[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 21 (Thursday, January 31, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4747-4748]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-2341]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-39,449A and NAFTA-04955A and TA-W-39,437A and NAFTA-04954]


Agere Systems Optoelectronics Division, Reading and 
Breinigsville, PA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding 
Application for Reconsideration

    By application of October 5, 2001 and October 8, 2001, the 
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1560 and the 
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1898, 
respectively requested administrative reconsideration of the 
Department's negative determination regarding eligibility for workers 
and former workers of the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment 
Assistance (TAA) under petition TA-W-39,449A and North American Free 
Trade Agreement-Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-TAA) under 
petition NAFTA-4955A and Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) under 
petition TA-W-39,437A and North American Free Trade Agreement-
Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-TAA) under petition NAFTA-
4954, respectively. The denial notices applicable to workers of Agere 
Systems, Optoelectronics Division, Breinigsville, Pennsylvania, were 
signed on August 29, 2001 (TA-W-4937A and TA-W-39,449A), and August 23, 
2001 (NAFTA-4955A and NAFTA-4954) and published in the Federal Register 
on September 11, 2001 (66 FR 47241) and (66 FR 47243), respectively.
    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 
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of 
the decision.
    The TAA petitions, filed on behalf of workers at Agere Systems, 
Optoelectronics Division, Breinigsville,

[[Page 4748]]

Pennsylvania, and Agere Systems, Optoelectronics Division, Reading, 
Pennsylvania producing optoelectronics, were denied because the 
``contributed importantly'' group eligibility requirement of section 
222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met. The 
``contributed importantly'' test is generally demonstrated through a 
survey of the workers' firm's customers. The survey revealed no 
increased customer imports of optoelectronics during the relevant 
period. The investigation further revealed that imports of 
optoelectronics by the company were negligible.
    The NAFTA-TAA petitions for the same worker groups were denied 
because criteria (3) and (4) of the group eligibility requirements in 
paragraph (a)(1) of section 250 of the Trade Act, as amended, were not 
met. A survey was conducted and revealed that customers did not 
increase their imports of optoelectronics from Mexico or Canada during 
the relevant period. The subject firm did not import optoelectronics 
from Mexico or Canada, nor was production of optoelectronics shifted 
from the workers' firm to Mexico or Canada.
    The petitioners allege that plant production is being shifted to 
Asia and Mexico and that the products will be imported back to the 
United States.
    The petitioners supplied information concerning the company's 
manufacturing strategy concerning the transfer of plant production to 
Asia, in conjunction with various other factors that are scheduled to 
occur. The planned transfer and potential imports are beyond the 
relevant period of the initial investigation and thus could not be 
considered during the investigation.
    The petitioners further allege that certain products produced by 
the subject plant were being outsourced to Canada and/or Mexico.
    Based on data supplied by the company, only negligible amounts of 
products produced by the subject plant were being outsourced to foreign 
sources.
    The petitioners also indicated that some modulators, similar to 
those produced by the subject plant, are scheduled to be made in 
Singapore.
    The shift in production to Singapore does not meet the 
``contributed importantly'' test unless the product was imported back 
to the United States during the investigation period.
    The majority of the information recently provided by the 
petitioners concerns a time period following the initial decision. The 
petitioner with their request for reconsideration, attached new TAA and 
NAFTA-TAA petitions for the Breiningsville, Pennsylvania plant. Those 
petitions will be instituted shortly. The Department based on the 
information provided during reconsideration is also initiating new TAA 
and NAFTA-TAA investigations for the Reading, Pennsylvania location.

Conclusion

    After 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 decisions. Accordingly, the application is denied.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of January, 2002.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 02-2341 Filed 1-30-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M