Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 11, 2009 / Notices 10617 

eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade 

Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) 

applicable to workers and former 

workers of the subject firm. The 

determination was issued on February 

4, 2009 and will soon be published in 

the Federal Register. 

The initial investigation resulted in a 

negative determination based on the 

finding that the worker group engaged 

in IT sales, consulting and support 

services, does not produce an article 

within the meaning of Section 222(a)(2) 

of the Act. 

In the request for reconsideration, the 

petitioner provided additional 

information regarding activities of the 

workers at the subject facility. The 

petitioners stated that workers of the 

subject firm produced software which 

was sold to customers. 

The Department has carefully 

reviewed the request for reconsideration 

and determined that the Department 

will conduct further investigation to 

determine whether the workers of the 

subject firm were engaged in production 

of articles and whether they meet the 

eligibility requirements of the Trade Act 

of 1974. 

Conclusion 

After careful review of the 

application, I conclude that the claim is 

of sufficient weight to justify 

reconsideration of the U.S. Department 

of Labor’s prior decision. The 

application is, therefore, granted. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 2nd day of 

March 2009. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–5181 Filed 3–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–63,344] 

General Motors Corporation, Moraine 

Assembly Plant, Vehicle Manufacturing 

Division, Including On-Site Leased 

Workers From Allied Systems, Ltd and 

Securitas, Moraine, OH; Amended 

Certification Regarding Eligibility To 

Apply for Worker Adjustment 

Assistance and Alternative Trade 

Adjustment Assistance 

In accordance with Section 223 of the 

Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and 

Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 

U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the 

Department of Labor issued a 

Certification of Eligibility to Apply for 

Worker Adjustment Assistance and 

Alternative Trade Adjustment 

Assistance on June 5, 2008, applicable 

to workers of General Motors 

Corporation, Moraine Assembly Plant, 

Vehicle Manufacturing Division, 

Moraine, Ohio. The notice was 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 20, 2008 (73 FR 35164). The 

certification was amended on December 

4, 2008 to include on-site leased 

workers from Allied Systems, Ltd. The 

notice was published in the Federal 

Register on December 15, 2008 (73 FR 

76057–76058). 

At the request of a petitioner, the 

Department reviewed the certification 

for workers of the subject firm. The 

workers assemble Buick Rainiers, 

Chevrolet TrailBlazers, GMC Envoys, 

Isuzu Ascenders and Saab 9–7Xs. 

New information shows that workers 

leased from Securitas were employed 

on-site at the Moraine, Ohio location of 

General Motors Corporation, Moraine 

Assembly Plant, Vehicle Manufacturing 

Division. The Department has 

determined that these workers were 

sufficiently under the control of the 

subject firm to be considered leased 

workers. 

Based on these findings, the 

Department is amending this 

certification to include leased workers 

from Securitas working on-site at the 

Moraine Assembly Plant, Vehicle 

Manufacturing Division, Moraine, Ohio 

location of the subject firm. 

The amended notice applicable to 

TA–W–63,344 is hereby issued as 

follows: 

All workers of General Motors Corporation, 

Moraine Assembly Plant, Vehicle 

Manufacturing Division, including on-site 

leased workers from Allied Systems, LTD, 

and Securitas, Moraine, Ohio, who became 

totally or partially separated from 

employment on or after June 17, 2008, 

through June 5, 2010, are eligible to apply for 

adjustment assistance under Section 223 of 

the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible 

to apply for alternative trade adjustment 

assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act 

of 1974. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 27th day of 

February 2008. 

Richard Church, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–5173 Filed 3–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–64,393] 

Nikko America, Plano, TX; Notice of 

Negative Determination Regarding 

Application for Reconsideration 

By application dated January 22, 

2009, a petitioner requested 

administrative reconsideration of the 

Department’s negative determination 

regarding eligibility for workers and 

former workers of the subject firm to 

apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance 

(TAA) and Alternative Trade 

Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). The 

denial notice was signed on January 6, 

2009 and published in the Federal 

Register on February 2, 2009 (74 FR 

5871). 

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 TAA petition filed on behalf of 

workers at Nikko America, Plano, Texas 

was based on the finding that the 

worker group does not produce an 

article within the meaning of Section 

222 of the Trade Act of 1974. 

The petitioner in the request for 

reconsideration contends that the 

Department erred in its interpretation of 

the work performed by the workers of 

the subject firm. The petitioner stated 

that workers of the subject firm ‘‘were 

responsible for final assembly of some 

products’’, including ‘‘putting batteries 

in the boxes where the toys were 

already located and placing decal 

stickers on the toys, taping them back 

up and distributing these products’’. 

The petitioner further stated that Nikko 

decreased production of toys in 2008 

and decided to import products directly 

to consumers bypassing the distribution 

center. 

The investigation revealed that 

workers of Nikko America, Plano, Texas 

were engaged in warehousing, sales, 

distribution and service of radio 

controlled toys during the relevant 

period. No articles were produced by 

Nikko America in the United States. The 

subject firm imported all the products 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
10618 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 11, 2009 / Notices 

from subsidiaries of its parent company 

abroad. The investigation revealed that 

workers performed some light repair 

functions of products, repackaged and 

shipped imported products, provided 

customer service and performed 

warehousing services. The functions, as 

described above, are not considered 

production of an article within the 

meaning of Section 222 of the Trade 

Act. While the provision of warehousing 

and distribution services may result in 

repair and repackaging of the products, 

it is incidental to the provision of these 

services. No production took place at 

the subject facility nor did the workers 

support production of an article at any 

domestic affiliated location during the 

relevant period. 

The petitioner alleges that increased 

imports of toys negatively impacted 

workers at the subject facility. 

The allegation of the increase in 

imports of toys would have been 

relevant, if it was determined that 

workers of the subject firm 

manufactured toys. The workers were 

engaged in warehousing, sales and 

distribution of imported products. 

Therefore, increase in imports of toys is 

irrelevant to this investigation. 

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 at Washington, DC, this 2nd day of 

March 2009. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–5178 Filed 3–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–63,575] 

Philips Consumer Lifestyle, Including 

On-Site Leased Workers From Ryder 

Integrated Logistics, Ledgewood, NJ; 

Amended Certification Regarding 

Eligibility To Apply for Worker 

Adjustment Assistance and Alternative 

Trade Adjustment Assistance 

In accordance with Section 223 of the 

Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and 

Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 

U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the 

Department of Labor issued a 

Certification of Eligibility To Apply for 

Worker Adjustment Assistance and 

Alternative Trade Adjustment 

Assistance on July 16, 2008, applicable 

to workers of Philips Consumer 

Lifestyle, Ledgewood, New Jersey. The 

notice was published in the Federal 

Register on July 30, 2008 (73 FR 44284). 

The certification was amended on 

September 12, 2008 to include 

employees of the subject firm working at 

various locations in multiple States 

(TA–W–63,575A—TA–W–63,575H). 

The notice was published in the Federal 

Register on September 23, 2008 (73 FR 

54859–54860). 

At the request of the State agency, the 

Department reviewed the certification 

for workers of the subject firm. The 

workers were engaged in the production 

of antennas and packaged electronic 

accessories. 

New information shows that workers 

leased from Ryder Integrated Logistics 

were employed on-site at the 

Ledgewood, New Jersey location of 

Philips Consumer Lifestyle. The 

Department has determined that these 

workers were sufficiently under the 

control of the subject firm to be 

considered leased workers. 

Based on these findings, the 

Department is amending this 

certification to include workers leased 

from Ryder Integrated Logistics working 

on-site at the Ledgewood, New Jersey 

location of the subject firm. 

The intent of the Department’s 

certification is to include all workers of 

Philips Consumer Lifestyle who were 

adversely affected by a shift in 

production of antennas and packaged 

electronic accessories to China. 

The amended notice applicable to 

TA–W–63,575 is hereby issued as 

follows: 

‘‘All workers of Philips Consumer 

Lifestyle, including on-site leased workers 

from Ryder Integrated Logistics, Ledgewood, 

New Jersey, who became totally or partially 

separated from employment on or after June 

18, 2007, through July 16, 2010, are eligible 

to apply for adjustment assistance under 

Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are 

also eligible to apply for alternative trade 

adjustment assistance under Section 246 of 

the Trade Act of 1974.’’ 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 2nd day of 

March 2009. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–5174 Filed 3–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–64,442] 

Technology Associates, Inc., D/B/A 

Ranal Measurement Point Division, 

Auburn, MI; Notice of Negative 

Determination Regarding Application 

for Reconsideration 

By application dated January 22, 

2009, workers requested administrative 

reconsideration of the Department’s 

negative determination regarding 

eligibility for workers and former 

workers of Technologies Associates Inc., 

d/b/a Ranal, Measurement Point 

division, Auburn, Michigan (subject 

firm) to apply for Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade 

Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). 

The negative determination was 

issued on December 24, 2008. The 

Department’s Notice of negative 

determination was published in the 

Federal Register on January 14, 2009 

(74 FR 2139). The workers perform 

engineering service related to 

measurement points on component 

parts for the automotive industry. The 

denial was based on the finding that the 

subject firm does not produce an article 

within the meaning of Section 222(a)(2) 

of the Act. 

The workers’ request for 

reconsideration stated that ‘‘the 

petitioners were support personnel to 

General Motors * * * General Motors 

has trained workers in India to perform 

functions that we use[d] to perform and 

shipped work there. * * * If work was 

not being disbursed to India that work 

would be available to domestic 

workers.’’ 

Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c), 

administrative 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; 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES