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