DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-71,634

YALE INDUSTRIAL TRUCKS-PGH, INC.
MONROEVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA

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 mis-
interpretation 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, D.C., this 1st day of April, 2010

/S/ Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-FN-P


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-71,634

YALE INDUSTRIAL TRUCKS-PGH, INC.
MONROEVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA

Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. § 2273, the Department of Labor herein
presents the results of an investigation regarding certification
of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance.
Workers of a firm may be eligible for worker adjustment
assistance if they satisfy the criteria of subsection (a), (c) or
(f) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (c), (f). For
the Department of Labor to issue a certification for workers under
Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), the following
three criteria must be met:
I. The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2282(a)(1)) requires that a significant
number or proportion of the workers in the workers’ firm must
have become totally or partially separated or be threatened
with total or partial separation.

II. The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied in one of two
ways:
(A) Increased Imports Path:
(i) sales or production, or both, at the workers’ firm must
have decreased absolutely, AND
(ii) (I) imports of articles or services like or directly
competitive with articles or services produced or
supplied by the workers’ firm have increased, OR
(II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles into which the component
part produced by the workers’ firm was directly
incorporated have increased; OR
(II)(bb) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles which are produced
directly using the services supplied by the
workers’ firm have increased; OR
(III) imports of articles directly incorporating
component parts not produced in the U.S. that are
like or directly competitive with the article into
which the component part produced by the workers’
firm was directly incorporated have increased.

(B) Shift in Production or Supply Path:
(i)(I) there has been a shift by the workers’ firm to a
foreign country in the production of articles or supply
of services like or directly competitive with those
produced/supplied by the workers’ firm; OR
(i)(II) there has been an acquisition from a foreign
country by the workers’ firm of articles/services that
are like or directly competitive with those
produced/supplied by the workers’ firm.

III. The third criterion requires that the increase in imports or
shift/acquisition must have contributed importantly to the
workers’ separation or threat of separation. See Sections
222(a)(2)(A)(iii) and 222(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
§§ 2272(a)(2)(A)(iii), 2272(a)(2)(B)(ii).

Section 222(d) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(d), defines the
terms “Supplier” and “Downstream Producer”. For the Department to
issue a secondary worker certification under Section 222(c) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), to workers of a Supplier or a Downstream
Producer, the following criteria must be met:
(1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in the
workers’ firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm
have become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated;

(2) the workers’ firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer
to a firm that employed a group of workers who received
a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of
the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), and such supply or
production is related to the article or service that was
the basis for such certification; and

(3) either
(A) the workers’ firm is a supplier and the component parts
it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2)
accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or
sales of the workers’ firm; or
(B) a loss of business by the workers’ firm with the firm
described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to
the workers’ separation or threat of separation.

Workers of a firm may also be considered eligible if they
are publicly identified by name by the International Trade
Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation
resulting in a category of determination that is listed in
Section 222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f).
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm
under Section 222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), can be
satisfied if the following criteria are met:
(1) the workers’ firm is publicly identified by name by the
International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic
industry in an investigation resulting in--
(A) an affirmative determination of serious injury or
threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) an affirmative determination of market disruption
or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) an affirmative final determination of material
injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A)
or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A));
(2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning
on the date on which--
(A) a summary of the report submitted to the President
by the International Trade Commission under section
202(f)(1) with respect to the affirmative
determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is
published in the Federal Register under section
202(f)(3); or
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described in
subparagraph (1) is published in the Federal
Register; and
(3) the workers have become totally or partially
separated from the workers’ firm within--
(A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year
period preceding the 1-year period described in
paragraph (2).

The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on July 13, 2009 by three workers on behalf of workers of
Yale Industrial Trucks-PGH, Inc., Monroeville, Pennsylvania. The
workers were engaged in employment related to the supply of sales
and maintenance services for new and used forklift trucks.
The petitioners allege that competition from forklift trucks
produced by foreign firms led to their separation from the subject
firm.
The investigation included a review of company data, phone
conversations with petitioners and company officials, and email
correspondence. In addition, the Department of Labor conducted a
survey of Yale Industrial Trucks’ largest declining customers.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that criteria (2)(A) and (2)(B) have not been met.
The subject firm did not shift abroad the supply of forklift
truck sales and maintenance services or increase imports of
forklift truck sales and maintenance services during the relevant
period.
The Department of Labor conducted a survey of the subject
firm’s largest declining customers regarding their purchases of
forklift truck sales and maintenance services during the relevant
period. The survey revealed no purchases from foreign firms during
the relevant period.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that criterion (2) has not been met because 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.
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), have not been satisfied
because the subject firm has not been identified in an affirmative
finding of injury by the International Trade Commission.


Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that workers of Yale Industrial Trucks-
PGH, Inc., Monroeville, Pennsylvania who are engaged in employment
related to the supply of forklift truck sales and maintenance
services are denied eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance
under Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 3rd day of March, 2010

/s/Elliott S. Kushner
______________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance









- 9 -