The Boeing Company, Boeing Defense and Space Division, Including On-Site Leased Workers From Geologics Corporation, Wichita, Kansas; Notice of Negative Determination on Remand, 408-410 [2013-31424]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
408
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
opportunity to comment on proposed
and/or continuing collections of
information in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program
helps ensure that requested data can be
provided in the desired format,
reporting burden (time and financial
resources) is minimized, collection
instruments are clearly understood, and
the impact of collection requirements on
respondents can be properly assessed.
Currently, ETA is soliciting comments
concerning the collection of data about
Form ETA–750, Application for Alien
Employment Certification (OMB Control
Number 1205–0015), which expires
April 30, 2014. The form is used by
employers to request permission to
bring professional athletes to the United
States and by individuals applying for a
waiver in the national interest of the job
offer requirement in employment-based
immigration.
DATES: Written comments must be
submitted to the office listed in the
addresses section below on or before
March 4, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments
to William L. Carlson, Ph.D.,
Administrator, Office of Foreign Labor
Certification, Room C–4312,
Employment & Training Administration,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20210. Telephone number: 202–
693–3010 (this is not a toll-free
number). Individuals with hearing or
speech impairments may access the
telephone number above via TTY by
calling the toll-free Federal Information
Relay Service at 1–877–889–5627 (TTY/
TDD). Fax: 202–693–2768. Email:
ETA.OFLC.Forms@dol.gov subject line:
ETA–750. A copy of the proposed
information collection request (ICR) can
be obtained by contacting the office
listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The information collection is required
by sections 203(b)(2)(B)(i) and
212(a)(5)(A) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C.
1153(b)(2)(B)(i) and 1182(a)(5)(A) and 8
CFR 204.5(k)(4)(ii). The Secretary of
Labor is required by the INA to certify
that any alien seeking to enter the
United States for the purpose of
performing skilled or unskilled labor
does not adversely affect wages and
working conditions of U.S. workers
similarly employed and that there are
not sufficient U.S. workers able, willing,
and qualified to perform such skilled or
unskilled labor. Many foreign
professional athletes must qualify as
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:36 Jan 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
skilled labor to gain permanent
admission into the United States. The
Form ETA–750 is used to certify that the
admission of an alien athlete meets
these requirements. Section
212(a)(5)(A)(iii) of the INA deals
specifically with professional athletes
coming to the United States on a
permanent basis as immigrants. Part B
of Form ETA–750 is also required by the
Department of Homeland Security
under 8 CFR 204.5(k)(4)(ii) for aliens
applying for the National Interest
Waiver (NIW) of the job offer
requirement, which allows aliens to
self-petition without an employer
sponsor and does not require a labor
certification.
II. Review Focus
DOL is particularly interested in
comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
• evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
• enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submissions
of responses.
III. Current Actions
In order to meet its statutory
responsibilities under the INA, DOL
needs to extend an existing collection of
information pertaining to employers
seeking to import foreign labor. The
form used to collect the information is
used not only by DOL, but also by other
Federal agencies to meet the
requirements of the INA. DOL uses the
information collected in its permanent
certification program for the
employment of alien professional
athletes. The Department of Homeland
Security U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services uses the form for
its NIW program for employment-based
immigration.
Type of Review: Extension.
Title: Form ETA–750, Application for
Alien Employment Certification.
OMB Number: 1205–0015.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Affected Public: Individuals, Business
or other for-profits, and not-for-profit
institutions.
Form(s): ETA–750.
Total Annual Respondents: 2033.
Annual Frequency: On occasion.
Total Annual Responses: 2033.
Average Time per Response: 1 hour
49 minutes.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 3,692.
Total Annual Burden Cost for
Respondents: 0.
Comments submitted in response to
this comment request will be
summarized and/or included in the
request for OMB approval of the ICR;
they will also become a matter of public
record.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of
December, 2013.
Eric M. Seleznow,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Employment
and Training, Labor.
[FR Doc. 2013–31469 Filed 1–2–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FP–P
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
E:\FR\FM\03JAN1.SGM
03JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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—
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:36 Jan 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
(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
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
409
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.
E:\FR\FM\03JAN1.SGM
03JAN1
410
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Notices
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
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Copyright Royalty Board
[14–CRB–0002–NSR (2016–2020)]
Determination of Royalty Rates for
New Subscription Services for Digital
Performance Right in Sound
Recordings and Ephemeral
Recordings
Copyright Royalty Board,
Library of Congress.
ACTION: Notice announcing
commencement of proceeding with
request for Petitions to Participate.
AGENCY:
The Copyright Royalty Judges
announce the commencement of the
proceeding to determine the rates and
terms for the use of sound recordings in
transmissions made by new
subscription services and for the making
of ephemeral recordings necessary for
the facilitation of such transmissions for
the period beginning on January 1, 2016,
and ending on December 31, 2020. A
party wishing to participate in this rate
determination proceeding must file its
Petition to Participate and the
accompanying $150 filing fee by the
deadline in this notice.
DATES: Petitions to Participate and the
filing fee are due no later than February
3, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Participants must submit a
Petition to Participate in a hard-copy
original, with five paper copies and an
electronic copy in Portable Document
Format (PDF) on a Compact Disc, along
with the $150 filing fee, to the Copyright
Royalty Board by either mail or hand
delivery. Participants may not submit
Petitions to Participate and the $150
filing fee by an overnight delivery
service other than the U.S. Postal
Service Express Mail. If participants
choose to use the U.S. Postal Service
(including overnight delivery), they
must address their submissions to:
Copyright Royalty Board, P.O. Box
70977, Washington, DC 20024–0977. If
participants choose hand delivery by a
private party, they must deliver the
submissions to the Library of Congress,
James Madison Memorial Building, LM–
401, 101 Independence Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20559–6000. If
participants choose delivery by a
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:36 Jan 02, 2014
commercial courier, they must deliver
the submissions to the Congressional
Courier Acceptance Site, located at 2nd
and D Street NE., Washington, DC. The
envelope must be addressed to:
Copyright Royalty Board, Library of
Congress, James Madison Memorial
Building, LM–403, 101 Independence
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20559–
6000.
Jkt 232001
LaKeshia Keys, CRB Program Specialist,
by telephone at (202) 707–7658 or email
at crb@loc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 114(f)(2)(C) of the Copyright
Act, title 17 of the United States Code,
provides that a copyright owner of
sound recordings or an eligible
nonsubscription service or a new
subscription service may file a petition
with the Copyright Royalty Judges
(Judges) requesting the determination of
reasonable terms and rates of royalty
payments for a new type of eligible
nonsubscription service or a new
subscription service on which sound
recordings are performed that is or is
about to become operational. Upon
receipt of such a petition, the Judges
must commence a proceeding to
determine such reasonable terms and
rates by publishing a notice in the
Federal Register. 17 U.S.C.
803(b)(1)(A)(i)(III), 804(b)(3)(C)(ii).
In 2005, the Judges received a petition
requesting that reasonable rates and
terms be set for a new type of
subscription service that ‘‘performs
sound recordings on digital audio
channels programmed by the licensee
for transmission by a satellite television
distribution service to its residential
customers, where the audio channels
are bundled with television channels as
part of a ‘basic’ package of service and
not for a separate fee’’; the Judges
commenced a proceeding as required by
section 804(b)(3)(C)(ii). See 70 FR
72471, 72472 (Dec. 5, 2005). The Judges
adopted the rates and terms agreed to by
the parties to that proceeding 1; those
rates expired on December 31, 2010. See
72 FR 72253 (Dec. 20, 2007).
In order to have successor rates and
terms in place prior to the expiration of
those rates, the Judges, in 2009,
commenced the rate determination
proceeding for the 2011–2015 period for
the new subscription service as defined
in § 383.2(h). See 17 U.S.C. 804(b)(3)(C),
74 FR 319 (Jan. 5, 2009). The parties
reached agreement regarding the rates
and terms for the 2011–2015 license
1 The
PO 00000
rates are codified at 37 CFR Part 383.
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
period and the Judges adopted them in
2010. See 75 FR 14074 (Mar. 24, 2010).
With the current rates set to expire on
December 31, 2015, the Judges, by this
notice, commence the rate proceeding
for the license period 2016–2020. See 17
U.S.C. 803(b)(1)(A)(i)(III), 804(b)(3)(C).
Scope of Proceeding
In addition to all other submissions
and arguments required by the Act and
the applicable regulations, and in
addition to any other submissions or
arguments that the Participants choose
to make, the Judges note below certain
potential matters that the Participants
may elect to address in this proceeding.
The Judges are open to receiving
evidence, testimony, and argument
regarding any reasonable rate structure
that a Participant may elect to propose,
such as, inter alia, a rate structure based
on the number of subscribers or a
percentage of webcaster revenue. This
openness is consistent with the
determination in Web II, 72 FR at
24089,2 in which the Judges held that,
although the record did not support a
percentage-of-revenue based royalty,
‘‘[t]his does not mean that some
revenue-based metric could not be
successfully developed as a proxy for
the usage-based metric at some time in
the future. . . .’’ The Judges make
particular note of this holding in Web II
because they recognize that, as a
practical and strategic matter,
participants in these proceedings
carefully consider prior rate proceedings
as roadmaps to ascertain the structure of
the rates they propose.
Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 114(f)(2)(B),
‘‘[i]n determining . . . rates and terms
the Copyright Royalty Judges shall base
their decision on . . . information
presented by the parties. . . .’’
(emphasis added). Thus, the Judges are
best served if the participants, their
economic witnesses, and their counsel
craft arguments in a manner that assists
the Judges in identifying and applying
the optimal economic analysis when
establishing rates and terms pursuant to
the Act. As a former federal appellate
jurist has noted:
The truism that judicial analysis, economic
or otherwise, takes place only in the context
of lawsuits between two or more parties
imposes a practical constraint on the judge’s
ability to use economic analysis. . . . [A]
judge will, for the most part, be limited by
what the parties serve up to her.
Patricia Wald, Limits on the Use of
Economic Analysis in Judicial
2 Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings
and Ephemeral Recordings, Final rule and order, 72
FR 24084 (May 1, 2007), aff’d in relevant part sub
nom. Intercollegiate Broad. Sys. v. Copyright
Royalty Bd., 574 F.3d 748 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (Web II).
E:\FR\FM\03JAN1.SGM
03JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 2 (Friday, January 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 408-410]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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
