DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,039

FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.
DIGITAL NETWORKING PE/TE DIVISION
AUSTIN, TEXAS

Notice of Revised Determination
After Statutory Reconsideration

As required by the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reauthorization
Act of 2015 (TAARA 2015), which was enacted as Title IV of the
Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law No. 114-27,
section 405(a)(1)(A), the investigation into this petition was
reopened for a reconsideration investigation to apply the
requirements for worker group eligibility under chapter 2 of
title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the TAARA 2015,
to the facts of this petition (statutory reconsideration).

The initial investigation, initiated January 29, 2014,
resulted in a negative determination, issued on March 13, 2014
that was based on the findings that the subject firm did not
shift the production of semiconductors, or a like or directly
competitive product, to a foreign country which was a party to
free trade agreement with the United States or a beneficiary
country under the African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the
Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act.

The determination was applicable to workers and former
workers of Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., Digital Networking
PE/TE Division, Austin, Texas (Freescale).

Based on information reviewed during the reconsideration
investigation, the Department of Labor determines that the firm
shifted to a foreign country the supply of articles like or
directly competitive with the articles produced by the workers
which contributed importantly to worker separations.

Section 222(a)(1) has been met because a significant number
or proportion of the workers in such workers’ firm have become
totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become
totally or partially separated.

Section 222(a)(2)(B) has been met because the workers’ firm
has shifted to a foreign country articles like or directly
competitive to the articles produced by the workers which
contributed importantly to worker group separations at
Freescale.

Conclusion

After careful review, I determine that workers of
Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., Digital Networking PE/TE
Division, Austin, Texas, who are engaged in activities
related to the production of semiconductors, meet the
worker group certification criteria under Section 222(a)
of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a). In accordance with
Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273, I make the
following certification:

"All workers of Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., Digital
Networking PE/TE Division, Austin, Texas who became totally
or partially separated from employment on or after January
28, 2013, through two years from the date of certification,
and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial
separation from employment on the date of certification through
two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply
for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the
Trade Act of 1974, as amended.”

Signed in Washington, D.C., this 25th day of September, 2015

/s/Jessica R. Webster
______________________________
JESSICA R. WEBSTER
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance





DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,039

FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.
DIGITAL NETWORKING PE/TE DIVISION
AUSTIN, TEXAS

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 ("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) and (b)
of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a) and (b). 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. § 2272(a)(1)) requires that 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) 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) imports of articles like or directly competitive with
articles produced by such firm or subdivision have
increased; and
(iii) the increase 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 or subdivision.

(B) Shift in Production Path:
(i) 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
(ii)(I) 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;
(II)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
(III)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.

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 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.

Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), defines the
terms "Supplier" and "Downstream Producer."
The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on January 29, 2014 on behalf of workers of Freescale
Semiconductor, Inc., Digital Networking PE/TE Division, Austin,
Texas (subject firm). The workers' firm is engaged in activities
related to the production of semiconductors for the electronics
industry. The component parts produced by the workers' firm may
be incorporated into electronic devices.
The petition stated "The jobs and work responsibilities were
transferred to the Freescale-Malaysia facility to improve revenue,
gross margin and profits."
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the petitioners and the workers' firm.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the subject firm did not shift the
production of semiconductors, or a like or directly competitive
product, to a foreign country which was a party to free trade
agreement with the United States or a beneficiary country under
the African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin
Economic Recovery Act. The investigation further revealed that,
following the shift of production to a foreign country, there
are no increases in imports (actual or likely) of articles like
or directly competitive with the semiconductors produced by the
workers' firm.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(iii), the investigation
revealed that the investigation revealed that neither increased
imports nor a shift of production to a foreign country
contributed importantly to workers' separation or threat of
separations at the subject firm.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the subject firm is neither a Supplier
nor 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).
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance
(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 Freescale
Semiconductor Inc., Digital Networking PE/TE Division, Austin,
Texas, are denied eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance
under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, and are
also denied eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment
assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, amended.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 13th day of March, 2014


/s/Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance