Advanced Electronics, Inc., Boston, MA; Notice of Negative Determination on Remand, 9290-9291 [E9-4389]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
9290
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Notices
occurring prior to July 31, 2007 are
outside of the relevant period and are
not relevant in this investigation as
established by the petition date of July
31, 2008. The investigation revealed that
there was no production of uncoated
freesheet paper at the subject facility
during the relevant period.
The petitioner also provided
additional information regarding
employment and layoffs at the subject
firm.
Upon further review of the
employment data provided by the
company official of the subject firm, it
was determined that employment at the
subject firm declined during the
relevant period.
In order to establish import impact
and whether imports contributed
importantly to worker separations, the
Department must consider imports that
are like or directly competitive with
those produced at the subject firm
(linerboard and fluff pulp) during the
relevant period. The ‘‘contributed
importantly’’ test is generally
demonstrated through a survey of
customers of the workers’ firm regarding
their import purchases.
On reconsideration the Department
conducted a survey of the subject firm’s
domestic customers regarding their
purchases of linerboard and fluff pulp
during 2006, 2007, January through July,
2007 and January through July, 2008.
The survey revealed that the customers
did not increase their imports of
linerboard and fluff pulp while
decreasing purchases from the subject
firm during the relevant period.
Furthermore, as stated in the initial
investigation sales and production of
linerboard and fluff pulp did not
decline during the relevant period
through July 2008.
If conditions have changed since July
2008, the company is encouraged to file
a new petition on behalf of the worker
group which will encompass an
investigative period that will include
these changing conditions.
Conclusion
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
After reconsideration, I affirm the
original notice of negative
determination of eligibility to apply for
worker adjustment assistance for
workers and former workers of
International Paper Company, Pensacola
Mill, Cantonment, Florida.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of
February 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9–4394 Filed 3–2–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:42 Mar 02, 2009
Jkt 217001
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–59,517]
Advanced Electronics, Inc., Boston,
MA; Notice of Negative Determination
on Remand
On November 18, 2008, 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 negative determination was based
on the Department’s findings that,
during the relevant period, the subject
firm did not shift production of printed
circuit board assemblies to a foreign
country, that the subject firm did not
import printed circuit board assemblies
(or like or directly competitive articles),
and that the subject firm’s major
declining customers did not import
printed circuit board assemblies (or like
or directly competitive articles).
Further, the Department determined
that a portion of the decline in company
sales of printed circuit board assemblies
is 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 section 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 printed
circuit boards produced by the subject
firm 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.
Based on information obtained during
the first remand investigation (that the
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
subject firm sent the articles purchased
by the foreign customer to a facility
located outside of the United States), the
Department determined that the foreign
customer did not import articles like or
directly competitive with the printed
circuit board assemblies produced by
the subject firm. On December 17, 2007,
the Department issued a Notice of
Negative Determination on Remand.
The Department’s Notice of negative
determination was published in the
Federal Register on December 31, 2007
(72 FR 74340).
Although the USCIT stated in its
November 18, 2008 opinion 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 also
stated that it ‘‘declines to adopt a
construction of the Act under which
Labor need never consider, in any
circumstances, whether increased
imports of a like or directly competitive
article contributed importantly to a
plaintiff’s separation by causing the
employer to lose business from a
customer outside of the United States.’’
The USCIT, in its November 18, 2008
order, directs the Department during the
second remand investigation 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.’’
On second remand, the Department
conducted an investigation to determine
whether the foreign customer switched
its order from the subject firm to another
domestic firm that imported some or all
of the printed circuit boards it supplied
to the subject firm’s foreign customer.
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.
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
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
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 Section 90.16(b)—
Requirements for determinations—
states, in part, that ‘‘the certifying officer
shall make findings of fact concerning
whether * * * (3) increases (absolute or
relative) of imports of articles like or
directly competitive with articles like or
directly competitive with articles
produced by such workers’ firm or
appropriate subdivision thereof
contributed importantly to such total or
partial separation, or threat thereof, and
to such decline in sales or production.’’
The corollary to the regulation is that
if the certifying officer finds no such
increased imports, whether or not the
absent factor ‘‘contributed importantly’’
to ‘‘such total or partial separation, or
threat thereof, and to such decline in
sales or production’’ is moot.
29 CFR Section 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 investigatory period is
June 2005 through May 2006 and the
representative base period is June 2004
through May 2005.
During the second remand
investigation, the Department obtained
new information that shows 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 a
preferred vendor. The preferred vender
is another domestic company. The new
information also shows that the printed
circuit boards supplied by the preferred
vendor was produced outside the
United States and shipped from the
foreign production facility to the foreign
customer.
The Department determines that
while the foreign customer did switch
its order from the subject firm to another
domestic vendor, the domestic vendor
that replaced the subject firm did not
import into the United States any of the
printed circuit boards it sold to the
subject firm’s foreign customer.
Because there was no finding of
increased imports of article like or
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:42 Mar 02, 2009
Jkt 217001
directly competitive with the printed
circuit boards produced by the subject
firm, it is moot whether or not the
‘‘contributed importantly’’ portion of
the regulation has been satisfied.
Therefore, 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
eligibility 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
February 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9–4389 Filed 3–2–09; 8:45 am]
9291
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–65,091]
Westpoint Home, Calhoun Falls, SC;
Notice of Termination of Investigation
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on February
3, 2009 in response to a worker petition
filed by a company official, on behalf of
workers of WestPoint Home, Calhoun
Falls, South Carolina.
The petitioner has requested that the
petition be withdrawn. Consequently,
the investigation has been terminated.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of
February 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9–4404 Filed 3–2–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
Employment and Training
Administration
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA–W–65,164]
Employment and Training
Administration
Bradington-Young, LLC, Cherryville,
NC; Notice of Termination of
Investigation
[TA–W–65,018]
National Vacuum Equipment, Traverse
City, MI; Notice of Termination of
Investigation
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on January
29, 2009 in response to a worker
petition filed by a company official on
behalf of workers of National Vacuum
Equipment, Traverse City, Michigan.
The petitioner has requested that the
petition be withdrawn. Consequently,
the investigation has been terminated.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of
February 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9–4403 Filed 3–2–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
PO 00000
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on February
9, 2009 in response to a petition filed by
a company official on behalf of workers
of Bradington-Young, LLC, Cherryville,
North Carolina.
The workers at the subject facility are
covered by an earlier petition (TA–W–
65,147) filed on February 5, 2009 that is
the subject of an ongoing investigation
for which a determination has not been
issued. Further investigation in this case
would duplicate efforts and serve no
purpose; therefore the investigation
under this petition has been terminated.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of
February 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9–4407 Filed 3–2–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 3, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9290-9291]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4389]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-59,517]
Advanced Electronics, Inc., Boston, MA; Notice of Negative
Determination on Remand
On November 18, 2008, 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 negative determination was based on the Department's findings
that, during the relevant period, the subject firm did not shift
production of printed circuit board assemblies to a foreign country,
that the subject firm did not import printed circuit board assemblies
(or like or directly competitive articles), and that the subject firm's
major declining customers did not import printed circuit board
assemblies (or like or directly competitive articles). Further, the
Department determined that a portion of the decline in company sales of
printed circuit board assemblies is 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 section 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 printed circuit boards produced
by the subject firm 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.
Based on information obtained during the first remand investigation
(that the subject firm sent the articles purchased by the foreign
customer to a facility located outside of the United States), the
Department determined that the foreign customer did not import articles
like or directly competitive with the printed circuit board assemblies
produced by the subject firm. On December 17, 2007, the Department
issued a Notice of Negative Determination on Remand. The Department's
Notice of negative determination was published in the Federal Register
on December 31, 2007 (72 FR 74340).
Although the USCIT stated in its November 18, 2008 opinion 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 also stated that it ``declines to adopt a
construction of the Act under which Labor need never consider, in any
circumstances, whether increased imports of a like or directly
competitive article contributed importantly to a plaintiff's separation
by causing the employer to lose business from a customer outside of the
United States.''
The USCIT, in its November 18, 2008 order, directs the Department
during the second remand investigation 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.''
On second remand, the Department conducted an investigation to
determine whether the foreign customer switched its order from the
subject firm to another domestic firm that imported some or all of the
printed circuit boards it supplied to the subject firm's foreign
customer.
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. 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
[[Page 9291]]
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 Section 90.16(b)--Requirements for determinations--states,
in part, that ``the certifying officer shall make findings of fact
concerning whether * * * (3) increases (absolute or relative) of
imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles like or
directly competitive with articles produced by such workers' firm or
appropriate subdivision thereof contributed importantly to such total
or partial separation, or threat thereof, and to such decline in sales
or production.''
The corollary to the regulation is that if the certifying officer
finds no such increased imports, whether or not the absent factor
``contributed importantly'' to ``such total or partial separation, or
threat thereof, and to such decline in sales or production'' is moot.
29 CFR Section 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 investigatory
period is June 2005 through May 2006 and the representative base period
is June 2004 through May 2005.
During the second remand investigation, the Department obtained new
information that shows 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 a preferred vendor. The
preferred vender is another domestic company. The new information also
shows that the printed circuit boards supplied by the preferred vendor
was produced outside the United States and shipped from the foreign
production facility to the foreign customer.
The Department determines that while the foreign customer did
switch its order from the subject firm to another domestic vendor, the
domestic vendor that replaced the subject firm did not import into the
United States any of the printed circuit boards it sold to the subject
firm's foreign customer.
Because there was no finding of increased imports of article like
or directly competitive with the printed circuit boards produced by the
subject firm, it is moot whether or not the ``contributed importantly''
portion of the regulation has been satisfied. Therefore, 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 eligibility 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 February 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-4389 Filed 3-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
