DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-61,601

INTEL CORPORATION
FAB 23
COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO

Notice of Revised Determination
on Remand

On June 6, 2008, the Department of Labor issued a Notice of
Negative Determination on Remand pursuant to the March 24, 2008
order issued by the U.S. Court of International Trade (USCIT) in
Former Employees of Intel Corporation v. U.S Secretary of Labor,
Court No. 07-00420. The Notice of determination was published
in the Federal Register on June 16, 2008 (73 FR 34045).
On May 30, 2007, an official of Intel Corporation, Fab 23,
Colorado Springs, Colorado (the subject firm) filed a petition
for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade
Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) on behalf of workers and former
workers of the subject firm. The official stated that the
subject firm produced "WiFi products" for Intel Corporation
(Intel) and communication microprocessors for a company that
replaced purchases from the subject firm with imported products.
During the initial investigation, the subject firm official
stated that the subject firm produced "silicon wafers" and that
the worker separations were due to the subject firm's customer
shifting to another company. AR 12. The company official further
stated that the subject firm shifted silicon wafer production to
Taiwan. AR 13.
The Department’s Notice of negative determination, issued
on June 15, 2007, stated that sales and production for silicon
wafers increased in 2005, 2006, and year to date 2007, that the
subject firm did not import silicon wafers, and that the subject
firm did not shift production of silicon wafers to a foreign
country during the relevant period. AR 23-25. The Department’s
Notice of determination was published in the Federal Register on
June 28, 2007 (72 FR 35517). AR 26-30.
In a July 14, 2007 letter, a displaced worker requested
administrative reconsideration. AR 39. The request alleged that
the subject workers are de facto employees of another company
(Marvel); the subject firm did not produce silicon wafers but
"manufactures electronic circuits . . . on a silicon wafer";
subject firm production has been replaced with imports; the
subject workers are eligible for TAA as secondarily-affected
workers; and Marvel's shift of production to Taiwan is a basis
for TAA certification of the subject workers. AR 40-43.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
contacted the subject firm and received significant information
about Intel's semiconductor chip production process. AR 57, 65,
66, 74, 101, 113.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
confirmed that a company, Marvel, purchased from Intel the
rights to the Hermon chip, and that, under the agreement, the
subject firm would produce silicon wafers bearing the Hermon
chip until Marvel's Taiwanese supplier was fully operational.
The Department also confirmed that the subject firm ceased
production in April 2007 and the last shipment of silicon wafers
from the subject firm to Marvel was in the second quarter of
2007. AR 54-55. Further, the Department confirmed that the
articles produced at the subject firm were silicon wafers
bearing "WiFi semiconductor chips." AR 57.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
ascertained that the subject firm did not shift production to a
country that is a party to a free trade agreement with the
United States or named as a beneficiary under the Andean Trade
Preferences Act, the African Growth and Opportunity Act or the
Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act. AR 55, 56, 70, 101. The
Department confirmed that the articles imported by Intel are not
silicon wafers bearing semiconductor chips, dies, or packaged
dies, but are WiFi cards. AR 101-102.
The negative determination on reconsideration, issued on
September 26, 2007, stated that the subject firm produced
silicon wafers and explained that the subject workers cannot be
certified for TAA based on a shift of production to Taiwan
absent evidence of increased imports (actual or likely) of like
or directly competitive articles following the shift of
production to another country. The determination also stated
that the subject workers are not secondary workers because the
subject firm neither supplied a component part to a buyer nor
finished or assembled a final product for a buyer. AR 114-120.
The Department’s Notice determination was published in the
Federal Register on October 3, 2007 (72 FR 56387). AR 121-123.
By letter to the USCIT, dated November 5, 2007, former
workers of the subject firm requested judicial review.
On March 24, 2008, the USCIT granted the Department's
request for voluntary remand, and directed the Department to
determine whether, following the subject firm's shift of
semiconductor wafer production to a foreign country, there were
(actual or likely) increased imports of articles like or
directly competitive with those produced by the subject firm.
Because the subject firm ceased production in April 2007,
the Department determined, during the remand investigation, that
the TAA criteria regarding significant worker separations and
subject firm sales and/or production declines were met.
Further, because the subject firm had shifted semiconductor
wafer production to a foreign country, the Department determines
that the TAA criterion regarding a shift of production was met.
Therefore, the focus of the remand investigation was
limited to whether the subject worker group had satisfied either
1) the criterion that increased imports of articles like or
directly competitive with semiconductor wafers produced by the
subject workers contributed importantly to subject firm sales
and/or production declines and worker separations, or 2) the
criterion that the shift of semiconductor wafer production was
to a qualified country and/or there were actual or likely
increased imports of semiconductor wafers following the shift of
production to a foreign country.
Based on information obtained in the remand investigation,
the Department determined that the alleged imports are not like
or directly competitive with the semiconductor wafers produced
at the subject firm, and, as such, the subject workers cannot be
adversely impacted by the increased imports by the subject firm.
Further, based on the results of the customer survey conducted
by the Department during the remand investigation, SAR 37-40,
51-53, the Department determined that the subject workers cannot
be adversely impacted by increased imports by the subject firm’s
declining customer.
In the remand determination, the Department affirmed that
the shift of semiconductor wafer production to Taiwan cannot be
a basis for TAA certification for the subject worker group.
The Department also stated in the remand determination that
because the subject workers are not certified eligible to apply
for TAA, they cannot be certified eligible to apply for ATAA.
During the remand investigation, the Department searched
the TAA database for certifications during the relevant time
period of worker groups producing semiconductor wafers that were
based on increased imports, and found only one case (Texas
Instruments Inc., KFAB Manufacturing Division, Dallas, Texas;
TA-W-62,197; issued November 8, 2007). Because only one case
was found, the Department did not consider the certification to
be relevant to the case at hand, much less indicative of likely
increased aggregate imports of semiconductor wafers.
After the Department issued the negative determination on
remand on June 6, 2008, however, the Department received
information during the investigation of another matter remanded
to the Department for further investigation, Former Employees of
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation v. United States Secretary
of Labor, Court No. 06-00215 (FEO Fairchild) that caused the
Department to reconsider the case at hand.
During the remand investigation of FEO Fairchild, the
Department received information that Fairchild would begin
importing semiconductor wafers in 2008. Upon receiving this
information, the Department reviewed previously-submitted
information in other cases to determine whether there were any
indications that other domestic producers of semiconductor
wafers did or would be importing semiconductor wafers in the
time period consisting of May 2007 through the present.
The information that was the basis for the certification of
Fairchild Semiconductor International, Mountain Top,
Pennsylvania (TA-W-58,624; Notice of Revised Determination on
Remand issued on July 22, 2008) combined with the information
obtained from a careful review of previously-certified cases
indicates the likelihood that there would be increased imports
of semiconductor wafers in the time period after production
shifted from Intel Corporation, Fab 23, Colorado Springs,
Colorado to a foreign country.
In accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of 1974 (26 USC
2813), as amended, the Department herein presents the results of
its investigation regarding certification of eligibility to
apply for ATAA. The Department has determined in this case that
the group eligibility requirements of Section 246 have been met.
A significant number of workers at the firm are age 50 or
over and possess skills that are not easily transferable.
Competitive conditions within the industry are adverse.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained subsequent to the
issuance of the negative remand determination, I determine that
there was a total separation of a significant number or
proportion of workers at the subject facility, and that there
was a shift in production to a foreign country followed by
likely increased imports of articles like or directly
competitive with semiconductor wafers produced at the subject
facility. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make
the following certification:
"All workers of Intel Corporation, Fab 23, Colorado Springs,
Colorado, who became totally or partially separated from
employment on or after May 30, 2006, through two years from
the issuance of this revised determination, are eligible to
apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance under Section 223 of
the Trade Act of 1974, and are eligible to apply for
alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of
the Trade Act of 1974."
Signed at Washington, D.C. this 25th day of July 2008.
/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-61,601

INTEL CORPORATION
FAB 23
COLORADO SPRINGS, 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:
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 May 31, 2007 in response
to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers
of Intel Corporation, Fab 23, Colorado Springs, Colorado. The
workers at the subject facility produce silicon wafers.
The investigation revealed that criterion (a)(2)(A)(I.B.)
and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) have not been met.
The investigation revealed that sales and production for
silicon wafers increased in 2005, 2006 and year to date 2007.
The investigation revealed that the subject firm did not
import or shift production of silicon wafers to a foreign
country during the relevant period.
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, Fab 23, Colorado Springs, 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 in Washington, D.C. this 15th day of June 2007.


/s/Linda G. Poole
______________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance







- 11 -