DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-40,275 & NAFTA-05163

TYCO ELECTRONICS
FIBER OPTICS DIVISION
GLEN ROCK, PENNSYLVANIA

Notice of Negative Determination
On Reconsideration on Remand

The United States Court of International Trade (USCIT)
granted the Secretary of Labor's motion for a voluntary remand
for further investigation in Former Employees of Tyco
Electronics, Fiber Optics Division v. U.S. Secretary of Labor,
No. 01-00152.
The Department's initial denial of Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TA-W-40,275) for the workers of Tyco Electronics,
Fiber Optics Division, Glen Rock, Pennsylvania was issued on
January 14, 2002, and published in the Federal Register on
January 31, 2002 (67 Fed. Reg. 4749), was based on the finding
that the Acontributed importantly@ criterion of the group
eligibility requirements of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974,
as amended, was not met. The subject company did not import
fiber optic cable connectors during the relevant period. The
predominant cause of the work separations was related to a
domestic transfer of production to an affiliated facility in
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
The Department's initial denial of NAFTA-Transitional
Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-5163) for the workers of Tyco
Electronics, Fiber Optics Division, Glen Rock, Pennsylvania was
issued on September 28, 2001, and published in the Federal
Register on October 19, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 53252), was based on
the finding that the criteria (3) and (4) were not met. Imports
from Canada or Mexico did not contribute importantly to workers'
separations. The predominant cause of the worker separations was
related to a domestic transfer of production to an affiliated
facility in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
On January 22, 2002 Department of Labor issued a Notice of
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
for NAFTA-5163 and published in the Federal Register on February
5, 2002 (67 Fed. Reg. 5299). The petitioner alleged that plant
production was shifted to an affiliated plant located in Mexico.
Information provided by the company show that any plant
production shifted to Mexico was negligible during the relevant
period. The overwhelming (over 98%) portion of subject plant
production was transferred to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania during the
relevant period.
The petitioners on reconsideration also supplied a list of
products that they indicated transferred to Mexico. The
overwhelming majority of these products were transferred prior to
the relevant time frame of the investigation. Some of these
products were produced at the subject firm only when orders
required quick turn around time. The majority of these products
were produced at a sister facility located in Harrisburg when
quick turn around time was required. The quick turn around
products equivalent to what the Mexican plant produced were
produced at the subject plant
Also, on reconsideration the petitioner also claimed that
the plant workers trained workers from an affiliated Mexican
plant. The workers did train workers from the Mexican plant
during the relevant time frame. However, the training related to
only a negligible portion of production performed at the subject
plant.
On remand, the Department contacted a company official
requesting company-wide sales figures of the article(s) produced
at the subject firm plant and a list of the major declining
customers of the subject plant.
The company supplied sales figures for the Fiber Optics
Division showing increases in sales from 1999 to 2000 and sales
declines from the January through September 2001 period over the
corresponding 2000 period.
Since the company reported declining sales at the Fiber
Optics Division during the relevant period, the Department
conducted a survey of the major declining customers of the
subject firm regarding their purchases of fiber optic cable
assemblies, components and value added enclosures during 1999,
2000 and January through September 2001 over the corresponding
2000 period.
The survey revealed that one respondent did not increase
their imports of products like or directly competitive with what
the subject plant produced, while decreasing their purchases from
the subject firm. Another major customer reported no direct
import purchases during 1999, 2000 and January through September
2001. However, this customer reported that a small percentage of
the products purchased were indirect imports (products purchased
from a domestic source that were wholly manufactured in a foreign
country) during September 2001, well after the decision by the
subject firm to transfer production to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
and during the time of the completion of the domestic transfer.
The amount of the customer's reported indirect imports was
relatively low in relation to the customer's total domestic
purchases.
Conclusion
After reconsideration on remand, I affirm the original
notice of negative determination of eligibility to apply for
adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Tyco
Electronics, Fiber Optics Division, Glen Rock, Pennsylvania.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 15th day of January 2003.

/s/ Edward A. Tomchick

EDWARD A. TOMCHICK
Director, Division of
of Trade Adjustment Assistance