DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,190

DNP ELECTRONICS AMERICA LLC (DEAL)
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM AEROTEK STAFFING AGENCY
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

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 April 1, 2014, resulted
in a negative determination, issued on May 9, 2014, that was based
on the Department’s determination that imports of articles did not
contribute importantly to worker separations, that the firm did not
shift the production of articles to a foreign country, or qualify
as a secondary worker. The determination was applicable to workers
and former workers of DNP Electronics America LLC (DEAL),
including on-site leased workers from Aerotek Staffing Agency,
Chula Vista, California. An application for administrative
reconsideration of the Department of Labor’s negative
determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trae Adjustment
Assistance was dated on May 23, 2014 (received May 29, 2014). A
negative determination on the application for administrative
reconsideration was issued on June 10, 2014.
The workers’ firm is engaged in activities related to the
production of fresnel lenses for rear projection televisions.
Based on information reviewed during the reconsideration
investigation, the Department of Labor determines that there are
increased aggregate imports of finished articles containing like
or directly competitive components to what the subject firm
workers produced which contributes 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)(A)(i) has been met because the sales
and/or production of fresnel lenses for rear projection
televisions by DNP Electronics America LLC (DEAL), including on-
site leased workers from Aerotek Staffing Agency, Chula Vista,
California have decreased absolutely.
Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II)(aa) has been met because
aggregate imports of televisions incorporating like or directly
competitive products to fresnel lenses for rear projection
televisions produced by DNP Electronics America LLC (DEAL),
including on-site leased workers from Aerotek Staffing Agency,
Chula Vista, California which are directly incorporated have
increased.
Finally, Section 222(a)(2)(A)(iii) has been met because the
increased aggregate imports of televisions contributed
importantly to the worker group separations and sales/production
declines at DNP Electronics America LLC (DEAL), including on-site
leased workers from Aerotek Staffing Agency, Chula Vista,
California.
Conclusion
After careful review, I determine that workers of DNP
Electronics America LLC (DEAL), including on-site leased workers
from Aerotek Staffing Agency, Chula Vista, California, who are
engaged in activities related to production of fresnel lenses for
rear projection televisions, 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 DNP Electronics America LLC (DEAL), including
on-site leased workers from Aerotek Staffing Agency, Chula
Vista, California who became totally or partially separated
from employment on or after March 31, 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 February, 2016


/s/Hope D. Kinglock
______________________________
HOPE D. KINGLOCK
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance





DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,190

DNP ELECTRONICS AMERICA LLC (DEAL)
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM AEROTEK STAFFING AGENCY
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated May 23, 2014 (received May 29, 2014),
a company official requested administrative reconsideration
of the Department of Labor's negative determination regarding
eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA),
applicable to workers and former workers of DNP Electronics
America LLC (DEAL), including on-site leased workers from
Aerotek Staffing Agency, Chula Vista, California. The
determination was signed on May 9, 2014, and the Department’s
Notice of determination has not yet been published in the
Federal Register. The subject workers are engaged in activities
related to the production of Fresnel lenses used in rear
projection televisions.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c), reconsideration may be granted
under the following circumstances:
(1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously
considered that the determination complained of
was erroneous;
(2) If it appears that the determination complained of
was based on a mistake in the determination of facts
not previously considered; or
(3) If in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a mis-
interpretation of facts or of the law justified
reconsideration of the decision.
The negative determination of the TAA petition filed on behalf
of workers at DNP Electronics America LLC (DEAL), Chula Vista,
California, was based on the findings that the subject firm did
not shift production of articles like or directly competitive
with the articles produced by the workers to a foreign country;
imports of articles like or directly competitive with the articles
produced by the workers 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; and the subject
firm 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).

The request for reconsideration stated that a majority of the
lenses were exported to Mexico to be assembled into rear projection
televisions; that rear projection televisions produced with fresnel
lenses were imported into the United States; that plasma, LCD,
and LED flat panel displays are directly competitive with projection
televisions; that imports of plasma, LCD, and LED flat panel displays
have increased; and that the subject firm supplied component parts
to two firms that employed worker groups eligible to apply for TAA
(the more recent group was determined eligible in 2007).

The petitioner did not supply facts not previously considered; nor
provide additional documentation indicating that there was either 1)
a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered or
2) a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justifying reconsideration
of the initial determination.

Fresnel lenses are not like or directly competitive with the rear
projection televisions because component parts are neither like
(substantially identical in inherent or intrinsic characteristics) nor
directly competitive (substantially equivalent for commercial purposes,
adapted for same usage, and essentially interchangeable) with the finished
articles into which they are incorporated. Consequently, increased imports
of finished articles (such as rear projection televisions) and articles
like or directly competitive with the finished article (such as plasma, LCD
and LED flat panel displays) cannot be the basis for certification of a
worker group producing component parts.

For the Department to issue a secondary worker certification under
Section 222(b) of the Act, the Department must find that the subject firm is
a Supplier and that either the component part supplied to the primary firm
accounted for at least 20% of the production or sales of the subject firm, or
the loss of business by the subject firm with the primary firm contributed
importantly to worker separations at the subject firm. In the case at hand,
the subject firm did not supply component parts to the two firms referenced
in the request for reconsideration during the period under investigation and,
consequently, the loss of business with either firm could not have contributed
importantly to worker separations at the subject firm during the relevant
period.

Based on these findings, the Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not
been met.

Conclusion
After careful 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 in Washington, D.C., this 10th day of June, 2014

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





DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,190

DNP ELECTRONICS AMERICA LLC (DEAL)
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM AEROTEK STAFFING AGENCY
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

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 April 1, 2014 by a company official on behalf of
workers of DNP Electronics America LLC (DEAL), Chula Vista,
California. The worker group is inclusive of on-site leased
workers from Aerotek Staffing Agency. The workers' firm is
engaged in activities related to the production of fresnel
lenses used in rear projection televisions.
The petitioner alleged the following, "A shift in
television technology from Rear Projection Televisions to
LCD/OLED televisions caused our TV customers to stop production
and led to the elimination of the RPTV product in the market.
LCD/OLED production is heavily based in Korea/Japan/Mexico."
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers' firm.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the subject firm did not shift
production of articles like or directly competitive with fresnel
lenses 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 DNP 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. Rather, the investigation confirmed
that most fresnel lenses produced by the firm were exported
from the United States.
With respect to Section 222(b), the investigation revealed
that DNP 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 (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 DNP Electronics
America LLC (DEAL), including on-site leased workers from
Aerotek Staffing Agency, Chula Vista, California 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 9th day of May 2014.

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