Petitioner Type: State
Impact Date:
Filed Date: 09/14/2006
Most Recent Update: 09/29/2006
Determination Date: 09/29/2006
Expiration Date:
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-60,083
QPM AEROSPACE, INC.
PORTLAND, OREGON
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application of November 1, 2006, a petitioner
representative 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). The denial notice was signed on
September 29, 2006 and published in the Federal Register on
October 16, 2006 (71 FR 60763).
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 TAA petition, which was filed by a State agency
representative on behalf of workers at QPM Aerospace, Inc.,
Portland, Oregon engaged in the production of aircraft precision
machine parts, was denied based on the findings that during the
relevant time periods, the subject company 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.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner states
that there were seven workers laid off from the subject firm
during the relevant time period.
For companies with a workforce of over fifty workers, a
significant proportion of worker separations or threatened
separations is five percent. Significant number or proportion of
the workers in a firm or appropriate subdivision with a workforce
of fewer than 50 workers is at least three workers. In
determining whether there were a significant proportion of
workers separated or threatened with separations at the subject
company during the relevant time periods, the Department
requested employment figures for the subject firm for 2004, 2005,
January-August 2005 and January-August 2006. A careful review of
the information provided in the initial investigation revealed
that there were layoffs at the subject during the relevant time
period, however, overall employment has increased during the
relevant time period.
A review of the initial investigation also revealed that the
subject company sales and production increased from 2004 to 2005,
and also increased during January through August of 2006 when
compared with the same period in 2005, and that the subject
company did not shift production abroad.
As employment levels, sales and production at the subject
facility did not decline in the relevant period, and the subject
firm did not shift production to a foreign country, criteria
(a)(2)(A)(I.A), (a)(2)(B)(II.A), (a)(2)(A)(I.B), and
(a)(2)(B)(II.B) have not been met.
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 15th day of December, 2006
/s/ Linda G. Poole________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-30-P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-60,083
QPM AEROSPACE, INC.
PORTLAND, OREGON
Negative Determinations Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance
And Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended (19 USC 2273), the Department of Labor herein presents the
results of an investigation regarding certification of eligibility
to apply for worker adjustment assistance. The group eligibility
requirements for directly-impacted (primary) workers under Section
222(a) the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, can be satisfied in
either of two ways:
I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied:
A. a significant number or proportion of the workers in
such workers' firm, or an appropriate
subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially
separated, or are threatened to become totally or
partially separated;
B. the sales or production, or both, of such firm or
subdivision have decreased absolutely; and
C. increased imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles produced by such firm or
subdivision have contributed importantly to such workers’
separation or threat of separation and to the decline in
sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or
II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied:
A. a significant number or proportion of the workers in such
workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm,
have become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated;
B. there has been a shift in production by such workers’ firm
or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or
directly competitive with articles which are produced by
such firm or subdivision; and
C. One of the following must be satisfied:
1. the country to which the workers’ firm has shifted
production of the articles is a party to a free trade
agreement with the United States;
2. the country to which the workers’ firm has shifted
production of the articles is a beneficiary country under
the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and
Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery
Act; or
3. there has been or is likely to be an increase in imports
of articles that are like or directly competitive
with articles which are or were produced by such firm or
subdivision.
The investigation was initiated on September 14, 2006 in
response to a petition filed by a State agency representative on
behalf of workers at QPM Aerospace, Inc., Portland, Oregon. The
workers are engaged in the production of aircraft precision machine
parts (i.e. landing gear beam kits, non-pressurized doors, winglet
kits, brake housings).
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.A.) and
(a)(2)(B) (II.A.) have not been met.
The investigation revealed that the subject firm 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 in a firm or
appropriate subdivision thereof, means that at least three workers
with a workforce of fewer than 50 workers or five percent of the
workers with a workforce of 50 or more.
In accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of 1974 (26 USC
2813), as amended, the Department of Labor herein presents the
results of its investigation regarding certification of eligibility
to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance (ATAA) for
older workers.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for ATAA, the worker group must be certified
eligible to apply for trade adjustment assistance (TAA). Since the
workers are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot
be certified eligible for ATAA.
Conclusion
After careful review, I determine that all workers of QPM
Aerospace, Inc., Portland, Oregon are denied eligibility to apply
for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of
1974, and are also denied eligibility to apply for alternative
trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of
1974.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 29th day of September, 2006.
/s/ Linda G. Poole
______________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
7
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-60,083
QPM AEROSPACE, INC.
PORTLAND, OREGON
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application of November 1, 2006, a petitioner
representative 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). The denial notice was signed on
September 29, 2006 and published in the Federal Register on
October 16, 2006 (71 FR 60763).
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 TAA petition, which was filed by a State agency
representative on behalf of workers at QPM Aerospace, Inc.,
Portland, Oregon engaged in the production of aircraft precision
machine parts, was denied based on the findings that during the
relevant time periods, the subject company 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.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner states
that there were seven workers laid off from the subject firm
during the relevant time period.
For companies with a workforce of over fifty workers, a
significant proportion of worker separations or threatened
separations is five percent. Significant number or proportion of
the workers in a firm or appropriate subdivision with a workforce
of fewer than 50 workers is at least three workers. In
determining whether there were a significant proportion of
workers separated or threatened with separations at the subject
company during the relevant time periods, the Department
requested employment figures for the subject firm for 2004, 2005,
January-August 2005 and January-August 2006. A careful review of
the information provided in the initial investigation revealed
that there were layoffs at the subject during the relevant time
period, however, overall employment has increased during the
relevant time period.
A review of the initial investigation also revealed that the
subject company sales and production increased from 2004 to 2005,
and also increased during January through August of 2006 when
compared with the same period in 2005, and that the subject
company did not shift production abroad.
As employment levels, sales and production at the subject
facility did not decline in the relevant period, and the subject
firm did not shift production to a foreign country, criteria
(a)(2)(A)(I.A), (a)(2)(B)(II.A), (a)(2)(A)(I.B), and
(a)(2)(B)(II.B) have not been met.
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 15th day of December, 2006
/s/ Linda G. Poole________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-30-P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-60,083
QPM AEROSPACE, INC.
PORTLAND, OREGON
Negative Determinations Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance
And Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended (19 USC 2273), the Department of Labor herein presents the
results of an investigation regarding certification of eligibility
to apply for worker adjustment assistance. The group eligibility
requirements for directly-impacted (primary) workers under Section
222(a) the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, can be satisfied in
either of two ways:
I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied:
A. a significant number or proportion of the workers in
such workers' firm, or an appropriate
subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially
separated, or are threatened to become totally or
partially separated;
B. the sales or production, or both, of such firm or
subdivision have decreased absolutely; and
C. increased imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles produced by such firm or
subdivision have contributed importantly to such workers’
separation or threat of separation and to the decline in
sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or
II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied:
A. a significant number or proportion of the workers in such
workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm,
have become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated;
B. there has been a shift in production by such workers’ firm
or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or
directly competitive with articles which are produced by
such firm or subdivision; and
C. One of the following must be satisfied:
1. the country to which the workers’ firm has shifted
production of the articles is a party to a free trade
agreement with the United States;
2. the country to which the workers’ firm has shifted
production of the articles is a beneficiary country under
the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and
Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery
Act; or
3. there has been or is likely to be an increase in imports
of articles that are like or directly competitive
with articles which are or were produced by such firm or
subdivision.
The investigation was initiated on September 14, 2006 in
response to a petition filed by a State agency representative on
behalf of workers at QPM Aerospace, Inc., Portland, Oregon. The
workers are engaged in the production of aircraft precision machine
parts (i.e. landing gear beam kits, non-pressurized doors, winglet
kits, brake housings).
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.A.) and
(a)(2)(B) (II.A.) have not been met.
The investigation revealed that the subject firm 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 in a firm or
appropriate subdivision thereof, means that at least three workers
with a workforce of fewer than 50 workers or five percent of the
workers with a workforce of 50 or more.
In accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of 1974 (26 USC
2813), as amended, the Department of Labor herein presents the
results of its investigation regarding certification of eligibility
to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance (ATAA) for
older workers.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for ATAA, the worker group must be certified
eligible to apply for trade adjustment assistance (TAA). Since the
workers are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot
be certified eligible for ATAA.
Conclusion
After careful review, I determine that all workers of QPM
Aerospace, Inc., Portland, Oregon are denied eligibility to apply
for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of
1974, and are also denied eligibility to apply for alternative
trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of
1974.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 29th day of September, 2006.
/s/ Linda G. Poole
______________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
7