred more than one year before the
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:37 May 13, 2005
Jkt 205001
Interstate Tool and Die Company
Madison Heights, MI; Negative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration
By letter dated April 18, 2005, the
company official 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). The Department’s determination
was signed on March 23, 2005 and the
Notice of determination was published
in the Federal Register on May 2, 2005
(70 FR 22710).
The negative determination was based
on the findings that during the
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
investigatory period of 2003 through
January 2005, the subject company
neither imported prototype automotive
parts nor shifted such production
abroad, and the subject company’s
major declining customers did not
import prototype automotive parts.
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 company official, in the request
for reconsideration, infers that the scope
of the initial investigation was in error
because the term prototype parts is a
misleading description of the work done
by the firm. The company official now
states that the firm supported the
advance engineering groups of domestic
automobile manufacturers.
During a February 14, 2005 telephone
conversation, a company official stated
that workers at the subject company are
engaged in the prototype and
production for the aerospace and
automotive industries. Further, the
Business Confidential Data Request
form completed by another company
official submitted, in part, on February
16, 2005, identified ‘‘prototype auto
parts’’ as the product manufactured at
the subject facility. Therefore, the
Department determines that the scope of
the investigation was not in error.
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 at Washington, DC, this 5th day of
May 2005.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–2428 Filed 5–13–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
E:\FR\FM\16MYN1.SGM
16MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 93 (Monday, May 16, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 25850]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-2428]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-56,560]
Interstate Tool and Die Company Madison Heights, MI; Negative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By letter dated April 18, 2005, the company official 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). The
Department's determination was signed on March 23, 2005 and the Notice
of determination was published in the Federal Register on May 2, 2005
(70 FR 22710).
The negative determination was based on the findings that during
the investigatory period of 2003 through January 2005, the subject
company neither imported prototype automotive parts nor shifted such
production abroad, and the subject company's major declining customers
did not import prototype automotive parts.
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 company official, in the request for reconsideration, infers
that the scope of the initial investigation was in error because the
term prototype parts is a misleading description of the work done by
the firm. The company official now states that the firm supported the
advance engineering groups of domestic automobile manufacturers.
During a February 14, 2005 telephone conversation, a company
official stated that workers at the subject company are engaged in the
prototype and production for the aerospace and automotive industries.
Further, the Business Confidential Data Request form completed by
another company official submitted, in part, on February 16, 2005,
identified ``prototype auto parts'' as the product manufactured at the
subject facility. Therefore, the Department determines that the scope
of the investigation was not in error.
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 at Washington, DC, this 5th day of May 2005.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5-2428 Filed 5-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
