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 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, D.C., this 27th day of December 2004
/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
__________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance