[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 22 (Friday, February 1, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6213-6215]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-1826]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-61,760]
Hutchinson Technology, Eau Claire, WI; Notice of Negative
Determination on Remand
On November 6, 2007, the U.S. Court of International Trade (USCIT)
granted the U.S. Department of Labor's motion for a voluntary remand in
Former Employees of Hutchinson Technology v. U.S. Secretary of Labor,
Court No. 07-335.
On June 21, 2007, a TAA Coordinator for the State of Wisconsin
filed a
[[Page 6214]]
petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade
Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) on behalf of workers and former workers at
Hutchinson Technology, Eau Claire, Wisconsin (the subject facility)
producing suspension assemblies for disc drives(the subject worker
group). Administrative Record (AR) 1-3.
The Department's negative determination, issued on July 10, 2007
(72 41088, July 26, 2007), was based on findings that worker
separations at the subject facility were caused by declining sales due
to decreased exports and that the subject firm did not import
suspension assemblies for disc drives. AR 19.
On August 22, 2007, a former employee of the subject firm (the
petitioner) requested administrative reconsideration of the negative
determination. Supplemental Administrative Record (SAR) 28-30. In that
request, the petitioner asserted that ``the decision made on July 10,
2007 was made in error because the U.S. Department of Labor did not
have all of the facts relevant to the application.'' SAR 28. On
September 28, 2007, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former
workers of the subject firm, because the Department determined that
additional information received from the petitioner concerning the
subject firm's customers merited investigation. The Department's Notice
of determination was published in the Federal Register on October 5,
2007 (72 FR 57070). SAR 34.
On September 7, 2007, while the request for reconsideration was
pending before the Department, the petitioner appealed the denial of
its petition to the USCIT. The appeal was based on the same information
that appeared in the request for reconsideration. On November 6, 2007
the Department obtained a voluntary remand of the USCIT proceeding so
that the Department could investigate the allegations and information
provided by the Plaintiff in the request for reconsideration.
In the request for reconsideration the petitioner acknowledged that
``currently the majority of hard drive suspensions are exported
overseas''. AR 29. However, the requester also stated that the subject
firm separated a significant number of workers and that sales and
production have decreased during the relevant time period, and that
this negative impact was a direct result of the loss of the Argon
product line at the subject firm to a foreign competitor based in
Singapore.
The Department contacted the petitioner to obtain additional
information regarding the Argon product line and the imports impacting
the subject firm. The petitioner did not have any additional
information and requested the Department to verify all the information
with the officials of the subject firm. SAR 64.
The Department contacted a company official to address this
allegation. The company official clarified that Argon is the name of a
specific suspension assembly product that was manufactured for a major
customer headquartered in the United States. The company official
further confirmed that Argon product line was lost to a foreign
competitor, which resulted in declines in total sales, production and
employment at the subject firm. SAR 36. The decline in sales to this
customer represented nearly the entire subject firm's total domestic
sales decline. The official also stated that Argon product line was
specifically sold and shipped to a customer's foreign subsidiary and
was not sold on the domestic market. SAR 39, 45. Therefore, the losses
in sales and production of Argon line and consequent decline in
employment at the subject firm are the direct result of the decrease in
exports.
The Department contacted the major domestic customer who purchased
the Argon-line products to confirm this information. It was confirmed
that this customer purchased these products for export to a foreign
subsidiary and no suspension assembly products have been imported into
the United States by this customer. SAR 45,46,67.
The request for reconsideration further alleged that ``the majority
of hard drive suspensions are exported overseas to be assembled into
computer hard drives and imported back into the United States.'' SAR
29. The petitioner concluded that imported finished products which
contain foreign manufactured components are like or directly
competitive with imported finished products containing components
manufactured by the subject firm and therefore, the subject firm should
be considered import impacted.
In order to establish import impact, the Department must consider
imports that are like or directly competitive with the products
manufactured by the petitioning worker group. Suspension assemblies are
components of computer hard drives, which incorporate multiple
components. Therefore, suspension assemblies are not like or directly
competitive with the computer hard drives produced abroad and imported
by the subject firm or its customers. Accordingly, imports of computer
hard drives are not relevant in this investigation and increased
imports of computer hard drives cannot be the basis for certification
of the subject worker group. International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, Local 834
v. Donovan, 592 F. Supp. 673, 677-679 (C.I.T. 1984).
In the request for reconsideration the petitioner further alleged
that Hutchinson Technology, Inc. shifted functions of the microscope
inspection labor to either Singapore, Thailand and/or China via sub-
contracting. SAR 29, 30.
The Department contacted the petitioner to obtain additional
information regarding the sorting functions. The petitioner stated that
sorting was not a part of the production process, but is integrated
into the production cost and that workers performing these functions
should be considered in support of production. While uncertain, the
petitioner conjectured that the sorting functions had been shifted to
Singapore but that the Department should rely on information received
from the officials of the subject firm. SAR 64.
The Department contacted a company official to address this
allegation. The company official stated that the subject firm used its
service center in Thailand to undertake inspection and sorting and that
some sorting functions have been shifted from the subject firm to
Thailand in the relevant time period. The official also stated that
workers performing sorting and inspection functions do not produce
suspension assemblies for disk drives, but rather support production of
all suspension assemblies for disk drives. SAR 47, 66. The subject firm
did not shift production of suspension assemblies for disk drives
abroad. SAR 36.
Furthermore, Thailand is not a country that is a party to a free
trade agreement with the United States or a country that is named as a
beneficiary under the Andean Trade Preference Act, the African Growth
and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act. Any
shift to Thailand cannot be the basis for certification of the subject
worker group.
During the initial phase of the reconsideration/remand
investigation, the Department contacted Plaintiff for additional
information and clarification of his allegations. Once Plaintiff had
retained Counsel, the parties filed a consent motion for a 30-day
extension of the remand period so that Plaintiff's Counsel had an
opportunity to review the record and provide the Department
[[Page 6215]]
with comments and other pertinent information. That motion was granted
on December 12, 2007. The Counsel was provided with the business
confidential information from the initial administrative record as well
as with the material generated in the reconsideration/remand
investigation. While the investigator contacted Plaintiff's Counsel to
remind him of his opportunity, the Department received no substantive
input. SAR 68-70.
In addition, in accordance with section 246 of the Trade Act of
1974, as amended, the Department herein presents the results of its
remand investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply
for ATAA.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of eligibility
to apply for ATAA, the subject worker group must be certified as
eligible to apply for TAA. Since the workers have been denied
certification for TAA, they cannot be certified for ATAA.
Conclusion
After careful review of the findings of the remand investigation, I
affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility to
apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of
Hutchinson Technology, Eau Claire, Wisconsin.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 18th day of January 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-1826 Filed 1-31-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P