The Boeing Company, Long Beach Division, Long Beach, California; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 3731-3732 [E5-260]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 26, 2005 / Notices Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of December 2004. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E5–267 Filed 1–25–05; 8:45 am] Signed in Washington, DC, this 12th day of January, 2005. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E5–269 Filed 1–25–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–30–P BILLING CODE 4510–30–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–55,518] [TA–W–56,207] BASF Corporation, Freeport, TX; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration Beverage-Air Abbeville County Factory; Honea Path, SC; Notice of Termination of Investigation By application of October 15, 2004, a petitioner requested administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor’s Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance, applicable to workers of the subject firm. The negative determination for the workers of BASF Corporation, Freeport, Texas was signed on October 4, 2004, and the Department’s notice of determination was published in the Federal Register on October 26, 2004 (69 FR 62461). The initial investigation found that workers are separately identifiable by product line (polycaprolactum, oxo, diols, and acrylic monomers), that polycaprolactum, oxo and diol production increased during the relevant period, and that the subject company neither increased imports of acrylic monomers during the relevant period nor shifted acrylic monomer production abroad. In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleged that the subject firm has shifted acrylic monomer production to China. The Department has carefully reviewed the petitioner’s request for reconsideration and previously submitted documents, and has determined that the petitioner has provided additional information and that the subject worker group was erroneously categorized. Therefore, the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974. Conclusion After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor’s prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted. VerDate jul<14>2003 19:33 Jan 25, 2005 Jkt 205001 Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on December 13, 2004 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Beverage-Air, Abbeville County Factory, Honea Path, South Carolina. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC this 14th day of January, 2005. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E5–275 Filed 1–25–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–30–P 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: PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 3731 (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 midDecember 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 E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM 26JAN1 3732 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 26, 2005 / Notices 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 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC this 27th day of December 2004. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E5–263 Filed 1–25–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–30–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–56,125] Caledonia Two, Formerly South Carolina Tees, Andrews, South Carolina; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on December 3, 2004 in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Caledonia Two, formerly South Carolina Tees, Andrews, South Carolina. The petition was filed more than one year after the subject firm was closed. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC, this 14th day of December, 2004. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E5–264 Filed 1–25–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–30–P Employment and Training Administration DEPARTMENT OF LABOR [TA–W–56,114] Bourns Microelectronics Modules, Inc. Formerly Known as Microelectronics Modules Corporation a Susidiary of Bourns Inc., New Berlin, Wisconsin; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on December 1, 2004 in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at Bourns Microelectronic Modules Inc., formerly known as Microelectronics Modules Corporation, a subsidiary of Bourns Inc., New Berlin, Wisconsin. The petitioning group of workers is covered by an earlier petition (TA–W– 42,217) which expired on December 6, 2004. Since the firm has ceased production and all workers were covered under that certification, there is no basis for issuing a new certification. Consequently, further investigation in VerDate jul<14>2003 19:33 Jan 25, 2005 Jkt 205001 Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–55,578] Celestica, Repair Subdivision, Little Rock, AR; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application of October 29, 2004, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 2022, 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) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). The negative determination applicable to workers of Celestica, Repair Subdivision, Little Rock, Arkansas was signed on October PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 15, 2004. The notice of determination was published in the Federal Register on November 12, 2004 (69 FR 65462). 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 petition was filed on behalf of workers at Celestica, Repair Subdivision, Little Rock, Arkansas engaged in activities related to the repair of defective wireless phones, wired office phone handlers, phone switches, and other related equipment. The petition was denied because the workers did not produce an article within the meaning of section 222 of the Act. In the request for reconsideration, the Union alleged that repair work should be considered remanufacturing work. A company official was contacted to clarify the work performed at the Repair Subdivision and ascertain whether the repaired items were sold as remanufactured items. The official stated that the work done was repair and not remanufacturing, that defective items were sent to the repair facility by the end user pursuant to a warranty, that repaired items were returned directly to the end user, and that repaired items were not sold as remanufactured items. Repair of products already purchased does not constitute production within the context of eligibility requirements for trade adjustment assistance. 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 in Washington, DC, this 12th day of January, 2005. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E5–271 Filed 1–25–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–30–P E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM 26JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 26, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3731-3732]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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