Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., New Product Introduction (NPI), Tempe, AZ; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration, 31886-31887 [E8-12390]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
31886
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 4, 2008 / Notices
• Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Agency: Occupational Safety and
Health Administration.
Type of Review: Extension without
change of a previously approved
collection.
Title of Collection: Subpart A (General
Provisions) and Subpart B (Confined
and Enclosed Spaces and Other
Dangerous Atmospheres in Shipyard
Employment) (29 CFR part 1915).
OMB Control Number: 1218–0011.
Agency Form Number: None.
Affected Public: Private Sector—
Business or other for-profits and Notfor-profit institutions.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
639.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 312,774.
Estimated Total Annual Costs Burden:
$0.
Description: The information
collection requirements contained in 29
CFR part 1915, Subparts A and B serve
to ensure that shipyard personnel do not
enter confined spaces that contain
oxygen deficient, toxic or flammable
atmospheres, For additional
information, see related notice
published at 73 FR 8713 on February 14,
2008.
Agency: Occupational Safety and
Health Administration.
Type of Review: Extension without
change of a previously approved
collection.
Title of Collection: Powered Industrial
Trucks (29 CFR 1910.178).
OMB Control Number: 1218–0242.
Agency Form Number: None.
Affected Public: Private Sector—
Business or other for-profits.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
1,134,699.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 854,538.
Estimated Total Annual Costs Burden:
$238,245.
Description: 29 CFR 1910.178
contains several information collection
requirements addressing truck design,
construction, and modification, as well
as certification of training and
evaluation for truck operators. For
additional information, see related
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:46 Jun 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
notice published at 73 FR 12468 on
March 7, 2008.
Darrin A. King,
Acting Departmental Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. E8–12342 Filed 6–3–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
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
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM
04JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 4, 2008 / Notices
predominant reason for the workers’
separations is the shift of preproduction activities to Asia and
Malaysia. The Department has
consistently held that a shift of nonproduction 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 TAAcertified 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
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:46 Jun 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–62,964]
G–III Apparel Group, Starlo Dresses
Division, Computer Patterns Team,
New York, NY; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration
By application dated April 22, 2008,
petitioners requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department’s
negative determination regarding
eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers
and former workers of the subject firm.
The denial notice was signed on March
24, 2008 and published in the Federal
Register on April 11, 2008 (73 FR
19900).
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 misinterpretation of facts or of
the law justified reconsideration of the
decision.
The initial investigation resulted in a
negative determination signed on March
24, 2008 was based on the finding that
imports of electronically marked and
graded patterns did not contribute
importantly to worker separations at the
subject plant and there was no shift of
production to a country that is a party
to a free trade agreement with the
United States or a beneficiary country.
The ‘‘contributed importantly’’ test is
generally demonstrated through a
survey of the workers’ firm’s declining
domestic customers. In this instance,
the subject firm did not sell
electronically marked and graded
patterns to outside domestic customers,
thus a survey was not conducted. The
subject firm did not import
electronically marked and graded
patterns into the United States during
the relevant period.
In the request for reconsideration the
petitioner refers to the events which
have occurred at the subject facility
since 1998.
When assessing eligibility for TAA,
the Department exclusively considers
import impact during the relevant time
period (one year prior to the date of the
petition). Events occurring prior to
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31887
February 19, 2007 are outside of the
relevant time period and thus cannot be
considered in this investigation.
The petitioner also alleges that the
statement in the initial investigation
‘‘* * * the patterns were used
exclusively in China* * *’’ is erroneous
and that some patterns were
manufactured for a domestic market. To
support this allegation, the petitioner
provided the name of a domestic retail
company, which allegedly purchased
products from the subject firm in the
relevant time period.
The Department contacted a company
official to address these allegations. The
company official stated that G–III
Apparel Group, Starlo Dresses Division,
Computer Patterns Team, New York,
New York does not sell any
electronically marked and graded
patterns to the retailers or any other
companies. All patterns are the property
of the subject firm and are used in the
in-house factories to create dresses. The
company official also clarified that the
customer mentioned by the petitioner is
a retailer who buys dresses from the
subject firm and not electronically
marked and graded patterns.
The petitioner stated that jobs were
shifted from the subject facility to
China.
The investigation confirmed that
production of electronically marked and
graded patterns indeed was shifted to
China. However, the investigation also
revealed that the subject firm did not
import electronically marked and
graded patterns from China back into
the United States during the relevant
period.
The petitioner further stated that
workers of the subject firm were
previously employed at other
companies, which were certified for
TAA.
The two companies indicated by the
petitioner were certified eligible for
TAA in August 2001 and April 2007
since the companies increased imports
of samples of dresses, and wedding and
bridesmaid gowns. The certifications of
these companies are not relevant to this
investigation.
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.
E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM
04JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 4, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31886-31887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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
