DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,101

HELIOVOLT CORPORATION
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
EVINS PERSONNEL CONSULTANTS
AUSTIN, TEXAS

Notice of Negative 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 February 26, 2014, resulted
in a negative determination, issued on June 3, 2104, that was based
on that the subject firm did not shift production of solar
modules/panels to a foreign country. The determination was applicable
to workers and former workers of HelioVolt Corporation, including on-
site leased workers from Evins Personnel Consultants, Austin, Texas.
The workers’ firm is engaged in activities related to the production
of solar modules/solar panels; specifically, thin film solar panels
for the generation of electricity using the sun as the source.
Based on information reviewed during the statutory
reconsideration investigation, the Department of Labor determines
that imports of articles, shifts in production abroad, or
acquisitions of articles did not contribute importantly to worker
separations. Furthermore the worker group did not qualify as a
secondary worker or was affirmed in a final determination by the
United States International Trade Commission.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that imports of articles like or directly
competitive with solar modules/solar panels by HelioVolt
Corporation, Austin, Texas, have not increased.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift the production of
solar modules/solar panels or a like or directly competitive
products to a foreign country or acquire solar modules/solar panels
or like or directly competitive products from a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that HelioVolt Corporation, Austin, Texas 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 HelioVolt Corporation, Austin, Texas
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 publicly 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, 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 HelioVolt
Corporation, including on-site leased workers from Evins Personnel
Consultants, Austin, Texas, who were engaged in employment related
to the production of solar modules/panels, to apply for adjustment
assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. §
2273.

Signed in Washington, D.C. this 21st day of February, 2016.

/s/Jacquelyn R. Mendelsohn
______________________________
JACQUELYN R. MENDELSOHN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance




DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,101

HELIOVOLT CORPORATION
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
EVINS PERSONNEL CONSULTANTS
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 February 26, 2014 by a state workforce office on
behalf of workers of HelioVolt Corporation, Austin, Texas. The
worker group is inclusive of on-site leased workers from Evins
Personnel Consultants. The workers' firm is engaged in
activities related to the production of solar modules/thin film
solar panels.
The petitioner alleged the following, "Findings of the US
Department of Commerce related to 'dumping' of photovoltaic
cells."
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers' firm and potential customer.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the subject firm did not shift
production of solar modules/panels to a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that imports did not contribute
importantly to worker separations. The firm did not report
imports of solar modules in 2012, 2013, or during January
through February 2014. Furthermore, a survey of the subject
firm's lost bids revealed that projects were awarded to firms
that will produce within the United States. Regarding the
petitioner's allegation, the scope of the United States
International Trade Commission and United States Department of
Commence investigation did not cover thin-film solar modules.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that HelioVolt is not 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).
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. 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 HelioVolt
Corporation, including on-site leased workers form Evins
Personnel Consultants, Austin, Texas engaged in activities
related to the production of solar modules/panels 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 3rd day of June, 2014


/s/Michael W. Jaffe
______________________________
MICHAEL W. JAFFE
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance