DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-81,646

CALAMP WIRELESS NETWORKS CORPORATION
WASECA, MINNESOTA


Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated September 26, 2012, the State of
Minnesota 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).
Following the filing of the request for reconsideration, the
Department issued a certification that includes workers of the
subject firm (TA-W-80,399A; CalAmp Wireless Networks Corporation,
Waseca, Minnesota; expires on December 2, 2013).
Conclusion
Due to the eligibility of workers and former workers of
CalAmp Wireless Networks Corporation, Waseca, Minnesota to apply
for TAA, the Department determines that an investigation would
serve no purpose. Accordingly, the application is denied.
Signed at Washington, D.C., this 16th day of November, 2012
/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
______________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance

4510-FN-P


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-81,646

CALAMP WIRELESS NETWORKS CORPORATION
WASECA, MINNESOTA


Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. § 2273, the Department of Labor herein
presents the results of an investigation regarding certification
of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance.
Workers of a firm may be eligible for worker adjustment
assistance if they satisfy the criteria of subsection (a), (b) or
(e) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (b) and (e).
For the Department of Labor to issue a certification for workers
under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), the
following three criteria must be met:
(1) The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2282(a)(1)) requires that a significant
number or proportion of the workers in the workers’ firm
must have become totally or partially separated or be
threatened with total or partial separation.

(2) The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied in one of two
ways:
(A) Increased Imports Path:
(i) sales or production, or both, at the workers’ firm must
have decreased absolutely, AND
(ii) (I) imports of articles or services like or directly
competitive with articles or services produced or
supplied by the workers’ firm have increased, OR
(II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles into which the component
part produced by the workers’ firm was directly
incorporated have increased; OR
(II)(bb) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles which are produced
directly using the services supplied by the
workers’ firm have increased; OR
(III) imports of articles directly incorporating
component parts not produced in the U.S. that are
like or directly competitive with the article into
which the component part produced by the workers’
firm was directly incorporated have increased.
(iii) the increase in imports described in clause (ii)
contributed importantly to such workers’ separation
or threat of separation and to the decline in the
sales or production of such firm.

(B) Shift in Production or Supply Path:
(i)(I) there has been a shift by the workers’ firm to a
foreign country in the production of articles or supply
of services like or directly competitive with those
produced/supplied by the workers’ firm; OR
(II) there has been an acquisition from a foreign
country by the workers’ firm of articles/services that
are like or directly competitive with those
produced/supplied by the workers’ firm; and
(ii) the shift described in clause (i)(I) or the acquisition
of articles or services described in clause (i)(II)
contributed importantly to such workers’ separation or
threat of separation.

Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), defines the
terms “Supplier” and “Downstream Producer.” For the Department to
issue a secondary worker certification under Section 222(b) of
the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(b), to workers of a Supplier or a
Downstream Producer, the following criteria must be met:
(1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in
the 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) the workers’ firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer
to a firm that employed a group of workers who received
a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of
the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), and such supply or
production is related to the article or service that
was the basis for such certification; and

(3) either
(A) the workers’ firm is a supplier and the component
parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph
(2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production
or sales of the workers’ firm;
or
(B) a loss of business by the workers’ firm with the
firm described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly
to the workers’ separation or threat of separation.

Workers of a firm may also be considered eligible if they
are publicly identified by name by the International Trade
Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation
resulting in a category of determination that is listed in
Section 222(e) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(e).
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm
under Section 222(e) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(e), can be
satisfied if the following criteria are met:
(1) the workers’ firm is publicly identified by name by the
International Trade Commission as a member of a
domestic industry in an investigation resulting in--
(A) an affirmative determination of serious injury or
threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) an affirmative determination of market disruption
or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) an affirmative final determination of material
injury or threat thereof under section
705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and
1673d(b)(1)(A));

(2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period
beginning on the date on which--
(A) a summary of the report submitted to the President
by the International Trade Commission under
section 202(f)(1) with respect to the affirmative
determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is
published in the Federal Register under section
202(f)(3); or
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described
in subparagraph (1) is published in the Federal
Register; and

(3) the workers have become totally or partially
separated from the workers’ firm within--
(A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year
period preceding the 1-year period described in
paragraph (2).

The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on May 22, 2012 by a state workforce office on behalf of
workers of CalAmp Wireless Networks Corporation, Waseca,
Minnesota (CalAmp). The workers’ firm is engaged in activities
related to the production of radio modems and routers. The group
includes on-site leased workers from Spherion Staffing.
Petitioner cited the recent certification of workers at an
affiliated facility as a potential basis for eligibility for
workers at Waseca. CalAmp has a firm in Oxnard, California
identified as CalAmp Products, Inc., Satellite Products Division
whose workers are certified for Trade Adjustment Assistance under
TA-W-80,399 which expires on December 2, 2012. The subject
worker group of this petition is separately identified from the
group covered under TA-W-80,399. The workers of TA-W-80,399 are
engaged in activities related to the production of low noise
block feed down converter amplifiers for satellite television
unrelated to the subject worker’s production of radio modems and
routers.
The petitioner also alleged that activities are now being
performed in a foreign country.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers’ firm.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not increase imports of
radio modems and routers. Imports of radio modems and routers did
not contributed importantly to the worker separations at the
subject firm. Firm-wide sales and production of radio modems and
routers have increased when comparing 2010 to 2011 and the first
five months 2012 over the corresponding 2011 period.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift the production
of radio modems and routers or a like or directly competitive
article to a foreign country or acquire radio modems and routers
or a like or directly competitive article from a foreign country.
The firm moved the activities related to the production of radio
modems and routers to an affiliate located in the United States.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that CalAmp is not a Supplier to a firm
that employed a group of workers who received a certification of
eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a).
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that CalAmp does not act as a Downstream
Producer to a firm (or subdivision, whichever is applicable) that
employed a group of workers who received a certification of
eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a).
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act, have not been satisfied either because
Criterion (1) has not been met since the workers’ firm has not
been publically identified by name by the International Trade
Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation
resulting in an affirmative finding of serious injury, market
disruption, or material injury, or threat thereof.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that the requirements of Section 222
of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272, have not been met and, therefore,
deny the petition for group eligibility of CalAmp Wireless
Networks Corporation, including on-site leased workers from
Spherion Staffing, Waseca, Minnesota engaged in activities
?
related to the production of radio modems and routers to apply
for adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 9th day of August, 2012


/s/Elliott S. Kushner
______________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance