[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 18, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12937-12938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-6416]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-41,181]


Motorola Integrated Electronics Systems Sector, Automotive 
Communication Electronic Systems, Elma, NY; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of November 12, 2002, the company 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). The 
denial notice was signed on September 25, 2002 and published in the 
Federal Register on October 10, 2002 (67 FR 63159).
    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 TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at Motorola, 
Integrated Electronics Systems Sector, Automotive Communication 
Electronic Systems Group, Elma, New York, engaged in the production of 
automotive electronic modules-printed circuit board products, was 
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 Department 
conducted a survey of the subject firm's major customers regarding 
their purchases of automotive electronic modules-printed circuit board 
products. The respondents reported no increased imports during periods 
where they decreased purchases from the subject firm. The subject firm 
did not import automotive electronic modules-printed circuit board 
products.
    In their initial request for reconsideration (dated November 20, 
2002), the company official alleged that ``data provided by our major 
customer regarding increases of imports is not accurate''.

[[Page 12938]]

    A review of the initial customer survey revealed an increase in 
customer imports in January through September 12, 2002 compared to 
2001. However, this customer also reported that they more than doubled 
their purchases from the Elma facility in January through September 12, 
2002 relative to 2001 (as reported in dollars). As there were no 
declines in purchases from the domestic subject plant in the period 
when imports began, there is no evidence of import impact. Further, a 
clarifying conversation with the company confirmed that the figures 
provided by the customer were in fact accurate. The company official 
clarified that, although they had laid off employees in anticipation of 
a shift in production, an unexpected increase in production orders for 
the Elma facility had led to a delay in the production shift.
    In a follow up letter (dated December 20, 2002), the company 
provided figures for production at the Elma facility and a foreign 
facility in regard to their production for their major customer. In 
this table, the figures indicate a decline in production at the subject 
firm in calendar year 2002 over 2001 and a corresponding increase in 
production shifted to a foreign source for the same time periods.
    When contacted about these figures, the company official clarified 
that the subject facility's declining production figures were 
inaccurate due to the unexpected increase in production demand at the 
subject facility. Further, the company gives no indication of increased 
imports relative to production at the subject facility.

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 decision. Accordingly, the application is denied.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of February, 2003.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-6416 Filed 3-17-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P