UPF, Inc. Flint, MI; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 24752-24753 [2010-10524]

Download as PDF 24752 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Notices sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES Determinations Terminating Investigations of Petitions for Worker Adjustment Assistance After notice of the petitions was published in the Federal Register and on the Department’s Web site, as required by Section 221 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2271), the Department initiated investigations of these petitions. The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. TA–W–71,538: Ricerca Biosciences, LLC, Concord, OH. TA–W–71,843: Nioxin Research Laboratories, Inc., Leased Workers from Selectsource Staffing and Blusetart Staffing, Lithia Springs, GA. TA–W–72,523: Warner Automotive Group, Inc., dba Warner Chevrolet Cadillac, Tiffin, OH. TA–W–73,275: Cummins Bridgeway, LLC, New Hudson, MI. TA–W–73,419: Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., Horsham, PA. TA–W–73,662: Saxon, Elk River, MN. TA–W–73,716: Kmart, A Division of Sears Holding Corp, Huber Heights, OH. TA–W–73,761: Kmart, Milford, OH. The following determinations terminating investigations were issued in cases where these petitions were not filed in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 90.11. Every petition filed by workers must be signed by at least three individuals of the petitioning worker group. Petitioners separated more than one year prior to the date of the petition cannot be covered under a certification of a petition under Section 223(b), and therefore, may not be part of a petitioning worker group. For one or more of these reasons, these petitions were deemed invalid. TA–W–73,076: TRI–DIM Filter Corp., Working on-Site at Chrysler Group, LLC, Belvidere, IL. TA–W–73,181: Advanced Technology Services, Inc., Peoria, IL. The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioning groups of workers are covered by active certifications. Consequently, further investigation in these cases would serve no purpose since the petitioning group of workers cannot be covered by more than one certification at a time. TA–W–72,245: Camshaft Machine Company, LLC., Jackson, MI, covered by TA–W–73,308: Camshaft Machine Company, LLC., Jackson, MI. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 May 04, 2010 Jkt 220001 TA–W–72,679: Logistics Management Services, Inc., Worked on-site at Chrysler LLC, Fenton, MO, Fenton, MO, covered by TA–W–63,052, as amended: Chrysler LLC, including on-site leased workers from Logistics Management Services, Inc. TA–W–73,329: Resinoid Engineering Corporation, Heath, OH, covered by TA–W–71,175A: Resinoid Engineering Corporation, Heath, OH. TA–W–73,559: APM Terminals, A.P. Moller-Maersk Group, Charlotte, NC, covered by TA–W–71,914: Maersk Line, a wholly owned subsidiary of APM Terminals, A.P. Moller-Maersk Group, Charlotte, NC. TA–W–73,748: Commercial Construction Management and Resource, Milford, OH, covered by TA–W–70,115: Senco Brands, Inc., as amended: included on-site leased workers from Commercial Construction Management and Resource, Milford, OH. TA–W–73,801: Diebold, Inc., North Canton, OH, covered by TA–W– 70,993: Diebold, Inc., North Canton, OH. The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitions are the subject of ongoing investigations under petitions filed earlier covering the same petitioners. TA–W–73,219: IBM Corporation, Division 7 Server Support, Armonk, NY, covered by TA–W–218: IBM Corporation, Division 7 Server Support, Armonk, NY. TA–W–73,227: Rexam Beverage Can North America, Oklahoma City, OK, covered by TA–W–70,982: Rexam Beverage Can North America, Oklahoma City, OK. TA–W–73,673: General Motors Corporation, Detroit, MI, covered by TA–W–73,164: General Motors Renaissance Center, Detroit, MI. TA–W–73,731: The Berry Company LLC, Erie, PA, covered by TA–W– 72,706: The Berry Company LLC, Erie, PA. The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the Department issued a negative determination on petitions related to the relevant investigation period applicable to the same worker group. The duplicative petitions did not present new information or a change in circumstances that would result in a reversal of the Department’s previous negative determination, and therefore, further investigation would duplicate efforts and serve no purpose. PO 00000 Frm 00185 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 TA–W–71,573: Severstal Wheeling, Inc., Wheeling, WV. TA–W–73,318: Cascade Grain Products, LLC, Clatskanie, OR. I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of March 29, 2010 through April 9, 2010. Copies of these determinations may be requested under the Freedom of Information Act. Request may be submitted by fax, courier services, or mail to FOIA Disclosure Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance (ETA), U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 or to foiarequest@dol.gov. These determinations also are available on the Department’s Web site at https:// www.doleta.gov/tradeact under the searchable listing of determinations. Dated: April 29, 2010. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. 2010–10520 Filed 5–4–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–72,151] UPF, Inc. Flint, MI; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application dated April 7, 2010, the United Auto Workers, Local 599 (‘‘Union’’), 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 March 10, 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 UPF, Inc., Flint, Michigan, was based on the following findings: There was no increase in imports by the workers’ firm or the customer of the subject firm of articles like or directly competitive with E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM 05MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Notices the truck chassis produced by the laidoff workers; there was no shift or acquisition by the workers’ firm of articles like or directly competitive with the truck chassis produced by the laidoff workers; neither the workers’ firm nor the customer of the subject firm imported articles like or directly competitive with articles into which the commercial truck chassis produced by the workers’ firm was directly incorporated; and the workers did not produce an article that was used by a firm with TAA-certified workers in the production of an article that was the basis for the TAA-certification. In the request for reconsideration, the Union representative stated that the workers of the subject firm should be eligible for TAA because: General Motors, in 2008–2009, discontinued their commercial truck program * * * UPF was a supplier of truck chassis for the Chevrolet and GM commercial truck program. During General Motors bankruptcy, they decided to bring another truck to the Flint Truck Assembly Plant, the Chevrolet/ GMC 900 half-ton extended cab pick-up. GM by-passed UPF for consideration for the truck frame for the 900 half-ton extended cab pickup. GM went right Magna Cosma International in St. Thomas, Ontario, Canada. sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES The initial investigation had, in fact, already revealed that the General Motors Flint Truck Plant had discontinued the 560 line of commercial trucks for which the subject firm had been producing truck chassis, and that the Flint Truck Plant is now importing chassis for the 900 series residential trucks from an offshore producer. However, the chassis for the 900 line of residential trucks that are being imported are neither like nor directly competitive with the chassis formerly manufactured by the subject firm for the 560 line of commercial trucks. 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 May 04, 2010 Jkt 220001 Labor’s prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied. Signed in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of April, 2010. Del Min Amy Chen, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. 2010–10524 Filed 5–4–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–72,471] The Walker Auto Group, Inc., Miamisburg, OH; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application dated March 4, 2010, a representative of the State of Ohio 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 negative determination was signed on January 8, 2010. The Department’s Notice of determination was published in the Federal Register on February 16, 2010 (75 FR 7039). 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 The Walker Auto Group, Inc., Miamisburg, Ohio, was based on the finding that the subject firm did not shift abroad the supply of automotive sales or services or increase imports of automotive sales services during the relevant period, and that 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. In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner stated that the workers of the subject firm should be eligible for TAA because the Walker Auto Group, Inc., Miamisburg, Ohio, supplies a service PO 00000 Frm 00186 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 24753 (sales and service of Pontiac automobiles)’’ and ‘‘A required minimum of the workforce has been laid off in the 12 months preceding the date of the petition or is threatened with layoffs * * *’’ and increased imports of articles or services contributed importantly to an actual decline in sales or production of like or directly competitive articles or services at the workers’ firm and to the workers’ layoff or threat of a layoff.’’ The petitioner further states that the ‘‘well-documented * * * import of foreign-made automobiles has increased continually for years, contributing importantly to an actual decline in sales and production of Pontiac cars. * * * The service The Walker Auto Group, Inc. provided was based on the continued production of Pontiac automobiles, therefore the increases of imported cars contributed importantly to the workers’ layoff and, for those who remain, the threat of layoff at the end of 2010.’’ The initial investigation revealed that the subject firm did not shift abroad the supply of automotive sales or services or increase imports of automotive sales services during the relevant period. No survey of the subject firm’s major declining customers regarding their purchases of imported automotive sales or services was done because the subject firm sells retail to individual customers, and there is no major purchaser. 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 23rd day of April, 2010. Del Min Amy Chen, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. 2010–10519 Filed 5–4–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM 05MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24752-24753]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10524]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-72,151]


UPF, Inc. Flint, MI; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding 
Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated April 7, 2010, the United Auto Workers, Local 
599 (``Union''), 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 March 10, 
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 UPF, Inc., Flint, Michigan, was based on the following 
findings: There was no increase in imports by the workers' firm or the 
customer of the subject firm of articles like or directly competitive 
with

[[Page 24753]]

the truck chassis produced by the laid-off workers; there was no shift 
or acquisition by the workers' firm of articles like or directly 
competitive with the truck chassis produced by the laid-off workers; 
neither the workers' firm nor the customer of the subject firm imported 
articles like or directly competitive with articles into which the 
commercial truck chassis produced by the workers' firm was directly 
incorporated; and the workers did not produce an article that was used 
by a firm with TAA-certified workers in the production of an article 
that was the basis for the TAA-certification.
    In the request for reconsideration, the Union representative stated 
that the workers of the subject firm should be eligible for TAA 
because:

    General Motors, in 2008-2009, discontinued their commercial 
truck program * * * UPF was a supplier of truck chassis for the 
Chevrolet and GM commercial truck program. During General Motors 
bankruptcy, they decided to bring another truck to the Flint Truck 
Assembly Plant, the Chevrolet/GMC 900 half-ton extended cab pick-up. 
GM by-passed UPF for consideration for the truck frame for the 900 
half-ton extended cab pick-up. GM went right Magna Cosma 
International in St. Thomas, Ontario, Canada.

    The initial investigation had, in fact, already revealed that the 
General Motors Flint Truck Plant had discontinued the 560 line of 
commercial trucks for which the subject firm had been producing truck 
chassis, and that the Flint Truck Plant is now importing chassis for 
the 900 series residential trucks from an offshore producer. However, 
the chassis for the 900 line of residential trucks that are being 
imported are neither like nor directly competitive with the chassis 
formerly manufactured by the subject firm for the 560 line of 
commercial trucks.
    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 23rd day of April, 2010.
 Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-10524 Filed 5-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.