[Federal Register: November 24, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 226)]
[Notices]               
[Page 65948]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24no03-90]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-51, 835]

 
Agilent Technologies, Manufacturing Test Business Unit, 
Electronic Manufacturing Test Division, Loveland, CO; Notice of 
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of July 12, 2003, a petitioner 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 applicable to workers of Agilent Technologies, Inc., 
Information Technology Division (IT), Loveland, Colorado was signed on 
June 20, 2003, and published in the Federal Register on July 10, 2003 
(68 FR 41179).
    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 was filed on behalf of workers at Agilent 
Technologies, Inc., Information Technology Division (IT), Loveland, 
Colorado engaged in computer consulting services combined with 
providing information technology. The petition was denied because the 
petitioning workers did not produce an article within the meaning of 
section 222 of the Act.
    The petitioner alleges that the negative determination was 
erroneous because they produce ``new software and firmware to support 
test hardware sent abroad.'' The petitioner appears to imply that the 
fact that they are developing ``new'' software for a U.S. company, and 
that their jobs are being shifted abroad, that they should be 
considered eligible for TAA.
    Software development does not constitute production within the 
meaning of section 222 of the Trade Act.
    Even if the software development performed by subject firm workers 
did constitute production, an investigation would have to establish 
whether (a) imports contributed importantly to layoffs at the subject 
firm, or (b) whether a shift in production occurred to a country within 
the following four categories:
    1. Is party to a free trade agreement with the United States.
    2. Is a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act.
    3. Is a beneficiary country under African Growth and Opportunities 
Act.
    4. Is a beneficiary country under the Caribbean Basin Economic 
Recovery Act.
    The Software developed by subject firm workers is sent to Singapore 
for incorporation into foreign production. Thus, the software is 
developed exclusively for the export market, as their production is 
incorporated into a final product produced at a foreign facility. 
Therefore, there is no evidence of imports that are ``like or directly 
competitive'' with those produced at the subject firm contributing 
importantly to layoffs at the subject facility division.
    Finally, the United States' Free Trade Agreement with Singapore is 
expected to come into force in January of 2004, at which point shifts 
in production to Singapore will meet the required ``shift in 
production'' criteria outlined in TAA legislation. However, this future 
date falls outside of the relevant period of this investigation and 
thus has no bearing on petitioning worker eligibility.

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 2nd day of October, 2003.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-29264 Filed 11-21-03; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M