[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 152 (Thursday, August 7, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47091-47092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-20101]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-51,548]


Cypress Semiconductor Design Center, Colorado Springs, CO; Notice 
of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of July 9, 2003, a petitioner requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of 
the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). The 
denial notice applicable to workers of Cypress Semiconductor Design 
Center, Colorado Springs, Colorado was signed on June 25, 2003, and 
published in the Federal Register on July 10, 2003 (68 FR 41179).
    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;

[[Page 47092]]

    (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 TAA petition was filed on behalf of workers at Cypress 
Semiconductor Design Center, Colorado Springs, Colorado. Subject firm 
workers performed computer programming related to integrated circuit 
test development of products manufactured abroad. The petition was 
denied because the petitioning workers did not produce an article 
within the meaning of Section 222 of the Act.
    The petitioner contends that the Department erred in its 
interpretation of work performed at the subject facility as a service. 
He further quotes a section that he describes as ``DOL Strategic 
Goals'' that imply that TAA is designed to help workers ``displaced by 
shifts in production to offshore locations'' and states that the shift 
of production to the Phillipines prompted an alleged subsequent shift 
of software development performed at the subject facility to the 
Philippines.
    A company official was contacted for clarification in regard to the 
nature of the work performed at the subject facility. The official 
clarified that the majority of the software was developed to be 
installed in test equipment at the Colorado facility or to be shipped 
to be installed in test equipment at other domestic facilities. A 
lesser portion, however, was also required to go through a ``product 
check requirement'' in conjunction with an internal contracting process 
that would be shipped to facilities both domestic and foreign 
(Philippines). This last portion of software would be further fine 
tuned at the facilities that received the software.
    As a result of this clarification, it was revealed that the 
software was never marketed as an external product, nor was it a 
component part incorporated into production of a marketed product. 
There is no evidence that the company imports competitive software. 
Thus, even if the services performed by the petitioning worker group 
were considered production, there is no evidence of like or directly 
competitive products. The petitioner's allegation of a shift in work 
functions from the subject facility to the Philippines appears to stem 
from the transfer of a machine used to test integrated circuits for 
company products from Colorado Springs to the company's Philippines 
facility. The petitioner contends that if the machine was moved, so 
were the software development jobs that were responsible for designing 
software for the machine.
    A company official who was questioned on this issue stated that, in 
affect, some software development was shifted to other domestic 
facilities, but not to the Philippines. The software previously 
exported by the subject firm to the Philippines is being maintained by 
existing staff that has always performed fine tuning on existing 
software. The official concluded that layoffs at the subject firm, as 
well as other company facilities including the one in the Philippines, 
are attributable to a general downturn in the semiconductor industry.

Conclusion

    After review of the application and investigative findings, I 
conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law 
or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department 
of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 30th day of July, 2003.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-20101 Filed 8-6-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P