Advanced Electronics, Inc., Boston, MA; Notice of Negative Determination on Remand, 74340-74341 [E7-25362]

Download as PDF sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 74340 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 249 / Monday, December 31, 2007 / Notices Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 16,667. Total Estimated Annual Cost Burden: $22,000. Affected Public: Individuals or households. Description: In accordance with 20 CFR 10.528, DOL periodically requires each employee who is receiving compensation benefits to complete an affidavit as to any work, or activity indicating an ability to work, which the employee has performed for the prior 15 months. If an employee who is required to file such a report fails to do so within 30 days of the date of the request, his or her right to compensation for wage loss under 5 U.S.C. 8105 or 8106 is suspended until DOL receives the requested report. The information collected through the Form CA–1032 is used to ensure that compensation being paid is correct. Without this information, claimants might receive compensation to which they were not entitled, resulting in an overpayment of compensation. For additional information, see related notice published on August 29, 2007 at 72 FR 49737. Agency: Employment Standards Administration. Type of Review: Extension without change of currently approved collection. Title of Collection: Worker Information—Terms and Conditions of Employment. OMB Control Number: 1215–0187. Agency Form Numbers: WH–516 and WH–516–Espanol. Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 129,250. Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 77,550. Total Estimated Annual Cost Burden: $93,060. Affected Public: Private Sector: Farms. Description: Various sections of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA), 29 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., require respondents [i.e., Farm Labor Contractors (FLCs), Agricultural Employers (AGERs), and Agricultural Associations (AGASs)] to disclose employment terms and conditions in writing to: (1) Migrant agricultural workers at the time of recruitment [MSPA section 201(a)]; (2) seasonal agricultural workers, upon request, at the time an offer of employment is made [MSPA section 301(a)(1)]; and (3) seasonal agricultural workers employed through a day-haul operation at the place of recruitment [MSPA section 301(a)(2)]. See 29 CFR 500.75–.76. Moreover, MSPA sections 201(b) and 301(b) require respondents to provide each migrant worker, upon request, with a written statement of the VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:08 Dec 28, 2007 Jkt 214001 terms and conditions of employment. See 29 CFR 500.75(d). MSPA sections 201(g) and 301(f) require providing such information in English or, as necessary and reasonable, in a language common to the workers and that the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) make forms available to provide such information. The DOL prints and makes Optional Form WH–516, Worker Information— Terms and Conditions of Employment, available for these purposes. See 29 CFR 500.75(a), 500.76(a). MSPA sections 201(a)(8) and 301(a)(1)(H) require disclosure of certain information regarding whether State workers’ compensation or state unemployment insurance is provided to each migrant or seasonal agricultural worker. See 29 CFR 500.75(b)(6). For example, if State workers’ compensation is provided, the respondents must disclose the name of the State workers’ compensation insurance carrier, the name of the policyholder of such insurance, the name and the telephone number of each person who must be notified of an injury or death, and the time period within which this notice must be given. See 29 CFR 500.75(b)(6)(i). Respondents may also meet this disclosure requirement, by providing the worker with a photocopy of any notice regarding workers’ compensation insurance required by law of the state in which such worker is employed. See 29 CFR 500.75(b)(6)(ii). The Form WH–516 is an optional form that allows respondents to disclose employment terms and conditions in writing to migrant and seasonal agricultural workers, as required by the MSPA. Respondents may either complete the optional form and use it to make the required disclosures to workers or use the form as a written reflection of the information workers may request from employers under the MSPA. Disclosure of the information on this form is beneficial to both parties in that it enables workers to understand their employment terms and conditions, while also providing respondents with an easy way to disclose the information required by the MSPA and its regulations. For additional information, see related notice published on September 12, 2007 at 72 FR 52166. Darrin A. King, Acting Departmental Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7–25371 Filed 12–28–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–27–P PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–59,517] Advanced Electronics, Inc., Boston, MA; Notice of Negative Determination on Remand On October 22, 2007, the U.S. Court of International Trade (USCIT) granted the Department of Labor’s request for voluntary remand to conduct further investigation in Former Employees of Advanced Electronics, Inc. v. United States Secretary of Labor (Court No. 06– 00337). On July 18, 2006, the Department of Labor (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). AR 60. The Department’s Notice of determination was published in the Federal Register on August 4, 2006 (71 FR 44320). AR 67. The petition identified the article produced by the subject workers as ‘‘electronics.’’ AR 2. A letter (dated May 8, 2006) identified the subject workers as engaged in the production of ‘‘subassembly’ printed circuit boards’’ and alleged that increased imports of that article caused the subject workers’ separations. AR 28. The negative determination stated that the subject workers ‘‘were engaged in the production of printed circuit boards (subassembly)’’ and that the Department’s investigation revealed that ‘‘the subject firm did not import printed circuit boards’’ and did not transfer production abroad during the relevant period. The Department’s survey of the subject firm’s major declining customers regarding their purchases in 2004, 2005, January through May 2005, and January through May 2006 of ‘‘printed circuit board (assembly)’’ revealed no imports during the period under investigation, and that a portion of the decline in company sales is attributed to declining purchases from a foreign customer during the period under investigation. AR 61. Administrative reconsideration was not requested by any of the parties pursuant to 29 CFR section 90.18. The Department requested voluntary remand to determine whether, during the relevant period, any of the foreign customer’s facilities located in the United States received printed circuit boards produced by the subject firm E:\FR\FM\31DEN1.SGM 31DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 249 / Monday, December 31, 2007 / Notices and, if so, whether the facility(s) had imported articles like or directly competitive with the printed circuit board assemblies produced by the subject firm. During the remand investigation, the Department contacted the former subject firm official who completed the Business Confidential Data Request form, SAR 1–5, and the former subject firm employee who handled the foreign customer’s contract for information about where the articles were shipped. SAR 7. The Department confirmed that the subject firm sent the articles purchased by the foreign customer to a facility located outside of the United States and obtained the foreign address to where the articles were shipped. SAR 3, 5, 7. Because the subject firm did not send printed circuit boards to a domestic facility of the foreign customer, the Department determines that the foreign customer did not import articles like or directly competitive with the printed circuit boards produced by the subject firm, and affirms the negative determination. 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 19th day of December, 2007. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7–25362 Filed 12–28–07; 8:45 am] sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:08 Dec 28, 2007 Jkt 214001 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–62,364; TA–W–62,364A] Cellular Express, Inc., d/b/a Boston Communications Group, Inc., Bedford, Massachusetts; Including an Employee of Cellular Express, Inc., d/b/a Boston Communications Group, Inc., Bedford, Massachusetts, Located in Cumberland Furnace, Tennessee; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and a Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on November 14, 2007, applicable to workers of Cellular Express, Inc., d/b/a Boston Communications Group, Inc., Bedford, Massachusetts. The notice was published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2007 (72 FR 69710). At the request of a company official, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New information shows that worker separation has occurred involving an employee of the Bedford, Massachusetts facility of Cellular Express, Inc., d/b/a Boston Communications Group, Inc., working out of Cumberland Furnace, Tennessee. Mr. Edward C. Butcher performed support duties for the firm’s Bedford, Massachusetts, software development, testing, and monitoring. Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include an employee of the Bedford, Massachusetts facility of Cellular Express, Inc., d/b/a Boston Communications Group, Inc. working out of Cumberland Furnace, Tennessee. The intent of the Department’s certification is to include all workers of Cellular Express, Inc., d/b/a Boston Communications Group, Inc., Bedford, Massachusetts, who were adversely affected by increased imports following a shift in production to India. The amended notice applicable to TA–W–62,364 is hereby issued as follows: PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 74341 ‘‘All workers of Cellular Express, Inc., d/b/a Boston Communications Group, Inc. Bedford, Massachusetts (TA–W–62,364), including an employee of Cellular Express, Inc., d/b/a Boston Communications Group, Inc., Bedford, Massachusetts located in Cumberland Furnace, Tennessee (TA–W– 62,364A), who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after October 25, 2006, through November 14, 2009, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.’’ I further determine that workers of Cellular Express, Inc., d/b/a Boston Communications Group, Inc., Bedford, Massachusetts (TA–W–62,364), including an employee of Cellular Express, Inc., d/b/a Boston Communications Group, Inc., Bedford, Massachusetts, located in Cumberland Furnace, Tennessee (TA–W–62,364A), are denied eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of December 2007. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7–25358 Filed 12–28–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–62,310] Healthcare Management Partners, LLC, Santa Ana, CA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application postmarked November 20, 2007, the petitioner 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 October 23, 2007 and published in the Federal Register on November 6, 2007 (72 FR 62682). 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 E:\FR\FM\31DEN1.SGM 31DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 249 (Monday, December 31, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74340-74341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-25362]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-59,517]


Advanced Electronics, Inc., Boston, MA; Notice of Negative 
Determination on Remand

    On October 22, 2007, the U.S. Court of International Trade (USCIT) 
granted the Department of Labor's request for voluntary remand to 
conduct further investigation in Former Employees of Advanced 
Electronics, Inc. v. United States Secretary of Labor (Court No. 06-
00337).
    On July 18, 2006, the Department of Labor (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). AR 60. The 
Department's Notice of determination was published in the Federal 
Register on August 4, 2006 (71 FR 44320). AR 67.
    The petition identified the article produced by the subject workers 
as ``electronics.'' AR 2. A letter (dated May 8, 2006) identified the 
subject workers as engaged in the production of ``subassembly' printed 
circuit boards'' and alleged that increased imports of that article 
caused the subject workers' separations. AR 28.
    The negative determination stated that the subject workers ``were 
engaged in the production of printed circuit boards (subassembly)'' and 
that the Department's investigation revealed that ``the subject firm 
did not import printed circuit boards'' and did not transfer production 
abroad during the relevant period. The Department's survey of the 
subject firm's major declining customers regarding their purchases in 
2004, 2005, January through May 2005, and January through May 2006 of 
``printed circuit board (assembly)'' revealed no imports during the 
period under investigation, and that a portion of the decline in 
company sales is attributed to declining purchases from a foreign 
customer during the period under investigation. AR 61.
    Administrative reconsideration was not requested by any of the 
parties pursuant to 29 CFR section 90.18.
    The Department requested voluntary remand to determine whether, 
during the relevant period, any of the foreign customer's facilities 
located in the United States received printed circuit boards produced 
by the subject firm

[[Page 74341]]

and, if so, whether the facility(s) had imported articles like or 
directly competitive with the printed circuit board assemblies produced 
by the subject firm.
    During the remand investigation, the Department contacted the 
former subject firm official who completed the Business Confidential 
Data Request form, SAR 1-5, and the former subject firm employee who 
handled the foreign customer's contract for information about where the 
articles were shipped. SAR 7. The Department confirmed that the subject 
firm sent the articles purchased by the foreign customer to a facility 
located outside of the United States and obtained the foreign address 
to where the articles were shipped. SAR 3, 5, 7.
    Because the subject firm did not send printed circuit boards to a 
domestic facility of the foreign customer, the Department determines 
that the foreign customer did not import articles like or directly 
competitive with the printed circuit boards produced by the subject 
firm, and affirms the negative determination.
    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 19th day of December, 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-25362 Filed 12-28-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.