[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 2 (Friday, January 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 408-410]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31424]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-82,728]


The Boeing Company, Boeing Defense and Space Division, Including 
On-Site Leased Workers From Geologics Corporation, Wichita, Kansas; 
Notice of Negative Determination on Remand

    On October 22, 2013, the United States Court of International Trade 
(USCIT) granted the Department of Labor's request for voluntary remand 
to conduct further investigation in Former Employees of The Boeing 
Company, Boeing Defense and Space Division, Wichita, Kansas v. United 
States Secretary of Labor (Court No. 13-00281).
    On May 14, 2013, former workers of The Boeing Company, Boeing 
Defense and Space Division, Wichita, Kansas (subject firm) filed a 
petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) on behalf of workers at 
the subject firm. AR 1-3. Workers at the subject firm (subject worker 
group) are engaged in employment related to the maintenance and 
modification of military aircraft.
    The initial investigation revealed that the subject firm had not 
shifted abroad services like or directly competitive with those 
provided by the subject worker group, had not acquired such services 
from abroad, and there had not been an increase in imports of articles 
like or directly competitive with those

[[Page 409]]

produced or services supplied by the subject firm. AR 54-62.
    Additionally, with respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the 
initial investigation revealed that the subject firm could not be 
considered a Supplier or Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a 
worker group eligible to apply for TAA benefits. AR 54-62.
    On June 12, 2013, the Department of Labor (Department) issued a 
negative Determination regarding eligibility to apply for TAA 
applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The 
Department's Notice of negative determination was published in the 
Federal Register on July 2, 2013 (78 FR 39776).
    The petitioning workers did not request administrative 
reconsideration of the Department's negative determination.
    In the complaint filed with the USCIT on August 6, 2013, the 
Plaintiffs claimed that their separations were directly caused by the 
subject firm shifting services like or directly competitive with those 
supplied by the subject firm worker group to a certified Boeing 
facility within the U.S. The Plaintiffs claimed that the Wichita 
facility should fall under the certification umbrella covered under 
various other Boeing certified facilities. AR 80.
    The intent of the Department is for a certification to cover all 
workers of a subject firm, or appropriate subdivision, who were 
adversely affected by increased imports of articles produced or 
services supplied by the firm or shifts in production or services, 
based on facts obtained during the investigation of the TAA petition. 
On October 20, 2013, the Department requested voluntary remand to 
address the allegations made by the Plaintiffs, to determine whether 
the subject worker group is eligible to apply for TAA under the Trade 
Act of 1974, as amended (hereafter referred to as the Act), and to 
issue a new determination.
    The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm under 
Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a), can be satisfied if the 
following criteria are met:

    (1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in such 
workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are 
threatened to become totally or partially separated; and
    (2)(A)(i) the sales or production, or both, of such firm have 
decreased absolutely;
    (ii)(I) imports of articles or services like or directly 
competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm 
have increased;
    (II) imports of articles like or directly competitive with 
articles--
    (aa) into which one or more component parts produced by such 
firm are directly incorporated, or
    (bb) which are produced directly using services supplied by such 
firm, have increased; or
    (III) imports of articles directly incorporating one or more 
component parts produced outside the United States that are like or 
directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or 
more component parts produced by such firm have increased; and
    (iii) the increase in imports described in clause (ii) 
contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of 
separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such 
firm; or
    (B)(i)(I) there has been a shift by such workers' firm to a 
foreign country in the production of articles or the supply of 
services like or directly competitive with articles which are 
produced or services which are supplied by such firm; or
    (II) such workers' firm has acquired from a foreign country 
articles or services that are like or directly competitive with 
articles which are produced or services which are supplied by such 
firm; and
    (ii) the shift described in clause (i)(I) or the acquisition of 
articles or services described in clause (i)(II) contributed 
importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation.

    During the remand investigation, the Department confirmed all 
previously collected information, obtained additional information from 
the subject firm regarding domestic and foreign operations, and 
solicited input from the Plaintiffs. AR 71-452.
    The information the Department received on remand contained 
additional detail regarding the operations of the subject firm 
domestically and abroad. In order to determine whether there was a 
shift abroad of the maintenance and modification services provided by 
the subject worker group, the Department had to first determine whether 
the services provided are covered under the International Traffic in 
Arms Regulations, 22 U.S.C. 2778, 22 CFR 120.1-130.17 (ITAR).
    The investigation revealed that the maintenance and modification 
services provided by the workers at the subject firm are covered as 
stipulated in ITAR and, therefore, cannot be completed outside of the 
United States. AR 456-465.
    Although the Plaintiffs declare that the subject firm shifted 
maintenance and modification services like or directly competitive with 
those provided by the subject worker group to Boeing facilities which 
employ worker groups eligible to apply for TAA located in the United 
States (AR 160), based upon the information collected during the remand 
investigation, the Department determines that the services supplied by 
the certified worker groups at those Boeing facilities are not like or 
directly competitive with those provided by the subject worker group. 
AR 456-465. Specifically, due to the nature of the services supplied by 
the subject worker group and the laws and regulations governing the 
services provided by the subject firm worker group, the work is not 
considered to be interchangeable with the work performed by other 
certified Boeing facilities. Consequently, the Department determines 
that the services supplied by the subject worker group are neither like 
nor directly competitive with those supplied by the above-mentioned 
former and current workers of Boeing who are eligible to apply for TAA 
benefits.
    The remand investigation findings confirmed that the workers were 
not impacted by a shift in services or foreign acquisition of services 
by Boeing at other facilities. AR 456-465.
    The remand investigation findings also confirmed that the subject 
firm worker group does not provide services like or directly 
competitive with the work which the Plaintiffs claimed was done by the 
subject firm worker group within the relevant time period under 
investigation. AR 456-465.
    For Section 222(a)(A)(ii)(II)(bb) of the Act to be met, imports of 
articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced 
directly using services supplied by such firm, must have increased. 
Because ITAR establishes that imports of services like or directly 
competitive with those provided by the workers at the subject firm is 
illegal, the criterion has not been met.
    Based on a careful review of previously submitted information and 
new information obtained during the remand investigation, the 
Department reaffirms that the petitioning workers have not met the 
eligibility criteria of Section 222(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
amended.

Conclusion

    After careful reconsideration of the administrative record, I 
affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility to 
apply for worker adjustment assistance applicable to workers and former 
workers of The Boeing Company, Boeing Defense and Space Division, 
including on-site leased workers from Geologics Corporation, Wichita, 
Kansas.


[[Page 410]]


    Signed at Washington, DC this 20th day of December 2013.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2013-31424 Filed 1-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P