Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 5, 2008 / Notices 45477 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–61,601] 

Intel Corporation, Fab 23, Colorado 

Springs, CO; Notice of Revised 

Determination on Remand 

On June 6, 2008, the Department of 

Labor issued a Notice of Negative 

Determination on Remand pursuant to 

the March 24, 2008 order issued by the 

U.S. Court of International Trade 

(USCIT) in Former Employees of Intel 

Corporation v. U.S. Secretary of Labor, 

Court No. 07–00420. The Notice of 

determination was published in the 

Federal Register on June 16, 2008 (73 

FR 34045). 

On May 30, 2007, an official of Intel 

Corporation, Fab 23, Colorado Springs, 

Colorado (the subject firm) filed a 

petition for Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade 

Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) on 

behalf of workers and former workers of 

the subject firm. The official stated that 

the subject firm produced ‘‘WiFi 

products’’ for Intel Corporation (Intel) 

and communication microprocessors for 

a company that replaced purchases from 

the subject firm with imported products. 

During the initial investigation, the 

subject firm official stated that the 

subject firm produced ‘‘silicon wafers’’

and that the worker separations were 

due to the subject firm’s customer 

shifting to another company. AR 12. The 

company official further stated that the 

subject firm shifted silicon wafer 

production to Taiwan. AR 13. 

The Department’s Notice of negative 

determination, issued on June 15, 2007, 

stated that sales and production for 

silicon wafers increased in 2005, 2006, 

and year to date 2007, that the subject 

firm did not import silicon wafers, and 

that the subject firm did not shift 

production of silicon wafers to a foreign 

country during the relevant period. AR 

23–25. The Department’s Notice of 

determination was published in the 

Federal Register on June 28, 2007 (72 

FR 35517). AR 26–30. 

In a July 14, 2007 letter, a displaced 

worker requested administrative 

reconsideration. AR 39. The request 

alleged that the subject workers are de 

facto employees of another company 

(Marvel); the subject firm did not 

produce silicon wafers but 

‘‘manufactures electronic circuits * * * 

on a silicon wafer’’; subject firm 

production has been replaced with 

imports; the subject workers are eligible 

for TAA as secondarily-affected 

workers; and Marvel’s shift of 

production to Taiwan is a basis for TAA 

certification of the subject workers. AR 

40–43. 

During the reconsideration 

investigation, the Department contacted 

the subject firm and received significant 

information about Intel’s semiconductor 

chip production process. AR 57, 65, 66, 

74, 101, 113. 

During the reconsideration 

investigation, the Department confirmed 

that a company, Marvel, purchased from 

Intel the rights to the Hermon chip, and 

that, under the agreement, the subject 

firm would produce silicon wafers 

bearing the Hermon chip until Marvel’s 

Taiwanese supplier was fully 

operational. The Department also 

confirmed that the subject firm ceased 

production in April 2007 and the last 

shipment of silicon wafers from the 

subject firm to Marvel was in the second 

quarter of 2007. AR 54–55. Further, the 

Department confirmed that the articles 

produced at the subject firm were 

silicon wafers bearing ‘‘WiFi 

semiconductor chips.’’ AR 57. 

During the reconsideration 

investigation, the Department 

ascertained that the subject firm did not 

shift production to a country that is a 

party to a free trade agreement with the 

United States or named as a beneficiary 

under the Andean Trade Preferences 

Act, the African Growth and 

Opportunity Act or the Caribbean Basin 

Economic Recovery Act. AR 55, 56, 70, 

101. The Department confirmed that the 

articles imported by Intel are not silicon 

wafers bearing semiconductor chips, 

dies, or packaged dies, but are WiFi 

cards. AR 101–102. 

The negative determination on 

reconsideration, issued on September 

26, 2007, stated that the subject firm 

produced silicon wafers and explained 

that the subject workers cannot be 

certified for TAA based on a shift of 

production to Taiwan absent evidence 

of increased imports (actual or likely) of 

like or directly competitive articles 

following the shift of production to 

another country. The determination also 

stated that the subject workers are not 

secondary workers because the subject 

firm neither supplied a component part 

to a buyer nor finished or assembled a 

final product for a buyer. AR 114–120. 

The Department’s Notice determination 

was published in the Federal Register 

on October 3, 2007 (72 FR 56387). AR 

121–123. 

By letter to the USCIT, dated 

November 5, 2007, former workers of 

the subject firm requested judicial 

review. 

On March 24, 2008, the USCIT 

granted the Department’s request for 

voluntary remand, and directed the 

Department to determine whether, 

following the subject firm’s shift of 

semiconductor wafer production to a 

foreign country, there were (actual or 

likely) increased imports of articles like 

or directly competitive with those 

produced by the subject firm. 

Because the subject firm ceased 

production in April 2007, the 

Department determined, during the 

remand investigation, that the TAA 

criteria regarding significant worker 

separations and subject firm sales and/ 

or production declines were met. 

Further, because the subject firm had 

shifted semiconductor wafer production 

to a foreign country, the Department 

determines that the TAA criterion 

regarding a shift of production was met. 

Therefore, the focus of the remand 

investigation was limited to whether the 

subject worker group had satisfied 

either (1) the criterion that increased 

imports of articles like or directly 

competitive with semiconductor wafers 

produced by the subject workers 

contributed importantly to subject firm 

sales and/or production declines and 

worker separations, or (2) the criterion 

that the shift of semiconductor wafer 

production was to a qualified country 

and/or there were actual or likely 

increased imports of semiconductor 

wafers following the shift of production 

to a foreign country. 

Based on information obtained in the 

remand investigation, the Department 

determined that the alleged imports are 

not like or directly competitive with the 

semiconductor wafers produced at the 

subject firm, and, as such, the subject 

workers cannot be adversely impacted 

by the increased imports by the subject 

firm. Further, based on the results of the 

customer survey conducted by the 

Department during the remand 

investigation, SAR 37–40, 51–53, the 

Department determined that the subject 

workers cannot be adversely impacted 

by increased imports by the subject 

firm’s declining customer. 

In the remand determination, the 

Department affirmed that the shift of 

semiconductor wafer production to 

Taiwan cannot be a basis for TAA 

certification for the subject worker 

group. 

The Department also stated in the 

remand determination that because the 

subject workers are not certified eligible 

to apply for TAA, they cannot be 

certified eligible to apply for ATAA. 

During the remand investigation, the 

Department searched the TAA database 

for certifications during the relevant 

time period of worker groups producing 

semiconductor wafers that were based 

on increased imports, and found only 

one case (Texas Instruments Inc., KFAB 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
45478 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 5, 2008 / Notices 

Manufacturing Division, Dallas, Texas; 

TA–W–62,197; issued November 8, 

2007). Because only one case was found, 

the Department did not consider the 

certification to be relevant to the case at 

hand, much less indicative of likely 

increased aggregate imports of 

semiconductor wafers. 

After the Department issued the 

negative determination on remand on 

June 6, 2008, however, the Department 

received information during the 

investigation of another matter 

remanded to the Department for further 

investigation, Former Employees of 

Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation v. 

United States Secretary of Labor, Court 

No. 06–00215 (FEO Fairchild) that 

caused the Department to reconsider the 

case at hand. 

During the remand investigation of 

FEO Fairchild, the Department received 

information that Fairchild would begin 

importing semiconductor wafers in 

2008. Upon receiving this information, 

the Department reviewed previouslysubmitted information in other cases to 

determine whether there were any 

indications that other domestic 

producers of semiconductor wafers did 

or would be importing semiconductor 

wafers in the time period consisting of 

May 2007 through the present. 

The information that was the basis for 

the certification of Fairchild 

Semiconductor International, Mountain 

Top, Pennsylvania (TA–W–58,624; 

Notice of Revised Determination on 

Remand issued on July 22, 2008) 

combined with the information obtained 

from a careful review of previouslycertified cases indicates the likelihood 

that there would be increased imports of 

semiconductor wafers in the time period 

after production shifted from Intel 

Corporation, Fab 23, Colorado Springs, 

Colorado to a foreign country. 

In accordance with Section 246 the 

Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 

amended, the Department herein 

presents the results of its investigation 

regarding certification of eligibility to 

apply for ATAA. The Department has 

determined in this case that the group 

eligibility requirements of Section 246 

have been met. 

A significant number of workers at the 

firm are age 50 or over and possess 

skills that are not easily transferable. 

Competitive conditions within the 

industry are adverse. 

Conclusion 

After careful review of the facts 

obtained subsequent to the issuance of 

the negative remand determination, I 

determine that there was a total 

separation of a significant number or 

proportion of workers at the subject 

facility, and that there was a shift in 

production to a foreign country 

followed by likely increased imports of 

articles like or directly competitive with 

semiconductor wafers produced at the 

subject facility. In accordance with the 

provisions of the Act, I make the 

following certification: 

‘‘All workers of Intel Corporation, Fab 23, 

Colorado Springs, Colorado, who became 

totally or partially separated from 

employment on or after May 30, 2006, 

through two years from the issuance of this 

revised determination, are eligible to apply 

for Trade Adjustment Assistance under 

Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are 

eligible to apply for alternative trade 

adjustment assistance under Section 246 of 

the Trade Act of 1974.’’

Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th day of 

July 2008. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E8–17883 Filed 8–4–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

(NSF) 

National Science Board; Sunshine Act 

Meetings; Notice 

The National Science Board, pursuant 

to NSF regulations (45 CFR Part 614), 

the National Science Foundation Act, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n–5), and the 

Government in the Sunshine Act (5 

U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in 

regard to the scheduling of meetings for 

the transaction of National Science 

Board business and other matters 

specified, as follows: 

AGENCY HOLDING MEETING: National 

Science Board. 

DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, August 12, 

2008, at 8 a.m.; and Wednesday, August 

13, 2008 at 8 a.m. 

PLACE: National Science Foundation 

4201 Wilson Blvd. Room 1235 

Arlington, VA 22230. All visitors must 

report to the NSF visitor desk at the 9th 

and N. Stuart Streets entrance to receive 

a visitor’s badge. 

STATUS: Some portions open, some 

portions closed. 

Open Sessions 

August 12, 2008 

8 a.m.–8:05 a.m. 

8:05 a.m.–12 p.m. 

1 p.m.–1:45 p.m. 

1:45 a.m.–2:45 p.m. 

August 13, 2008 

8 a.m.–10:30 a.m. 

10:30 a.m.–10:45 a.m. 

10:45 a.m.–11 a.m. 

11 a.m.–12 p.m. 

2:30 p.m.–3:30 p.m. 

Closed Sessions 

August 12, 2008 

2:45 p.m.–3 p.m. 

3 p.m.–5:45 p.m. 

August 13, 2008 

12 p.m.–12:30 p.m. 

1:30 p.m.–2 p.m. 

2 p.m.–2:30 p.m. 

Agency Contact: Dr. Robert E. Webber, 

rwebber@nsf.gov, (703) 292–7000, 

http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/. 

Matters To Be Discussed 

Tuesday, August 12, 2008 

Open Session: 8 a.m.–8:05 a.m. 

Chairman’s Introduction 

Committee on Programs and Plans (CPP) 

Open Session: 8:05 a.m.–12 p.m. 

• Approval of May 6, 2008 CPP 

Minutes 

• Committee Chairman’s Remarks 

• CPP Subcommittee on Polar Issues 

(SOPI) 

Æ Approval of May 6, 2008 SOPI 

Minutes 

Æ SOPI Chairman’s Remarks 

Æ Director’s Report—Office of Polar 

Programs 

• Update on U.S. Antarctic Program 

Process for Request for Proposals 

for Support Contractor 

• The ‘‘I’’ in International Polar Year 

(IPY) 

Æ Fuel Costs, IPY, and USAP 

Infrastructure & Logistics 

• Task Force on Sustainable Energy 

(SE) 

Æ Approval of May 6, 2008 SE Minutes 

Æ SE Co-Chairmen’s Remarks 

Æ Discussion and Summary of June 19, 

2008 Roundtable Discussion 

Æ Discussion of September 4, 2008 

Roundtable Discussion 

• NSB Action: Report to Congress on 

Interdisciplinary Research 

• NSB Information Item: Competition 

for the Award of a Cooperative 

Agreement for the Management and 

Operation of the National 

Astronomy and Ionosphere Center 

(NAIC) 

• Discussion Item: Major Research 

Facilities and Facility Plan 

• Discussion Item: Review of MREFC 

Process 

• NSB Item: Examination of Priority 

Order of MREFC New Starts 

• Science Presentation: Dr. Richard 

Buckius, Assistant Director, ENG, 

Our World Is Engineered 

Plenary Open 

Open Session: 1 p.m.–1:45 p.m. 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES