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