Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Notices 34043 

totally or partially separated from 

employment on or after May 17, 2009 

through June 26, 2011, and all workers in the 

group threatened with total or partial 

separation from employment on June 26, 

2009 through June 26, 2011, are eligible to 

apply for adjustment assistance under 

Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, 

as amended. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of 

July 2009. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–16603 Filed 7–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–60,086] 

Ford Motor Company Product 

Development and Engineering Center 

Including On-Site Leased Workers 

From Roush Management LLC, Rapid 

Global Business Solutions, Inc. and 

TAC Automotive, Dearborn, MI; 

Amended Notice of Revised 

Determination on Reconsideration 

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 Notice of 

Revised Determination on 

Reconsideration on August 8, 2007. The 

notice was published in the Federal 

Register on August 20, 2007 (72 FR 

46515–46516). The Revised 

Determination on Reconsideration was 

amended on January 30, 2009 to include 

on-site leased workers from Roush 

Management LLC. The notice was 

published in the Federal Register on 

February 13, 2009 (74 FR 7269). 

At the request of a petitioner, the 

Department reviewed the Notice of 

Revised Determination on 

Reconsideration for workers of the 

subject firm. The workers are in direct 

support of production of numerous 

production assembly plants of Ford 

Motor Company. All of these production 

facilities were certified eligible for 

adjustment assistance during April 

through December 2006. 

New information shows that workers 

leased workers from Rapid Global 

Business Solutions, Inc., and TAC 

Automotive were employed on-site at 

the Dearborn, Michigan location of Ford 

Motor Company, Product Development 

Center. 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 revised 

determination to include workers leased 

from Rapid Global Business Solutions, 

Inc., and TAC Automotive working onsite at the Dearborn, Michigan location 

of the subject firm. 

The intent of the Department’s 

certification is to include all workers 

employed at Ford Motor Company, 

Product Development and Engineering 

Center, Dearborn, Michigan who were 

adversely affected by increased imports. 

The amended notice applicable to 

TA–W–60,086 is hereby issued as 

follows: 

All workers of Ford Motor Company, 

Product Development and Engineering 

Center, including on-site leased workers from 

Roush Management LLC, Rapid Global 

Business Solutions, Inc., and TAC 

Automotive, Dearborn, Michigan, who 

became totally or partially separated from 

employment on or after September 14, 2005, 

through August 8, 2009, 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 8th day of 

July 2009. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–16604 Filed 7–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–65,739] 

EOS Airlines Incorporated, Purchase, 

NY; Notice of Negative Determination; 

Regarding Application for 

Reconsideration 

By application dated May 18, 2009, 

the petitioner requested administrative 

reconsideration of the Department’s 

negative determination regarding 

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 denial 

notice was signed on April 14, 2009 and 

published in the Federal Register on 

April 30, 2009 (74 FR 19996). 

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 TAA determination 

issued by the Department for the 

workers of Eos Airline Incorporated, 

Purchase, New York was based on the 

findings that the worker group did not 

produce an article within the meaning 

of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. 

The investigation revealed that workers 

of the subject firm provided air 

transportation services to customers. 

The investigation further revealed that 

no production of article(s) occurred 

within the firm or appropriate 

subdivision during the relevant period. 

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 states 

that the workers of the subject firm 

produced an article in the form of 

‘‘Available Seat Mile’’. The petitioner 

seems to allege that the pilots produced 

Seat Miles while transporting customers 

to their destination. 

The investigation revealed that during 

the relevant period, the workers of Eos 

Airlines Incorporated, Purchase, New 

York provided air transportation 

services to customers. Specifically, 

according to the company official, the 

workers of the subject firm were pilots 

who provided air services between the 

United States and Europe. 

These 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 services results in 

providing the customers with the 

Available Seat Mile, which is used in 

measuring the productivity of an airline, 

the Seat Mile 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 

location during the relevant period. 

The petitioner also states that the 

workers would have been eligible for 

TAA under the new Trade Act if they 

filed the petition in May 2009. The 

petitioner seems to allege that the 

workers of the subject firm should be 

evaluated using new eligibility criteria 

and receive a certification for TAA 

under the new law, even though they 

filed a petition under the old Trade Act 

before the new provision went into 

effect. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES