Petitioner Type: Workers
Impact Date:
Filed Date: 03/09/2007
Most Recent Update: 04/06/2007
Determination Date: 04/06/2007
Expiration Date:
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-61,083
INTEL CORPORATION
OPTICAL PLATFORM DIVISION
NEWARK, CALIFORNIA
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated April 20, 2007, petitioners 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) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA). The denial notice was signed on April 6, 2007 and
published in the Federal Register on April 24, 2007 (72 FR
20371).
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 TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at Intel
Corporation, Optical Platform Division, Newark, California
engaged in production of optical modules for networking and
communication equipment was denied because the "contributed
importantly" group eligibility requirement of Section 222 of the
Trade Act of 1974 was not met. The investigation revealed that
production of optical modules for networking and communication
equipment was shifted to Thailand, however, there were no imports
of optical modules into the United States in 2005 and 2006.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner stated
that the subject firm also manufactured transponders and that
this production was shifted to Malaysia in 2003. The petitioner
further stated that the subject firm has been importing
transponders back into the United States.
A contact with the company official confirmed what was
revealed during the initial investigation. It was determined
that the subject firm ceased production of transponders at the
end of 2005, when all production of transponders was shifted to
Malaysia.
In its investigation, the Department must conform to the
Trade Act and associated regulations. Therefore, the Department
considers production and imports that occurred within a year
prior to the date of the petition. Thus the events occurring in
2005 are outside of the relevant period as established by the
current petition date of February 28, 2007. Shift in production
of transponders and imports of transponders are irrelevant for
this investigation as Intel Corporation, Optical Platform
Division, Newark, California did not manufacture transponders for
sale in 2006 and January through February of 2007.
The request for reconsideration also states that production
of optical modules for networking and communication equipment was
shifted to Thailand and that the subject firm has been
progressively increasing imports of optical modules from Thailand
into the United States.
The review of the initial investigation and further contact
with the company official did reveal that the subject firm
shifted production of optical modules to Thailand. However,
Thailand is not a country that is a party to a free trade
agreement with the United States or is a beneficiary country
under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and
Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act.
The company official stated that modules, which are manufactured
in Thailand are not sold directly to customers, with the
exception of one customer in Japan. All modules are shipped from
Thailand to Intel’s facility in Malaysia to be further integrated
into finished product, transponders. Transponders are further
sold to customers, who might import them into the United States.
In order to establish import impact, the Department must
consider imports that are like or directly competitive with those
produced at the subject firm. The company official verified that
Intel Corporation, Optical Platform Division, Newark, California
did not import optical modules for networking and communication
equipment in 2006 and January through February of 2007. Any
imports of transponders are not like or directly competitive with
optical modules as required by the Trade Act.
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, D.C., this 9th day of May, 2007
/s/ Richard Church
_________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-FN-P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-61,083
INTEL CORPORATION
OPTICAL PLATFORM DIVISION
NEWARK, CALIFORNIA
Negative Determinations 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:
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. 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:
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;
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.
The investigation was initiated on March 9, 2007 in response
to a worker petition filed on behalf of workers of Intel
Corporation, Optical Platform Division, Newark, California. The
workers produce optical modules for networking and communication
equipment.
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C) and
(a)(2)(B)(II.C) have not been met.
The investigation revealed that in 2006 the subject firm began
shifting production of optical modules for networking and
communication equipment to Thailand.
The investigation further revealed that the subject firm did
not import optical modules during the period under investigation.
The optical modules produced abroad are embedded into another Intel
product before being returned to the United States.
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 Intel Corporation,
Optical Platform Division, Newark, California, 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 in Washington, D.C., this 6th day of April 2007
/s/Linda G. Poole
______________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
- 7 -
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-61,083
INTEL CORPORATION
OPTICAL PLATFORM DIVISION
NEWARK, CALIFORNIA
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated April 20, 2007, petitioners 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) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA). The denial notice was signed on April 6, 2007 and
published in the Federal Register on April 24, 2007 (72 FR
20371).
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 TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at Intel
Corporation, Optical Platform Division, Newark, California
engaged in production of optical modules for networking and
communication equipment was denied because the "contributed
importantly" group eligibility requirement of Section 222 of the
Trade Act of 1974 was not met. The investigation revealed that
production of optical modules for networking and communication
equipment was shifted to Thailand, however, there were no imports
of optical modules into the United States in 2005 and 2006.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner stated
that the subject firm also manufactured transponders and that
this production was shifted to Malaysia in 2003. The petitioner
further stated that the subject firm has been importing
transponders back into the United States.
A contact with the company official confirmed what was
revealed during the initial investigation. It was determined
that the subject firm ceased production of transponders at the
end of 2005, when all production of transponders was shifted to
Malaysia.
In its investigation, the Department must conform to the
Trade Act and associated regulations. Therefore, the Department
considers production and imports that occurred within a year
prior to the date of the petition. Thus the events occurring in
2005 are outside of the relevant period as established by the
current petition date of February 28, 2007. Shift in production
of transponders and imports of transponders are irrelevant for
this investigation as Intel Corporation, Optical Platform
Division, Newark, California did not manufacture transponders for
sale in 2006 and January through February of 2007.
The request for reconsideration also states that production
of optical modules for networking and communication equipment was
shifted to Thailand and that the subject firm has been
progressively increasing imports of optical modules from Thailand
into the United States.
The review of the initial investigation and further contact
with the company official did reveal that the subject firm
shifted production of optical modules to Thailand. However,
Thailand is not a country that is a party to a free trade
agreement with the United States or is a beneficiary country
under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and
Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act.
The company official stated that modules, which are manufactured
in Thailand are not sold directly to customers, with the
exception of one customer in Japan. All modules are shipped from
Thailand to Intel’s facility in Malaysia to be further integrated
into finished product, transponders. Transponders are further
sold to customers, who might import them into the United States.
In order to establish import impact, the Department must
consider imports that are like or directly competitive with those
produced at the subject firm. The company official verified that
Intel Corporation, Optical Platform Division, Newark, California
did not import optical modules for networking and communication
equipment in 2006 and January through February of 2007. Any
imports of transponders are not like or directly competitive with
optical modules as required by the Trade Act.
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, D.C., this 9th day of May, 2007
/s/ Richard Church
_________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-FN-P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-61,083
INTEL CORPORATION
OPTICAL PLATFORM DIVISION
NEWARK, CALIFORNIA
Negative Determinations 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:
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. 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:
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;
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.
The investigation was initiated on March 9, 2007 in response
to a worker petition filed on behalf of workers of Intel
Corporation, Optical Platform Division, Newark, California. The
workers produce optical modules for networking and communication
equipment.
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C) and
(a)(2)(B)(II.C) have not been met.
The investigation revealed that in 2006 the subject firm began
shifting production of optical modules for networking and
communication equipment to Thailand.
The investigation further revealed that the subject firm did
not import optical modules during the period under investigation.
The optical modules produced abroad are embedded into another Intel
product before being returned to the United States.
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 Intel Corporation,
Optical Platform Division, Newark, California, 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 in Washington, D.C., this 6th day of April 2007
/s/Linda G. Poole
______________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
- 7 -