[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 26, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3731-3732]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-260]


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

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