DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-82,137

NAUGATUCK VALLEY SURGICAL CENTER
DEPARTMENT OF SAINT MARY’S HOSPITAL
WATERBURY, CONNECTICUT

Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

On January 25, 2013, the Department of Labor issued an
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
applicable to workers and former workers of Naugatuck Valley
Surgical Center, a Department of Saint Mary’s Hospital, Waterbury,
Connecticut (subject firm). The Department’s notice of affirmative
determination was published in the Federal Register on February 12,
2013 (78 FR 9940). The subject workers supply medical
transcription services.
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 of the law justified
reconsideration of the decision.
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination
based on the Department’s findings of no shift in the supply of
medical transcription services (or like or directly competitive
services) to a foreign country, no acquisition from a foreign
country the supply of medical transcription services (or like or
directly competitive services), and no subject firm or customer
imports of medical transcription services (or like or directly
competitive services). The initial investigation also determined
that the subject firm is not a supplier or downstream supplier to a
firm that employed a worker group eligible to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance based on a shift of services or increased
imports of like or directly competitive services, and that the
subject firm was not identified by name by the International Trade
Commission, as required by Section 222(e) of the Trade Act of 1974,
as amended, 19 U.S.C., § 22272(e).
In the request for reconsideration, the state workforce office
alleged that a specific firm was used by the subject firm to
outsource services that were completed offshore.
Additional information obtained by the Department during the
reconsideration investigation confirmed that the subject firm did
not use any firm to outsource services and provided substantial
evidence that established that outside firms that supply services
like or directly competitive with those supplied by the workers
at the subject firm must be completed in the United States.
After careful review of previously-submitted information and
information obtained during the reconsideration investigation,
the Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.
Conclusion
After careful review, I determine that the requirements of
Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272, have not been met and,
therefore, deny the petition for group eligibility of Naugatuck
Valley Surgical Center, a Department of Saint Mary’s Hospital,
Waterbury, Connecticut, to apply for adjustment assistance, in
accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. on this 25th day of February, 2013
/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
_______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-FN-P


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-82,137

NAUGATUCK VALLEY SURGICAL CENTER
DEPARTMENT OF SAINT MARY’S HOSPITAL
WATERBURY, CONNECTICUT

Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. § 2273, the Department of Labor herein
presents the results of an investigation regarding certification of
eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance.
Workers of a firm may be eligible for worker adjustment
assistance if they satisfy the criteria of subsection (a), (b) or
(e) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (b) and (e).
For the Department of Labor to issue a certification for workers
under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), the following
criteria must be met:
(1) The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2282(a)(1)) requires that a significant
number or proportion of the workers in the workers’ firm must
have become totally or partially separated or be threatened
with total or partial separation.

(2) The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied in one of two
ways:
(A) Increased Imports Path:
(i) sales or production, or both, at the workers’ firm must
have decreased absolutely, AND
(ii) (I) imports of articles or services like or directly
competitive with articles or services produced or
supplied by the workers’ firm have increased, OR
(II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles into which the component
part produced by the workers’ firm was directly
incorporated have increased; OR
(II)(bb) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles which are produced
directly using the services supplied by the
workers’ firm have increased; OR
(III) imports of articles directly incorporating
component parts not produced in the U.S. that are
like or directly competitive with the article into
which the component part produced by the workers’
firm was directly incorporated have increased.
(iii) the increase in imports described in clause (ii)
contributed importantly to such workers’ separation or
threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or
production of such firm.

(B) Shift in Production or Supply Path:
(i)(I) there has been a shift by the workers’ firm to a
foreign country in the production of articles or supply
of services like or directly competitive with those
produced/supplied by the workers’ firm; OR
(II) there has been an acquisition from a foreign country
by the workers’ firm of articles/services that are like
or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by
the workers’ firm; and
(ii) the shift described in clause (i)(I) or the acquisition
of articles or services described in clause (i)(II)
contributed importantly to such workers’ separation or
threat of separation.

For the Department to issue a secondary worker certification
under Section 222(b) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(b), to workers of
a Supplier or a Downstream Producer, the following criteria must be
met:
(1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in the
workers’ firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm
have become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated;

(2) the workers’ firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer to
a firm that employed a group of workers who received a
certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), and such supply or production
is related to the article or service that was the basis
for such certification; and

(3) either
(A) the workers’ firm is a supplier and the component
parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2)
accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or
sales of the workers’ firm;
or
(B) a loss of business by the workers’ firm with the firm
described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to
the workers’ separation or threat of separation.

Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), defines the
terms “Supplier” and “Downstream Producer.”
Workers of a firm may also be considered eligible if they are
publicly identified by name by the International Trade Commission
as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in
a category of determination that is listed in Section 222(e) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(e).
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm under
Section 222(e) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(e), can be satisfied if
the following criteria are met:
(1) the workers’ firm is publicly identified by name by the
International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic
industry in an investigation resulting in--
(A) an affirmative determination of serious injury or
threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) an affirmative determination of market disruption
or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) an affirmative final determination of material
injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A)
or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A));

(2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning
on the date on which--
(A) a summary of the report submitted to the President
by the International Trade Commission under section
202(f)(1) with respect to the affirmative
determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is
published in the Federal Register under section
202(f)(3); or
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described in
subparagraph (1) is published in the Federal
Register; and

(3) the workers have become totally or partially
separated from the workers’ firm within--
(A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year
period preceding the 1-year period described in
paragraph (2).

The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on November 8, 2012 by a state workforce office on behalf of
workers of Naugatuck Valley Surgical Center, a department of Saint
Mary’s Hospital, Waterbury, Connecticut (NVSC). The workers’ firm
is engaged in activities related to the supply of outpatient
surgery services. The petitioning worker group, the subject of the
investigation, is engaged in activities related to the supply of
medical transcription services.
The petitioner alleged that transcription services are being
outsourced offshore.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers’ firm.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not import services like
or directly competitive with the services supplied by NVSC.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift the supply of
medical transcription services or like or directly competitive
services to a foreign country or acquire medical transcription
services or like or directly competitive services from a foreign
country. Medical transcription services were brought in-house
within Saint Mary’s Hospital; all work stayed domestic to the
United States.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that NVCS is not a Supplier to a firm that
employed a group of workers who received a certification of
eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a).
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that NVCS does not act as a Downstream
Producer to a firm (or subdivision, whichever is applicable) that
employed a group of workers who received a certification of
eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a).
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act, have not been satisfied either because Criterion
(1) has not been met since the workers’ firm has not been
publically identified by name by the International Trade Commission
as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in
an affirmative finding of serious injury, market disruption, or
material injury, or threat thereof.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that the requirements of Section 222 of
the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272, have not been met and, therefore, deny
the petition for group eligibility of Naugatuck Valley Surgical
Center, a department of Saint Mary’s Hospital, Waterbury,
Connecticut engaged in activities related to the supply of medical
transcription services to apply for adjustment assistance, in
accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 11th day of December, 2012

/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
______________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance



- 3 -