[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28625-28626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11478]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-82,289]


American Airlines, a Subsidiary of AMR Corporation, Tulsa 
International Airport, Fleet Services Clerks, Tulsa, Oklahoma; Notice 
of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated April 1, 2013, the State of Oklahoma 
Employment Security Commission requested administrative reconsideration 
of the Department of Labor's negative determination regarding 
eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), applicable 
to workers and former workers of American Airlines, a subsidiary of AMR 
Corporation, Tulsa International Airport, Fleet Service Clerks, Tulsa, 
Oklahoma. American Airlines supplies air transportation services. The 
subject worker group is engaged in activities related to the supply of 
cargo and baggage handling services and servicing aircraft interiors. 
The Department's Notice of determination was issued on March 5, 2013 
and published in the Federal Register on March 26, 2013 (78 FR 18370).
    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 TAA petition, filed by three workers, stated ``aircraft 
maintenance has been outsourced to China'' and that the fleet services 
clerks ``cleaned aircraft and did light maintenance items such as 
upholstery, rugs, drafts, and other items.''
    The negative determination was based on the findings of the initial 
investigation that revealed that American Airlines did not import the 
supply of services like or directly competitive with the aircraft 
interior maintenance services supplied by the subject worker group. The 
Department did not conduct a customer survey because the aircraft 
interior maintenance services supplied by the Fleet Service Clerks are 
used internally by American Airlines.
    The investigation also revealed that the subject worker group 
separations are not attributable to a shift of aircraft interior 
maintenance services to a foreign country or to an acquisition of such 
services from a foreign country by the subject firm.
    Further, the investigation revealed that the subject firm is 
neither a Supplier nor a 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 investigation revealed that the group eligibility 
requirements under Section 222(e) of the Act were not satisfied because 
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.
    The request for reconsideration states: ``It is the belief of the 
employees that their jobs were directly or indirectly affected due to a 
shift in aircraft maintenance/repair services which are now being 
performed overseas. The Fleet Service Clerks were responsible for 
servicing aircraft interiors. Since those aircraft are now receiving 
maintenance overseas, the duty of servicing the interiors of the 
affected aircraft is no longer being conducted in Tulsa.'' The request 
for reconsideration did not include documents in support of the 
request.
    The request for reconsideration did not supply facts not previously 
considered nor provided additional documentation indicating that there 
was either (1) a mistake in the determination of facts not previously 
considered or (2) a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justifying 
reconsideration of the initial determination. Based on these findings, 
the Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.

Conclusion

    After careful 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.


[[Page 28626]]


    Signed in Washington, DC, this 29th day of April, 2013.
Del Min Amy Chen,,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2013-11478 Filed 5-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P