[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 78 (Friday, April 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21367-21368]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-9485]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-59,517]
Advanced Electronics, Inc.; Boston, MA; Notice of Negative
Determination on Remand
On July 16, 2009, the U.S. Court of International Trade (USCIT)
remanded to the Department of Labor (Department) for further
investigation Former Employees of Advanced Electronics, Inc. v. United
States Secretary of Labor (Court No. 06-00337).
On July 18, 2006, the Department issued a Negative Determination
regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA)
and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) applicable to
workers and former workers of Advanced Electronics, Inc., Boston,
Massachusetts (subject firm). The Department's Notice of determination
was published in the Federal Register on August 4, 2006 (71 FR 44320).
Prior to separation, the subject workers produced printed circuit board
assemblies.
The determination was based on the Department's findings that the
subject firm did not shift production of printed circuit board (PCB)
assemblies to a foreign country or import PCB assemblies or like or
directly competitive articles, and that the subject firm's major
declining customers did not import PCB assemblies or like or directly
competitive articles. Further, the Department determined that a portion
of the decline in company sales of PCB assemblies was attributed to
declining purchases from a foreign customer during the relevant period.
Administrative reconsideration was not requested by any of the
parties pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18.
On October 23, 2007, the USCIT granted the Department's request for
voluntary remand to conduct further investigation to determine whether,
during the relevant period, any of the foreign customer's facilities
located in the United States received PCB assemblies produced by the
subject firm and, if so, whether the facility(s) had imported articles
like or directly competitive with the PCB assemblies produced by the
subject firm.
Based on information obtained during the first remand
investigation, the Department determined that the foreign customer did
not import articles like or directly competitive with the PCB
assemblies produced by the subject firm and issued a Notice of Negative
Determination on Remand on December 17, 2007. The Department's Notice
of determination was published in the Federal Register on December 31,
2007 (72 FR 74340).
Although its November 18, 2008 opinion stated that substantial
evidence supported the Department's finding that increasing imports of
like or directly competitive articles did not contribute importantly to
the subject firm's decreased sales to domestic customers, the USCIT
directed the Department to ``determine whether, and to what extent, an
increase in imports into the United States of articles like or directly
competitive with the Company's printed circuit boards caused the
Company to lose business from its foreign customer.''
Based on information obtained during the second remand, the
Department determined that, although the foreign customer did switch
from the subject firm to another domestic firm, the domestic customer
did not import PCB assemblies that it supplied to the subject firm's
foreign customer. On February 19, 2009, the Department issued a Notice
of Negative Determination on Remand. The Department's Notice of
determination was published in the Federal Register on March 3, 2009
(74 FR 9290). SAR 27.
On July 16, 2009, the USCIT granted the Department's request for
voluntary remand to address the Plaintiff's allegation that the foreign
customer replaced the subject firm with two domestic customers and to
determine whether increased imports by either, or both, of the domestic
customers, of PCB assemblies that were supplied to the subject firm's
foreign customer, contributed importantly to worker
[[Page 21368]]
separations at the subject firm. SAR 94-104.
In order to apply for TAA based on increased imports, the subject
worker group must meet the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, that were in effect on
June 5, 2006.
Under Section 222(a)(2)(A), the following criteria must be met:
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; and
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.
The Department has previously determined that because the subject
firm closed on September 2005, criteria (A) and (B) have been met.
Therefore, the only issue at hand is whether criterion (C) has been
met.
29 CFR 90.2--Definitions--states that ``Increased imports means
that imports have increased either absolutely or relative to domestic
production compare to a representative base period. The representative
base period shall be one year consisting of the four quarters
immediately preceding the date which is twelve months prior to the date
of the petition.''
Because the date of the petition is June 5, 2006, the sole issue is
whether imports during June 2005 through May 2006 were greater than
during June 2004 through May 2005.
During the third remand investigation, the Department contacted the
foreign customer, SAR 30-40, company officials of both domestic
companies that replaced the subject firm, SAR 41-59, 63-162, and issued
a subpoena, 131-138, to obtain information necessary to make a
determination regarding the subject workers' eligibility to apply for
TAA.
During the third remand investigation, the Department confirmed
that when the subject firm ceased operations in 2005, the foreign
customer replaced printed circuit boards produced by the subject firm
with those produced by two preferred vendors, both vendors are domestic
companies. SAR 30, 35, 38. The Department also obtained information
from each vendor that the PCB assemblies supplied to the foreign
customer were produced outside the United States and shipped from the
foreign production facility without entering the United States en route
to the foreign customer. SAR 41, 44-47, 50, 56, 58, 59-62, 64, 67-68,
105, 108-109, 121, 139, 147-149, 151-152, 154, 159, 161-163.
Because neither of the domestic companies that replaced the subject
firm as the preferred vendor of the foreign customer imported articles
like or directly competitive with the PCB assemblies produced by the
subject firm, the Department determines that TAA criterion (C) has not
been met.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of eligibility
to apply for ATAA, the subject worker group must be certified eligible
to apply for TAA. Since the subject workers are not eligible to apply
for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA.
Conclusion
After careful reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of
negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment
assistance for workers and former workers of Advanced Electronics,
Inc., Boston, Massachusetts.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of April 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-9485 Filed 4-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P