DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,159

SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY PLC
SHAKOPEE DESIGN CENTER
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
RANDSTAD NORTH AMERICA, LP
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA

TA-W-85,159A

SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY PLC
RECORDING HEAD GROUP (RHG)
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
RANDSTAD NORTH AMERICA, LP
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA

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 March 19, 2014, resulted
in a negative determination, issued on July 14, 2014, that was
based on no shift in production and no imports from a foreign
country. The determination was applicable to workers and former
workers of Seagate Technology PLC, Shakopee Design Center,
Shakopee, Minnesota (TA-W-85,159) and Seagate Technology PLC,
Recording Head Group (RHG), Bloomington, Minnesota (TA-W-
85,159A). The worker group is inclusive of on-site leased
workers from Randstad North America, LP.
The Shakopee Design Center is engaged in activities related
to the production of prototype drives which are assembled on-site
for development purposes. These drives are scrapped afterwards.
The Design Center, a business unit of Seagate Technology PLC, is
responsible for development and design of disk drives and
processes for enterprise applications.
The Recording Head Group (RHG) is engaged in activities
related to the production of magnetic recording heads in head
slider assemblies. The business unit is responsible for the
research, development, and build of.
Based on information reviewed during the reconsideration
investigation, the Department of Labor determines that requirements
for certification have not been met.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Seagate did not import articles like
or directly competitive with the articles produced by the firm.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift research and
development activities to a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Seagate 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 Seagate 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 Seagate
Technology PLC, Shakopee Design Center, including on-site leased
workers from Randstad North America, LP, Shakopee, Minnesota (TA-
W-85,159) and Seagate Technology PLC, Recording Head Group (RHG),
including on-site leased workers from Randstad North America, LP,
Bloomington, Minnesota (TA-W-85,159A), who were engaged in
employment related to the production of prototype drives and
magnetic recording heads to apply for adjustment assistance, in
accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.

Signed in Washington, D.C. this 12th 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-85,159

SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY PLC
SHAKOPEE DESIGN CENTER
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
RANDSTAD NORTH AMERICA, LP
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA

TA-W-85,159A

SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY PLC
RECORDING HEAD GROUP (RHG)
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
RANDSTAD NORTH AMERICA, LP
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA

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 March 19, 2014 on behalf of workers of Seagate
Technology PLC, Shakopee Design Center, Shakopee, Minnesota
(TA-W-85,159) and Seagate Technology PLC, Recording Head Group
(RHG), Bloomington, Minnesota (TA-W-85,159A) ["Seagate"]. The
worker group is inclusive of on-site leased workers from
Randstad North America, LP. The Shakopee Design Center is
engaged in activities related to the production of prototype
drives which are assemble on-site for development purposes.
These drives are scrapped afterwards. The Design Center, a
business unit of Seagate Technology PLC, is responsible for
development and design of disk drives and processes for
enterprise applications. The Recording Head Group (RHG) is
engaged in activities related to the production of magnetic
recording heads in head slider assemblies. The business unit
is responsible for the research, development, and build of.
The petitioners alleged, "Some R&D activity has been moved
overseas to cut cost."
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers' firm and petitioners.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the subject firm did not shift
research and development activities to a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(iii), the
investigation revealed that imports of articles like or
directly competitive with the articles produced by Seagate did
not contribute importantly to such workers' separation or
threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production
of such firm or subdivision.
The investigation revealed that Seagate is not a Supplier
or Downstream Producer to a 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 Seagate
Technology PLC, Shakopee Design Center, Shakopee, Minnesota
(TA-W-85,159) and Seagate Technology PLC, Recording Head Group
(RHG), Bloomington, Minnesota (TA-W-85,159A) including on-site
leased workers from Randstad North America, LP 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 14th day of July 2014


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