[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 84 (Thursday, May 1, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23329-23330]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-10750]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[NAFTA-6103]


Bombardier Aerospace, Learjet, Inc., Wichita, KS; Notice of 
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated September 6, 2002, a petitioner requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding eligibility to apply for North American Free 
Trade Agreement-Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-TAA), 
applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The 
denial notice was signed on August 9, 2002, and was published in the 
Federal Register on September 10, 2002 (66 FR 57454).
    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 denial of NAFTA-TAA for workers engaged in the manufacture and 
assembly of aircraft at Bombardier Aerospace, Inc., Learjet, Inc., 
Wichita, Kansas was denied because the ``contributed importantly'' 
group eligibility requirement of Section 250 of the Trade Act, as 
amended, was not met. The subject firm did not import competitive 
products nor did it shift production from the subject facility to 
Canada or Mexico in the relevant period.
    The petitioner appears to allege that the parent company stopped 
all repair operations for ``the old existing fleet of Lear jets in lieu 
of just supporting what they are currently producing.''
    Repair functions do not constitute production in terms of 
eligibility for NAFTA-TAA assistance, and are therefore irrelevant to 
this investigation.
    The petitioner also asserts that production of the Model 31A, which 
had components and assembly performed at the subject facility, is being 
replaced by the Model 45, which has foreign-produced components for 
final assembly at the subject firm. The petitioner appears to be 
alleging that the 45 is like or directly competitive with the 31A, and 
therefore the Canadian-produced components of the 45 are like or 
directly competitive with the 31A components produced at the subject 
firm.
    A company official was contacted in regard to this issue and 
clarified that production of the 31A had ceased as of January of 2003 
because it had become obsolete. He also confirmed that subject firm 
workers had never produced components of the 45, but were only engaged 
in final assembly. In regard to the competitiveness of the 31A and the 
45, an industry analyst at the United States International Trade 
Commission (USITC) was consulted, whereupon it was revealed that the 
31A and 45 are not like or directly competitive. As a result, the model 
45 components are not considered like or directly competitive with 
components of the 31A, and thus these Canadian produced components have 
no bearing on the petitioning workers' eligibility for NAFTA-TAA.
    The petitioner also alleges that production of the Continental jet 
model (currently called the Challenger), although assembled in Wichita, 
is comprised of foreign-produced components, and thereby seems to imply 
that the imports of these components has import impact on subject firm 
workers. The petitioner further asserts that there are plans to move 
the assembly of this aircraft to Canada.
    The Challenger model produced in Wichita is not like or directly 
competitive with other models produced at the subject facility and thus 
the import of its component parts has no bearing on worker eligibility 
for NAFTA-TAA. In addition, assembly of the Challenger model has not 
been shifted to date and any future shift is outside the scope of this 
investigation.
    The petitioner asserts that Bombardier ``is going to build a 
smaller version of the Model 45 to exactly replace the Model 31,'' and 
that this new model will be mostly produced abroad. The implication 
appears to be that this future production will be a competitive 
replacement for subject firm production.
    A company official responded to this allegation by stating that the 
company is developing a ``Model 40'' that is competitive with the 31A; 
however, this plane is not yet in production and thus it has no bearing 
on the scope of this investigation.
    The petitioner asserts that ``there has been a substantial shift of 
production work to Canada and much more to come.'' The petitioner also 
asserts that Canadian and other imported aircraft parts are shipped to 
the U.S., thereby

[[Page 23330]]

implying that workers should be eligible for NAFTA-TAA.
    An investigation into this matter revealed that production has not 
been shifted from the subject firm to Canada in the relevant period. 
Further, as has been noted in detail above, there is no evidence of 
products like or directly competitive with those produced at the 
subject firm.
    Finally, throughout the reconsideration request, the petitioner 
alleges that several non-manufacturing functions have been or may be 
shifted to domestic and Canadian facilities, including the ``Training 
Center'', ``Customization Engineering'', the ``Technical Publication 
Department'' and the ``Spare Orders Department.'' The petitioner 
appears to assert that these shifts should somehow qualify workers for 
NAFTA-TAA assistance.
    None of the above-mentioned departments involve production in 
context with worker eligibility for NAFTA Transitional Adjustment 
Assistance, and thus have no relevance in this investigation. Only in 
very limited instances are service workers certified for NAFTA-TAA, 
namely the worker separations must be caused by a reduced demand for 
their services from a parent or controlling firm or subdivision whose 
workers produce an article and who are currently under certification 
for NAFTA-TAA.
    In conclusion, the workers at the subject firm did not meet the 
``contributed importantly'' group eligibility requirement of Section 
250(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

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 4th day of April 2003.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-10750 Filed 4-30-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P