DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-41,181

MOTOROLA
INTEGRATED ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS SECTOR
AUTOMOTIVE COMMUNICATION ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS
ELMA, NEW YORK

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”.
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, D.C., this 24th day of February, 2003.
/s/ Edward A. Tomchick
_______________________
EDWARD A. TOMCHICK
Director, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance