Advanced Electronics, Inc.; Boston, MA; Notice of Negative Determination on Remand, 21367-21368 [2010-9485]

Agencies

• Employment and Training Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 78 (Friday, April 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21367-21368]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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