DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-60,827

SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC.
LOUISVILLE, COLORADO

Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

By application dated April 15, 2007, a worker requested
administrative reconsideration. The request for reconsideration
alleged that the subject firm shifted production and support
functions abroad. On May 27, 2007, the Department issued a
Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for
Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of Sun
Microsystems, Inc., Louisville, Colorado (the subject firm). The
Department’s Notice of Affirmative Determination was published in
the Federal Register on June 7, 2007 (72 FR 31614).
The worker-filed petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA)
identified the appropriate subdivision employing the workers
group as “Sun Microsystems, Louisville, Colorado,” the articles
produced at the subject firm as “high tech computer storage
devices,” and the subject worker group as workers engaged in
“Production AME + R+D (Inspection).” The petitioners stated that
their work has been “outsourced to Mexico and possible Hungary.”
Because the petition is dated January 19, 2007, the relevant
period is January 19, 2006 through January 18, 2007.
The initial negative determination (issued March 14, 2007)
stated that the subject firm “did not shift work performed in
Louisville, Colorado abroad, nor did it shift production from its
manufacturing facility in Puerto Rico to a foreign country;” that
the parent entity, Sun Microsystems (Sun), sold the Puerto Rico
facility to another firm, “thus curtailing the need for support
persons” at the subject firm; and that “separations of workers at
the Louisville location are in great part attributable to a
worldwide company restructuring and reduction in workforce.”
A document attached to a petition (dated February 6, 2007,
and filed on behalf of the same worker group) explained that, as
a result of Sun’s acquisition of StorageTek Classic (StorageTek),
certain staff positions in the Storage Operations organization
were eliminated. For example, Storagetek’s products and their
associated business processes, tools and systems would be merged
with Sun’s products and their associated business processes,
tools and systems; the supply chain management and materials
organizations for Sun and StorageTek would be consolidated into a
single team; Sun’s manufacturing and support activities in Puerto
Rico would be outsourced in September 2006 to a contract
manufacturer; and the staff that supported Sun’s Puerto Rico
facility would be eliminated since the contract manufacturer
would be taking over those functions.
According to previously-submitted information, StorageTek
was a company with production facilities in Puerto Rico and a
pre-production facility in Louisville, Colorado. The information
also revealed that after Sun acquired StorageTek in August 2005,
Sun ceased to operate the manufacturing facility in Puerto Rico
and that those workers at the Louisville, Colorado facility who
supported the Puerto Rico facility were separated.
Because the subject workers inspected sheetmetal parts,
cables, harnesses, tape rollers, motherboards, personal computer
boards, and disk drives during the relevant period, and the
workers are not separately identifiable by product line, the
Department determines that the subject workers are engaged in the
production of inspected component parts of computer storage
devices.
In order for a TAA certification to be issued, the subject
workers must meet the group eligibility requirements under
Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. The applicable
requirements can be satisfied in one of two ways:
I. Section (a)(2)(A) --
A. 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; and
B. the sales or production, or both, of such firm or
subdivision have decreased absolutely; and
C. increased imports of articles like or directly competitive
with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have
contributed importantly to such workers’ separation or
threat of separation and to the decline in sales or
production of such firm or subdivision;

or

II. Section (a)(2)(B) --

A. 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; and

B. 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

C. One of the following must be satisfied:
1. 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; or
2. the country to which the workers’ firm has shifted
production of the articles is a beneficiary country
under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth
and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic
Recovery Act; or
3. 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.

Previously-submitted information revealed that the subject
firm’s employment level declined more than five percent from the
corresponding period the previous year, the Department determines
that a significant number or proportion of the workers at the
subject firm has become totally or partially separated. Because
the subject firm has ceased to inspect component parts of
computer storage devices, the Department determines that, during
the relevant period, the subject firm’s production of inspected
component parts of computer storage devices have decreased
absolutely.
Because the employment decline and the production decline
criteria were met, the Department focused the reconsideration
investigation on whether either Section (a)(2)(A)(C) or Section
(a)(2)(B)(B) and Section (a)(2)(B)(C) were met.
The first issue is whether, during the relevant period, the
subject firm shifted production of inspected component parts of
computer storage devices to a country that is a party to a free
trade agreement with the United States or a beneficiary country
under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and
Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act.
Sun officials confirmed that after Sun acquired StorageTek
in August 2005, it ceased to operate the facility in Puerto Rico.
The official also stated that, pursuant to a September 2006
agreement between Sun and a domestic contract manufacturer, the
contract manufacturer is performing production and inspection
work at Sun’s Puerto Rico facility. As such, the Department
determines that the subject firm did not shift production to a
foreign country; rather, the inspection work that was done by the
subject workers is being done by the afore-mentioned contract
manufacturer in Puerto Rico.
Even if the subject firm shifted inspection work to Puerto
Rico, the subject workers would not be eligible to apply for TAA
benefits because Puerto Rico is a U.S. Territory and is not a
foreign country.
The second issue is whether, during the relevant period,
increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with
the inspected component parts produced at the subject firm
contributed importantly to the subject workers’ separations.
During the reconsideration investigation, Sun officials
confirmed that Sun’s Louisville, Colorado facility did not import
articles like or directly competitive with the component parts
produced at the subject firm. Because the inspected component
parts produced at the subject firm were sent to Puerto Rico to be
assembled, the Sun officials also confirmed that while it
controlled the Puerto Rico facility during the relevant period,
the Puerto Rico facility did not import any articles like or
directly competitive with the component parts produced at the
subject firm. Further, the contract manufacturer who took over
production at the Puerto Rico facility provided information that
revealed no imports of articles like or directly competitive with
the component parts produced at the subject firm.
Because the reconsideration investigation has not produced
any information that support a finding that the subject workers’
separations are due to either a shift of production abroad or
increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with
the inspected component parts produced at the subject firm, the
Department affirms the initial negative determination.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA), the subject worker group must be certified eligible to
apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). Since the subject
workers are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers
cannot be certified eligible for ATAA.
Conclusion
After careful reconsideration, I affirm the original notice
of negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Sun
Microsystems, Inc., Louisville, Colorado.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 20th day of November 2007


/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
___________________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance

4510-FN-P



DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-60,827

SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC.
LOUISVILLE, COLORADO

Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility
To Apply For Worker Adjustment Assistance
And Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended (19 USC 2273), the Department of Labor herein presents the
results of an investigation regarding certification of eligibility
to apply for worker adjustment assistance. The group eligibility
requirements for directly-impacted (primary) workers under Section
222(a) the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, can be satisfied in
either of two ways:
I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied:
B. 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;
B. the sales or production, or both, of such firm or
subdivision have decreased absolutely; and
C. increased imports of articles like or directly competitive
with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have
contributed importantly to such workers’ separation or
threat of separation and to the decline in sales or
production of such firm or subdivision; or

II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied:

A. 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;



B. 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

C. One of the following must be satisfied:
3. 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;
4. the country to which the workers’ firm has shifted
production of the articles is a beneficiary country
under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth
and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic
Recovery Act; or
5. 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.

The investigation was initiated on January 25, 2007 in
response to a petition filed on behalf workers of Sun Microsystems,
Louisville, Colorado. Workers at the subject firm are engaged in
research and development, engineering, sales, and administrative
support. The petitioning group of workers supported production at
an affiliated facility in Puerto Rico.
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C) and
(a)(2)(B)(II.B) have not been met.
Sun Microsystems did not shift work performed in Louisville,
Colorado abroad, nor did it shift production from its manufacturing
facility in Puerto Rico to a foreign country. Additionally, sales
of the output of the Puerto Rican manufacturing facility did not
decline from 2005 to 2006. Thus the worker group cannot be
considered import impacted or affected by a shift in production
abroad.
Sun Microsystems sold its Puerto Rican manufacturing facility
to another firm thus curtailing the need for support persons in
Louisville.
The investigation revealed that separations of workers at the
Louisville location are in great part attributable to a worldwide
company restructuring and reduction in workforce.
In addition, in accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of
1974 (26 USC 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor herein
presents the results of its investigation regarding certification
of eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance
(ATAA) for older workers.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for ATAA, the worker group must be certified
eligible to apply for trade adjustment assistance (TAA). Since the
workers are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot
be certified eligible for ATAA.


Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that all workers of Sun Microsystems,
Louisville, Colorado are denied eligibility to apply for adjustment
assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also
denied eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment
assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Signed at Washington, D.C., this 14th day of March, 2007

/s/Richard Curch
____________________________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance





- 8 -