[Federal Register: December 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 245)]
[Notices]
[Page 76699]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21de06-87]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-60,083]
QPM Aerospace, Inc. Portland, OR; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application of November 1, 2006, a petitioner representative
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). The
denial notice was signed on September 29, 2006 and published in the
Federal Register on October 16, 2006 (71 FR 60763).
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, which was filed by a State agency representative
on behalf of workers at QPM Aerospace, Inc., Portland, Oregon engaged
in the production of aircraft precision machine parts, was denied based
on the findings that during the relevant time periods, the subject
company 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.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner states that
there were seven workers laid off from the subject firm during the
relevant time period.
For companies with a workforce of over fifty workers, a significant
proportion of worker separations or threatened separations is five
percent. Significant number or proportion of the workers in a firm or
appropriate subdivision with a workforce of fewer than 50 workers is at
least three workers. In determining whether there were a significant
proportion of workers separated or threatened with separations at the
subject company during the relevant time periods, the Department
requested employment figures for the subject firm for 2004, 2005,
January-August 2005 and January-August 2006. A careful review of the
information provided in the initial investigation revealed that there
were layoffs at the subject during the relevant time period, however,
overall employment has increased during the relevant time period.
A review of the initial investigation also revealed that the
subject company sales and production increased from 2004 to 2005, and
also increased during January through August of 2006 when compared with
the same period in 2005, and that the subject company did not shift
production abroad.
As employment levels, sales and production at the subject facility
did not decline in the relevant period, and the subject firm did not
shift production to a foreign country, criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.A),
(a)(2)(B)(II.A), (a)(2)(A)(I.B), and (a)(2)(B)(II.B) have 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 15th day of December, 2006.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment, Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6-21793 Filed 12-20-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P