24752 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / 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that the petition be withdrawn.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. 

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. 

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 http:// 

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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Notices 24753 

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. 

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 

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 

(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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES