[Federal Register: January 26, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 16)]
[Notices]
[Page 3731-3732]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26ja05-114]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-55,361]
The Boeing Company, Long Beach Division, Long Beach, California;
Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for
Reconsideration
By application of October 14, 2004, a representative of the
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, Local 148, 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 denial notice
was signed on September 2, 2004, and published in the Federal Register
on October 8, 2004 (69 FR 60425).
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 petition for the workers of The Boeing Company, Long Beach
Division, Long Beach, California was denied because criterion (1) was
not met. The subject facility did not separate or threaten to separate
a significant number or proportion of workers as required by section
222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The petitioner alleges that the workers of the 717 commercial
aircraft program are separately identifiable from the rest of the
workforce at the subject facility, and that there have been significant
declines in employment within the 717 program.
A company official was contacted in regards to these allegations.
The company official confirmed that the workers of the 717 commercial
aircraft program are separately identifiable from the rest of the
workforce at the subject facility, and provided employment figures for
the 717 commercial aircraft program at the subject facility for end of
year 2002, end of year 2003, and mid-December 2004.
Employment figures for the 717 commercial aircraft program at the
subject facility showed an increase in employment from 2002 to 2003.
Furthermore, although there was a slight employment decline within the
717 program at the subject facility from 2003 to December 2004, the
subject division did not separate or threaten to separate a significant
number or proportion of workers as required by section 222 of the Trade
Act of 1974. Significant number or proportion of the workers means that
total or partial separations, or both, in a firm or appropriate
subdivision thereof, are the equivalent to a total unemployment of five
percent (5 percent) of the workers or 50 workers, whichever is less.
Separations by the subject facility, and by the 717 commercial aircraft
division within the subject facility, did not meet this threshold
level.
The petitioner also provided information showing employment
declines within the Boeing commercial aircraft program nationwide and
in California, but not specifically at the subject facility. When
assessing eligibility for TAA, the Department
[[Page 3732]]
makes its determinations based on the requirements as outlined in
section 222 of the Trade Act. In particular, the Department considers
the relevant employment data for the facility where the petitioning
worker group was employed. As employment levels at the subject facility
did not decline significantly in the relevant period, criteria (I.A.)
of Section (a)(2)(A) has not been met.
Additionally, the petitioner included information indicating that
Boeing had lost a significant portion of its market share to the
European Airbus Consortium. Although the Department would normally
consider such information, since the subject division did not
experience a significant decline in employment, it does not affect the
outcome of this investigation.
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 27th day of December 2004.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5-260 Filed 1-25-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P