[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 4, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31886-31887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-12390]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-62,052]


Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., New Product Introduction (NPI), 
Tempe, AZ; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration

    On January 3, 2008, the Department issued an Affirmative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers 
and former workers of Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., New Product 
Introduction (NPI), Tempe, Arizona (the subject firm). The Department's 
Notice was published in the Federal Register on January 10, 2008 (73 FR 
1896).
    The negative determination was based on the Department's findings 
that the workers at the subject firm are engaged in activities related 
to the production of Gallium Arsenide (GaAs) semiconductors for the 
purposes of the design and development of new automotive and cellular 
technologies; the subject firm did not shift to a foreign country 
activities related to the design or the manufacturing of GaAs 
semiconductors; the subject firm did not import articles either like or 
directly competitive with GaAs semiconductors produced by the subject 
firm; the workers are not eligible to apply for TAA as secondary 
workers; and the workers' separation was due to a shift to another 
domestic facility.
    The request for reconsideration alleged that a shift of activities 
to foreign countries caused the workers' separations. The request 
stated that GaAs-related activity ``does not apply to the NPI 
department at all'' and that ``Freescale Compound Semiconductor (CS1) 
does produce Gallium Arsenide (GaAS) wafers, but that is not an 
intrinsic part of the NPI function.'' The implication is that there are 
two separate groups of workers at the subject firm--one that produces 
GaAs wafers and one that is engaged in activity not related to GaAs 
wafers. The request also states that ``Freescale's major customer * * * 
did receive product from NPI'' and that the customer is a TAA-certified 
company. The request implies that NPI workers are eligible to apply for 
TAA on a secondary basis.
    Information submitted by the subject firm during the initial and 
reconsideration information revealed that the subject firm had two 
separate operations: (1) CS1 Factory workers produced GaAs wafers and 
(2) NPI workers tested and corrected programs and package assembly 
processes in preparation of mass semiconductor chip assembly that would 
take place in foreign facilities.
    Based on the above information, the Department determines that the 
subject group includes NPI workers engaged in pre-production testing of 
semiconductor chips and does not include workers of CS1 Factory 
producing GaAs-based wafers.
    19 U.S.C. section 2272 establishes that a certification of 
eligibility to apply for TAA, applicable to the subject worker group, 
shall be issued if:

    (1) 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;
    (2) Sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision 
have decreased absolutely; and
    (3) Increases (absolute or relative) of imports of articles 
produced by such workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision thereof 
contributed importantly to such total or partial separation, or 
threat thereof, and to such decline in sales or production, or
    (4) There has been a shift in production by such workers' firm 
or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly 
competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or 
subdivision; and the country to which the workers' firm has shifted 
production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with 
the United States, is a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade 
Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean 
Basin Economic Recovery Act or there has been or is likely to be an 
increase in imports of articles that are like or directly 
competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or 
subdivision.

    Because the subject workers were engaged in pre-production research 
and development programs and assembly processes that would take place 
at foreign production facilities, the Department determines that the 
subject workers did not produce an article within the meaning of 
Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. It follows, that, since the 
workers did not produce an article, they could not have been adversely 
affected by a shift of production or increased imports of like or 
directly competitive articles.
    Further, the reconsideration investigation revealed that the

[[Page 31887]]

predominant reason for the workers' separations is the shift of pre-
production activities to Asia and Malaysia. The Department has 
consistently held that a shift of non-production activities cannot be a 
basis for certification.
    In order to receive a secondary certification, a significant number 
or proportion of workers in the subject firm have been, or are 
threatened to become, totally or partially separated and that the 
subject firm is a supplier or downstream producer (finisher or 
assembler) to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a 
TAA certification, and such supply or production is related to the 
article that was the basis for such certification.
    In addition, if the subject firm is a supplier to a TAA-certified 
company, either the component parts supplied to that company must 
account for at least 20 percent of the subject firm's sales or 
production, or a loss of business by the subject firm with the TAA-
certified firm contributed importantly to the petitioning workers' 
separations or threat of separation; and, if the subject firm is a 
downstream producer, the TAA certification of the primary firm must be 
based on a shift of production to Canada or Mexico or import impact 
from Canada or Mexico and a loss of business by the subject firm with 
the TAA-certified firm contributed importantly to the petitioning 
workers' separations or threat of separation.
    Even if NPI workers developed test codes for a semiconductor chip 
that was produced and sold to a TAA-certified customer, the pre-
production research and development work does not constitute 
production, and the workers did not produce an article within the 
meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. As such, the subject 
workers are not eligible under secondary impact.

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 29th day of May 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E8-12390 Filed 6-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P