Yale Industrial Trucks-PGH, Inc. Monroeville, PA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 20396 [2010-8874]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
20396
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 74 / Monday, April 19, 2010 / Notices
In order for the Department to issue
a certification of eligibility to apply for
ATAA, the subject worker group must
be certified eligible to apply for TAA.
Since the subject workers are denied
eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers
cannot be certified eligible for ATAA.
Conclusion
After careful reconsideration, I affirm
the original notice of negative
determination of eligibility to apply for
worker adjustment assistance for
workers and former workers of
American Racing Equipment, LLC,
Denver, Colorado.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 8th day of
April, 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010–8870 Filed 4–16–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–71,634]
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Yale Industrial Trucks-PGH, Inc.
Monroeville, PA; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration
By application received March 16,
2010, 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 the subject firm. The
Department’s Notice of determination
was issued on March 3, 2010 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 misinterpretation of facts or of
the law justified reconsideration of the
decision.
The negative determination of the
TAA petition filed on behalf of workers
at Yale Industrial Trucks-PGH, Inc.,
Monroeville, Pennsylvania, was based
on the findings that: The subject firm
had not shifted abroad forklift truck
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:04 Apr 16, 2010
Jkt 220001
sales and maintenance services or
imported forklift truck sales and
maintenance services during the
relevant period; the declining customers
of the subject firm had not obtained
truck sales and maintenance services
from foreign firms during the relevant
period; and 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.
The petitioner stated that the workers
of the subject firm should be eligible for
TAA because some of that firm’s largest
customers, who are TAA-certified, have
cut back production in some plants and
shut down production at other plants
because of foreign steel imports and
have consequently sent back a large
number of the fork lift trucks leased and
serviced by the subject firm. Moreover,
the petitioner alleged that there were
many fork lift truck companies selling
foreign-made fork lift trucks.
The initial investigation revealed that
the secondary certification that the
petitioner is seeking is not possible
because the subject firm provided tools
and related services used in production
but not component parts, as required by
Section 222(d) of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
2272(d).
Furthermore, during the initial
investigation the Department surveyed
the subject firm’s major declining
customers regarding their purchases of
forklift trucks and maintenance services
during the relevant period. The survey
revealed no imports of forklift trucks or
related maintenance services.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Signed in Washington, DC, this 1st day of
April, 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010–8874 Filed 4–16–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–72,103]
Terex USA, LLC, Cedar Rapids, IA;
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for
Reconsideration
By application dated March 8, 2010,
the State of Iowa Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) Coordinator requested
administrative reconsideration of the
Department’s negative determination
regarding eligibility to apply for TAA
applicable to workers and former
workers of the subject firm. The Notice
of negative determination was signed on
February 3, 2010. The Department’s
Notice was published in the Federal
Register on March 12, 2010 (74 FR
11925).
The petitioner states in the request for
reconsideration that the initial customer
survey was limited to only the largest
customer of the subject firm and that
perhaps many of the subject firm’s
customers are purchasing imports of
products like those produced by the
subject firm, and that such purchasing
of imports by many small customers
could have brought about the worker
separations at the subject firm.
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 misinterpretation of facts or of
the law justified reconsideration of the
decision.
The initial investigation resulted in a
negative determination, which was
based on the finding that shifts of
production of crushing, screening, and
paving equipment (types of construction
equipment) did not contribute
importantly to worker separations at the
subject firm and that a major portion of
the sales decline of the subject firm can
E:\FR\FM\19APN1.SGM
19APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 74 (Monday, April 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 20396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-8874]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-71,634]
Yale Industrial Trucks-PGH, Inc. Monroeville, PA; Notice of
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application received March 16, 2010, 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 the
subject firm. The Department's Notice of determination was issued on
March 3, 2010 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
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of
the decision.
The negative determination of the TAA petition filed on behalf of
workers at Yale Industrial Trucks-PGH, Inc., Monroeville, Pennsylvania,
was based on the findings that: The subject firm had not shifted abroad
forklift truck sales and maintenance services or imported forklift
truck sales and maintenance services during the relevant period; the
declining customers of the subject firm had not obtained truck sales
and maintenance services from foreign firms during the relevant period;
and 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.
The petitioner stated that the workers of the subject firm should
be eligible for TAA because some of that firm's largest customers, who
are TAA-certified, have cut back production in some plants and shut
down production at other plants because of foreign steel imports and
have consequently sent back a large number of the fork lift trucks
leased and serviced by the subject firm. Moreover, the petitioner
alleged that there were many fork lift truck companies selling foreign-
made fork lift trucks.
The initial investigation revealed that the secondary certification
that the petitioner is seeking is not possible because the subject firm
provided tools and related services used in production but not
component parts, as required by Section 222(d) of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
2272(d).
Furthermore, during the initial investigation the Department
surveyed the subject firm's major declining customers regarding their
purchases of forklift trucks and maintenance services during the
relevant period. The survey revealed no imports of forklift trucks or
related maintenance services.
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, DC, this 1st day of April, 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-8874 Filed 4-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
