DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-91,995

THE BOEING COMPANY
BOEING TEST AND EVALUATION (BT&E) DIVISION
FLIGHT TEST GROUP
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
22ND CENTURY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ADECCO USA, INC.,
AMERICAN CYBERSYSTEMS, INC., APEX SYSTEMS, INC., APOLLO
PROFESSIONAL SOLUTIONS, INC., AQUENT LLC,
ARTECH INFORMATION SYSTEMS LLC, ATEECA, INC.,
CHIPTON ROSS, INC., CHIPTON ROSS, INC. (NEVADA),
COLLABERA, INC., COLUMBUS TECHNOLOGIES AND SERVICES, INC.,
CTS INTERNATIONAL, INC., GLOBALPUNDITS, INC., ICONMA LLC,
LAUNCHCODE, OBJECTWIN TECHNOLOGY, INC., PDS TECH, INC., ROSE
INTERNATIONAL, INC., SEARCHPROS SOLUTIONS, TRIAD SYSTEMS
INTERNATIONAL, US TECH SOLUTIONS, INC., VERIFY, INC., VOLT
SERVICES, INC., AND YOH SERVICES
ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI

Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended ("Act"), 19 U.S.C. § 2273, the Department of Labor
herein presents the results of an investigation regarding
certification of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment
assistance.
Workers of a firm may be eligible for worker adjustment
assistance if they satisfy the criteria of subsection (a), (b)
or (e) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (b) and
(e). For the Department of Labor to issue a certification for
workers under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a),
the following criteria must be met:
(1) The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(1)) requires that a significant
number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm
must have become totally or partially separated or be
threatened with total or partial separation.

(2) The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied in one of two
ways:
(A) Increased Imports Path:
(i) sales or production, or both, at the workers' firm
must have decreased absolutely; AND
(ii) (I) imports of articles or services like or directly
competitive with articles or services produced or
supplied by the workers' firm have increased, OR
(II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles into which the
component part produced by the workers' firm was
directly incorporated have increased; OR
(II)(bb) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles which are produced
directly using the services supplied by the
workers' firm have increased; OR
(III) imports of articles directly incorporating
component parts not produced in the U.S. that are
like or directly competitive with the article
into which the component part produced by the
workers' firm was directly incorporated 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.

(B) Shift in Production or Supply Path:
(i)(I) there has been a shift by the workers' firm to a
foreign country in the production of articles or
supply of services like or directly competitive with
those produced/supplied by the workers' firm; OR
(II) there has been an acquisition from a foreign
country by the workers' firm of articles/services that
are like or directly competitive with those
produced/supplied by the workers' 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.

For the Department to issue a secondary worker
certification under Section 222(b) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. §
2272(b), to workers of a Supplier or a Downstream Producer, the
following criteria must be met:
(1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in
the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the
firm have become totally or partially separated, or
are threatened to become totally or partially
separated;
(2) the workers' firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer
to a firm that employed a group of workers who
received a certification of eligibility under Section
222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), and such
supply or production is related to the article or
service that was the basis for such certification; and
(3) either
(A) the workers' firm is a supplier and the component
parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph
(2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the
production or sales of the workers' firm;
or
(B) a loss of business by the workers' firm with the
firm described in paragraph (2) contributed
importantly to the workers' separation or threat of
separation.

Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), defines the
terms "Supplier" and "Downstream Producer."
Workers of a firm may also be considered eligible if they
are publicly identified by name by the International Trade
Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an
investigation resulting in a category of determination that is
listed in Section 222(e) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(e).
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm
under Section 222(e) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(e), can be
satisfied if the following criteria are met:
(1) the workers' firm is publicly identified by name by
the International Trade Commission as a member of a
domestic industry in an investigation resulting in--
(A) an affirmative determination of serious injury or
threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) an affirmative determination of market disruption
or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) an affirmative final determination of material
injury or threat thereof under section
705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and
1673d(b)(1)(A));
(2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period
beginning on the date on which--
(A) a summary of the report submitted to the
President by the International Trade Commission
under section 202(f)(1) with respect to the
affirmative determination described in paragraph
(1)(A) is published in the Federal Register under
section 202(f)(3); or
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described
in subparagraph (1) is published in the Federal
Register; and
(3) the workers have become totally or partially
separated from the workers' firm within--
(A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) notwithstanding section 223(b), the 1-year
period preceding the 1-year period described in
paragraph (2).

The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on July 8, 2016 by a One-Stop Operator/Partner on behalf
of workers of The Boeing Company, Boeing Test and Evaluation
(BT&E) Division, Flight Test Group, St. Louis, Missouri (BT&E-
Flight Test Group). The Boeing Company, St. Louis, Missouri is
engaged in activities related to the production of military
aircraft (F/A 18 Super Hornet, EA18G Growler, F-15 Eagle),
munition, small diameter bombs, and commercial aircraft sub-
assemblies. Commercial articles produced at the St. Louis,
Missouri facility are subassemblies which do not require
flight testing services. As such, workers of BT&E-Flight Test
Group are engaged in activities related to the production of
military aircraft.
The subject worker group includes on-site leased workers
from 22nd Century Technologies, Inc., Adecco USA, Inc., American
Cybersystems Inc., Apex Systems, Inc., Apollo Professional
Solutions Inc., Aquent LLC, Artech Information Systems LLC,
Ateeca Inc., Chipton Ross Inc., Chipton Ross Inc. (Nevada),
Collabera Inc., Columbus Technologies and Services, Inc., CTS
International Inc., Globalpundits, Inc., Iconma LLC, Launchcode,
ObjectWin Technology, Inc., PDS Tech Inc., Rose International
Inc., Searchpros Solutions, Triad Systems International, US Tech
Solutions Inc., Verify, Inc., Volt Services Inc., and Yoh
Services.
The petition states "Boeing competes for sales domestically
with foreign companies such as Airbus, Bombardier, and Embraer.
Because of this foreign competition Boeing's domestic sales and
production have been negatively impacted while domestic purchase
of foreign aircraft have increased. This increase in foreign
aircraft imports has put pressure on Boeing to cut jobs to
remain competitive." The petition states that the subject
workers are engaged in the "testing of aircraft." The petition
includes additional information and support documents.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the petitioner, the workers' firm, the United
States International Trade Commission, and the U.S. Department
of Commerce.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that, during the relevant period, the
subject firm did not increase imports of articles like or
directly competitive with the military aircraft produced by
the subject workers. Aggregate data reveals no increased
imports of military aircraft during the relevant period. The
Department did not survey the U.S. military regarding imports
of military aircraft.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that The Boeing Company did not shift the
production of military aircraft, or a like or directly
competitive article, to a foreign country or acquire such
articles from a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that The Boeing Company is not a
Supplier or Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a group
of workers who received a certification of eligibility under
Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a).
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act, have not been satisfied because Criterion (1)
has not been met since the workers' firm has not been publicly
identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a
member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in
an affirmative finding of serious injury, market disruption, or
material injury, or threat thereof.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that the requirements of Section 222
of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272, have not been met and, therefore,
deny the petition for group eligibility of The Boeing Company,
Boeing Test and Evaluation (BT&E) Division, Flight Test Group,
including on-site leased workers from 22nd Century Technologies,
Inc., Adecco USA, Inc., American Cybersystems Inc., Apex
Systems, Inc., Apollo Professional Solutions Inc., Aquent LLC,
Artech Information Systems LLC, Ateeca Inc., Chipton Ross Inc.,
Chipton Ross Inc. (Nevada), Collabera Inc., Columbus
Technologies and Services, Inc., CTS International Inc.,
Globalpundits, Inc., Iconma LLC, Launchcode, ObjectWin
Technology, Inc., PDS Tech Inc., Rose International Inc.,
Searchpros Solutions, Triad Systems International, US Tech
Solutions Inc., Verify, Inc., Volt Services Inc., and Yoh
Services, St. Louis, Missouri engaged in activities related to
the production of F/A 18 Super Hornet, EA18G Growler, F-15
Eagle, Joint Attack Munition, Harpoon, small diameter bombs and
commercial aircraft sub-assemblies to apply for adjustment
assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
§ 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 31st day of October 2016.
/s/Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance