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