DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-62,052

FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.
NEW PRODUCT INTRODUCTION (NPI)
TEMPE, ARIZONA


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 USC 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
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, D.C. this 29th day of May 2008


/s/ Elliott S. Kushner

ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance

4510-FN-P


CORRECTED COPY
January 29, 2008

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-62,052

FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.
NEW PRODUCT INTRODUCTION (NPI)
COMPOUND SEMICONDUCTOR 1 (CS1) FACTORY
TEMPE, ARIZONA

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 August 28, 2007, in
response to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Freescale
Semiconductor Inc., New Product Introduction (NPI) Group, Compound
Semiconductor 1 (CS1) Factory, Tempe, Arizona. The workers at the
subject firm are engaged 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 investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) and
(a)(2)(B)(II.B.) have not been met.
The subject firm did not shift the any activities related to
the design or manufacturing of GaAs semiconductors abroad in 2005,
2006, or through July 2007 and did not import a like or directly
competitive product. A corporate decision was made to consolidate
two Freescale Arizona operations, Probe and NPI, into one location
in Chandler, Arizona. Worker separations at the subject firm
resulted.
Furthermore, though production at the subject firm declined
comparing January through July 2007 with the same period in 2006,
sales continued to increase throughout the periods relevant to this
investigation. Additionally, their major customer, which does have
facilities that are trade adjustment assistance (TAA) certified,
did not receive product from the subject group that was
incorporated within the trade impacted product, also, the subject
group were not engaged in finishing activities.
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 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 this
investigation, I determine that all workers of Freescale
Semiconductor Inc., New Product Introduction (NPI) Group, Compound
Semiconductor 1 (CS1) Factory, Tempe, Arizona 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 13th day of November 2007

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





- 9 -