Computer Sciences Corporation, Financial Services Group, East Hartford, CT; Notice of Negative Determination on Remand, 52129-52131 [E5-4774]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 169 / Thursday, September 1, 2005 / Notices
approved evaluation specifications/
standards.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Dorthy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust
Division.
[FR Doc. 05–17420 Filed 8–31–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–11–M
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–57,579]
Acme Gear Company, Englewood, NJ;
Notice of Termination of Investigation
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on July 19,
2005 in response to a worker petition
filed by a New Jersey State official on
behalf of workers at Acme Gear
Company, Englewood, New Jersey.
The petitioner has requested that the
petition be withdrawn. Consequently,
the investigation has been terminated.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of
August 2005.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–4780 Filed 8–31–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–57,518]
Boone International, Inc., Corona, CA;
Notice of Termination of Investigation
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on July 8,
2005 in response to a petition filed by
Company official on behalf of workers at
Boone International, Inc., Corona,
California.
The petitioner has requested that the
petition be withdrawn. Consequently,
the investigation has been terminated.
Signed at Washington, DC this 18th day of
August, 2005.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–4779 Filed 8–31–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:30 Aug 31, 2005
Jkt 205001
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–57,145]
Columbia Lighting, Hubbell Lighting,
Inc. Division, Spokane, WA; Notice of
Revised Determination on
Reconsideration
By letter of July 14, 2005, an
International Brotherhood Electrical
Workers, Local Union No. 73 requested
administrative reconsideration
regarding the Department of Labor’s
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Eligibility to Apply for
Worker Adjustment Assistance,
applicable to the workers of the subject
firm.
The initial investigation resulted in a
negative determination signed on June
20, 2005 was based on the finding that
there were no company imports of
fluorescent lighting fixtures and no shift
of production to a foreign source during
the relevant period. The denial notice
was published in the Federal Register
on July 20, 2005 (70 FR 41792).
To support the request for
reconsideration, the petitioner supplied
additional information regarding the
subject firm’s foreign facilities which
manufacture like or directly competitive
products with those produced at the
subject firm. Upon further contact with
the subject firm’s company official, it
was revealed that the subject firm
significantly increased its import
purchases of fluorescent lighting
fixtures from January through April of
2005 when compared with the same
period in 2004.
In accordance with Section 246 the
Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as
amended, the Department of Labor
herein presents the results of its
investigation regarding certification of
eligibility to apply for alternative trade
adjustment assistance (ATAA) for older
workers.
In order for the Department to issue
a certification of eligibility to apply for
ATAA, the group eligibility
requirements of Section 246 of the
Trade Act must be met. The Department
has determined in this case that the
requirements of Section 246 have been
met.
A significant number of workers at the
firm are age 50 or over and possess
skills that are not easily transferable.
Competitive conditions within the
industry are adverse.
Conclusion
After careful review of the additional
facts obtained on reconsideration, I
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
52129
conclude that increased imports of
articles like or directly competitive with
those produced at Columbia Lighting,
Hubbell Lighting, Inc. Division,
Spokane, Washington, contributed
importantly to the declines in sales or
production and to the total or partial
separation of workers at the subject
firm. In accordance with the provisions
of the Act, I make the following
certification:
All workers of Columbia Lighting, Hubbell
Lighting, Inc. Division, Spokane, Washington
who became totally or partially separated
from employment on or after May 9, 2004
through two years from the date of this
certification, are eligible to apply for
adjustment assistance under Section 223 of
the Trade Act of 1974, and are eligible to
apply for alternative trade adjustment
assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act
of 1974.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 19th day of
August, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–4775 Filed 8–31–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–53,209]
Computer Sciences Corporation,
Financial Services Group, East
Hartford, CT; Notice of Negative
Determination on Remand
On April 14, 2005, the U.S. Court of
International Trade (USCIT) issued a
second remand order directing the
Department of Labor (Labor) to further
investigate workers’ eligibility to apply
for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA)
in the matter of Former Employees of
Computer Sciences Corporation v.
United States Secretary of Labor (Court
No. 04–00149).
The Department’s initial negative
determination for the workers of
Computer Sciences Corporation,
Financial Services Group, East Hartford,
Connecticut (hereafter ‘‘CSC’’) was
issued on October 24, 2003 and
published in the Federal Register on
November 28, 2003 (68 FR 66878). The
Department’s determination was based
on the finding that workers did not
produce an article within the meaning
of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
It was determined that the subject
worker group provided business and
information consulting, specialized
application software, and technology
E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM
01SEN1
52130
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 169 / Thursday, September 1, 2005 / Notices
outsourcing support to customers in the
financial services industry.
By letter of November 24, 2003, the
petitioner requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department’s
negative determination. The Department
issued a Notice of Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration on January 5, 2004.
The determination Notice was
published in the Federal Register on
January 23, 2004 (69 FR 3391).
The Department issued a Notice of
Negative Determination on
Reconsideration was issued on February
3, 2004 and published in the Federal
Register on February 24, 2004 (69 FR
8488). On reconsideration, the
Department determined that the subject
company produced widely marketed
software on CD Rom and tapes but the
workers were not eligible to apply for
TAA because the subject company did
not shift production, nor import
completed software on physical media
that is like or directly competitive with
that which was produced at the subject
facility.
On March 15, 2004, the petitioner
sought judicial review of the negative
determination, alleging that packaging
functions (storing completed software
on physical media and making a tape
copy of the completed software on
physical media) had shifted to India. On
June 2, 2004, the USCIT granted the
Department’s request for voluntary
remand and directed the Department to
further investigate the subject workers’
eligibility to apply for TAA.
On July 29, 2004, the Department
issued a Negative Determination on
Reconsideration on Remand for the
workers of the subject firm on the basis
that packing functions did not shift to
India and that all storing and copying
functions remained in the United States.
The determination also stated that CSC
did not import any software which is
like or directly competitive with the
software produced at the subject facility.
The Department’s Notice of
determination was published in the
Federal Register on August 10, 2004 (69
FR 48526).
In response to the petitioner’s appeal
of the negative determination on
remand, the USCIT, in its April 14, 2005
order, directed the Department to: (1)
Explain why code is not a software
component; (2) examine whether the
workers were engaged in the production
of code; (3) investigate whether there
was a shift of code production to India;
(4) investigate whether code imported
from India is like or directly competitive
with the completed software of any
component of software formerly
produced by the workers; and (5)
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:30 Aug 31, 2005
Jkt 205001
investigate whether there has been or is
likely to be an increase in imports of
like or directly competitive article by
entities in the United States.
During the second remand
investigation, the Department contacted
the subject firm to determine what code
and software is developed at the subject
facility, how code is written and
handled, and what services are provide
to CSC clients.
The Department considered all
information provided by the petitioners
as well as solicited comments from the
petitioners through their counsel.
In order to meet the criteria for TAA
certification, the following criteria must
be met:
(1) A significant number or proportion
of the workers in such workers’ firm, or
an appropriate subdivision of the firm,
have become, or are threatened to
become, totally or partially separated;
and
(2) The sales or production, or both,
of such firm or subdivision have
decreased absolutely; and
(3) Imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles produced by
such firm or subdivision have increased;
and the increase in imports contributed
importantly to such workers’ separation
or threat of separation and to the decline
in the sales or production of such firm
or subdivision; or
(4) There has been a shift in
production by such workers’ firm or
subdivision to a foreign country of
articles like or directly competitive with
articles which are produced by such
firm or subdivision; and the country to
which the workers’ firm has shifted
production of the articles is a party to
a free trade agreement with the United
States, is a beneficiary country under
the Andean Trade Preference Act,
African Growth and Opportunity Act, or
the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery
Act or there has been or is likely to be
an increase in imports of articles that
are like or directly competitive with
articles which are or were produced by
such firm or subdivision.
Because 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(2) requires
that an article must be produced by the
firm employing the workers covered by
the petition, the first issue is whether
CSC produces an article and whether
the workers are engaged in production.
After completing its investigation,
DOL still concludes that the plaintiffs
should not be certified for TAA benefits.
The first requirement that an applicant
for TAA benefits must meet in a shift of
production case such as this one, is that
the production of an article was actually
shifted. In the present case, what was
shifted was the act of code writing.
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Code, not embodied on a physical
medium, is not considered an article for
TAA purposes. It is not found on the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (‘‘HTS’’).
The USCIT has concluded in past cases
that an item must be on the HTS to be
an ‘‘article’’ for the purposes of the
Trade Act. See Former Employees of
Murray Engineering v. Chao, 358 F.
Supp.2d 1269, 1272 n.7 (‘‘the language
of the Act clearly indicates that the
HTSUS governs the definition of
articles, as it repeatedly refers to
‘‘articles’’ as items subject to a duty’’).
Software code, not on a physical
medium, is exempt from the HTSUS,
and is, therefore, not an article under
the HTSUS test. See HTSUS, General
Note 3(I) (exempting
‘‘telecommunications transmissions’’
from ‘‘goods subject to the provisions of
the [HTSUS]’’). Therefore, there was no
shift of production of an article, and
there can be no Trade Act coverage.
Although the preceding discussion
resolves this case, DOL undertook the
investigation required by the USCIT.
First, DOL does not consider software
code, not embodied on any physical
medium, to be a component of
completed software. To be a component,
DOL requires that the item in question
also be an article in and of itself. It is
not enough that the item be
indispensable to the function of the
completed article. The code is like an
idea that will eventually lead to the
existence of an ‘‘article’’—it is, in fact,
necessary—but it is not something that
can be measured or ‘‘imported.’’
Therefore, software code, like an idea, is
not a component of an ‘‘article.’’
With respect to the second and third
directions of the USCIT, DOL has
concluded that the plaintiffs did write
software code, and that the code writing
function was transferred to India. The
software code written in India is similar
to the software code plaintiffs wrote in
the United States. It is impossible to
answer whether it is ‘‘like or directly
competitive’’ because that assumes the
existence of articles to compare.
Because software code, not embodied on
a physical medium, is not an ‘‘article’’
for the purposes of the Trade Act, it is
clearly not ‘‘like or directly
competitive’’ with an actual article such
as completed software on a physical
medium.
Finally, in order to determine whether
the universe of entities who are
producing software like or directly
competitive with the software produced
by the subject company are importing or
likely to increase its imports of those
products, the Department conducted a
survey of the subject company’s major
competitors. The survey was sent to
E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM
01SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 169 / Thursday, September 1, 2005 / Notices
those seven companies who produce
software which might be considered like
or directly competitive with the four
CSC software programs at issue:
Performance Plus, JETS, Repetitive
Payment System, and Vantage-One. Of
the companies surveyed, none had
imported software in a physical
medium, and while some stated that
new business opportunities were always
possible, none had expressed that they
were likely to import any software.
Specifically, one competitor stated that
it has ‘‘never used offshore resources for
anything,’’ another competitor stated
that their software was written ‘‘100%
Stateside’’ and that there was ‘‘no
intention to import anything—no
software, no code’’ and a third
competitor stated ‘‘no way, no how’’
that the company imports software.
Because all the competitors are
domestic, and none of them have
increased or are likely to increase
imports, it is impossible for consumers
of the software code or software on a
physical medium to buy an imported
product ‘‘like or directly competitive’’ to
CSC’s. Obviously, CSC has increased its
‘‘delivery’’ of software code to the
United States, but because software
code is not an article for the purposes
of the Trade Act, such an increase does
not qualify to make plaintiffs eligible for
TAA benefits.
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 Computer Sciences
Corporation, Financial Services Group,
East Hartford, Connecticut.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of
August, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–4774 Filed 8–31–05; 8:45 am]
(26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the
Department of Labor issued a
Certification of Eligibility to Apply for
Worker Adjustment Assistance and
Alternative Trade Adjustment
Assistance on July 11, 2005, applicable
to workers of DeBall, Inc., Asheville,
North Carolina. The notice will be
published soon in the Federal Register.
At the request of the company, the
Department reviewed the certification
for workers of the subject firm. The
workers were engaged in the production
of velvet and velour.
New information shows that that all
workers separated from employment at
the subject firm had their wages
reported under a separate
unemployment insurance (UI) tax
account for Olney Wallcoverings.
Accordingly, the Department is
amending the certification to properly
reflect this matter.
The intent of the Department’s
certification is to include all workers of
DeBall, Inc., Asheville, North Carolina
who was adversely affected by a shift in
production to Canada.
The amended notice applicable to
TA–W–57,508 is hereby issued as
follows:
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
Kellogg’s Snack Division, Macon, GA;
Notice of Termination of Investigation
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA–W–57,446]
In accordance with Section 223 of the
Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and
Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974,
VerDate Aug<18>2005
17:26 Aug 31, 2005
Jkt 205001
After careful review of the
application, I conclude that the claim is
of sufficient weight to justify
reconsideration of the Department of
Labor’s prior decision. The application
is, therefore, granted.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of
August, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–4778 Filed 8–31–05; 8:45 am]
Employment and Training
Administration
Deball, Inc., Olney Wallcoverings,
Asheville, NC; Amended Certification
Regarding Eligibility to Apply for
Worker Adjustment Assistance and
Alternative Trade Adjustment
Assistance
Conclusion
Signed at Washington, DC, this 19th day of
August 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–4777 Filed 8–31–05; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA–W–57,508]
Assistance, applicable to workers of the
subject firm. The determination was
signed on July 20, 2005, and will soon
be published in the Federal Register.
The petitioner alleges in the request
for reconsideration that workers were
separated from the subject company’s
Power House, which provided steam to
the subject company and Green Tea
Chemical Technologies (TA–W–53,831,
certified January 16, 2004). The
petitioner further alleges that the
separations were caused by the subject
company’s reduced need to provide
steam to Green Tea Chemical
Technologies facility.
The Department carefully reviewed
the petitioner’s request for
reconsideration and has determined that
the Department will conduct further
investigation based on new information
provided by the petitioner.
All workers of DeBall, Inc., Olney
Wallcoverings, Asheville, North Carolina,
who became totally or partially separated
from employment on or after July 6, 2004,
through July 11, 2007, are eligible to apply
for adjustment assistance under Section 223
of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible
to apply for alternative trade adjustment
assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act
of 1974.
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
Employment and Training
Administration
52131
Herules Incorporation, Aqualon
Division, Parlin, NJ; Notice of
Affirmative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration
By letter dated August 11, 2005, a
representative of the International
Union of Operating Engineers, Local 68,
requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department of
Labor’s Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Eligibility to
Apply for Worker Adjustment
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–57,671]
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on August 4,
2005 in response to a petition filed on
behalf of workers at Kellogg’s Snack
Division, Macon, Georgia.
The petitioners have requested that
the petition be withdrawn.
Consequently, the investigation has
been terminated.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of
August, 2005.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–4782 Filed 8–31–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM
01SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 169 (Thursday, September 1, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52129-52131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-47]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-53,209]
Computer Sciences Corporation, Financial Services Group, East
Hartford, CT; Notice of Negative Determination on Remand
On April 14, 2005, the U.S. Court of International Trade (USCIT)
issued a second remand order directing the Department of Labor (Labor)
to further investigate workers' eligibility to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) in the matter of Former Employees of
Computer Sciences Corporation v. United States Secretary of Labor
(Court No. 04-00149).
The Department's initial negative determination for the workers of
Computer Sciences Corporation, Financial Services Group, East Hartford,
Connecticut (hereafter ``CSC'') was issued on October 24, 2003 and
published in the Federal Register on November 28, 2003 (68 FR 66878).
The Department's determination was based on the finding that workers
did not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the
Trade Act of 1974. It was determined that the subject worker group
provided business and information consulting, specialized application
software, and technology
[[Page 52130]]
outsourcing support to customers in the financial services industry.
By letter of November 24, 2003, the petitioner requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative
determination. The Department issued a Notice of Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration on January 5,
2004. The determination Notice was published in the Federal Register on
January 23, 2004 (69 FR 3391).
The Department issued a Notice of Negative Determination on
Reconsideration was issued on February 3, 2004 and published in the
Federal Register on February 24, 2004 (69 FR 8488). On reconsideration,
the Department determined that the subject company produced widely
marketed software on CD Rom and tapes but the workers were not eligible
to apply for TAA because the subject company did not shift production,
nor import completed software on physical media that is like or
directly competitive with that which was produced at the subject
facility.
On March 15, 2004, the petitioner sought judicial review of the
negative determination, alleging that packaging functions (storing
completed software on physical media and making a tape copy of the
completed software on physical media) had shifted to India. On June 2,
2004, the USCIT granted the Department's request for voluntary remand
and directed the Department to further investigate the subject workers'
eligibility to apply for TAA.
On July 29, 2004, the Department issued a Negative Determination on
Reconsideration on Remand for the workers of the subject firm on the
basis that packing functions did not shift to India and that all
storing and copying functions remained in the United States. The
determination also stated that CSC did not import any software which is
like or directly competitive with the software produced at the subject
facility. The Department's Notice of determination was published in the
Federal Register on August 10, 2004 (69 FR 48526).
In response to the petitioner's appeal of the negative
determination on remand, the USCIT, in its April 14, 2005 order,
directed the Department to: (1) Explain why code is not a software
component; (2) examine whether the workers were engaged in the
production of code; (3) investigate whether there was a shift of code
production to India; (4) investigate whether code imported from India
is like or directly competitive with the completed software of any
component of software formerly produced by the workers; and (5)
investigate whether there has been or is likely to be an increase in
imports of like or directly competitive article by entities in the
United States.
During the second remand investigation, the Department contacted
the subject firm to determine what code and software is developed at
the subject facility, how code is written and handled, and what
services are provide to CSC clients.
The Department considered all information provided by the
petitioners as well as solicited comments from the petitioners through
their counsel.
In order to meet the criteria for TAA certification, the following
criteria must be met:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such
workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become,
or are threatened to become, totally or partially separated; and
(2) The sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision
have decreased absolutely; and
(3) Imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles
produced by such firm or subdivision have increased; and the increase
in imports contributed importantly to such workers' separation or
threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or production of
such firm or subdivision; or
(4) There has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or
subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly
competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or
subdivision; and the country to which the workers' firm has shifted
production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with
the United States, is a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade
Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean
Basin Economic Recovery Act or there has been or is likely to be an
increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive
with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision.
Because 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(2) requires that an article must be produced
by the firm employing the workers covered by the petition, the first
issue is whether CSC produces an article and whether the workers are
engaged in production.
After completing its investigation, DOL still concludes that the
plaintiffs should not be certified for TAA benefits. The first
requirement that an applicant for TAA benefits must meet in a shift of
production case such as this one, is that the production of an article
was actually shifted. In the present case, what was shifted was the act
of code writing. Code, not embodied on a physical medium, is not
considered an article for TAA purposes. It is not found on the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTS''). The USCIT has concluded in past
cases that an item must be on the HTS to be an ``article'' for the
purposes of the Trade Act. See Former Employees of Murray Engineering
v. Chao, 358 F. Supp.2d 1269, 1272 n.7 (``the language of the Act
clearly indicates that the HTSUS governs the definition of articles, as
it repeatedly refers to ``articles'' as items subject to a duty'').
Software code, not on a physical medium, is exempt from the HTSUS, and
is, therefore, not an article under the HTSUS test. See HTSUS, General
Note 3(I) (exempting ``telecommunications transmissions'' from ``goods
subject to the provisions of the [HTSUS]''). Therefore, there was no
shift of production of an article, and there can be no Trade Act
coverage.
Although the preceding discussion resolves this case, DOL undertook
the investigation required by the USCIT. First, DOL does not consider
software code, not embodied on any physical medium, to be a component
of completed software. To be a component, DOL requires that the item in
question also be an article in and of itself. It is not enough that the
item be indispensable to the function of the completed article. The
code is like an idea that will eventually lead to the existence of an
``article''--it is, in fact, necessary--but it is not something that
can be measured or ``imported.'' Therefore, software code, like an
idea, is not a component of an ``article.''
With respect to the second and third directions of the USCIT, DOL
has concluded that the plaintiffs did write software code, and that the
code writing function was transferred to India. The software code
written in India is similar to the software code plaintiffs wrote in
the United States. It is impossible to answer whether it is ``like or
directly competitive'' because that assumes the existence of articles
to compare. Because software code, not embodied on a physical medium,
is not an ``article'' for the purposes of the Trade Act, it is clearly
not ``like or directly competitive'' with an actual article such as
completed software on a physical medium.
Finally, in order to determine whether the universe of entities who
are producing software like or directly competitive with the software
produced by the subject company are importing or likely to increase its
imports of those products, the Department conducted a survey of the
subject company's major competitors. The survey was sent to
[[Page 52131]]
those seven companies who produce software which might be considered
like or directly competitive with the four CSC software programs at
issue: Performance Plus, JETS, Repetitive Payment System, and Vantage-
One. Of the companies surveyed, none had imported software in a
physical medium, and while some stated that new business opportunities
were always possible, none had expressed that they were likely to
import any software. Specifically, one competitor stated that it has
``never used offshore resources for anything,'' another competitor
stated that their software was written ``100% Stateside'' and that
there was ``no intention to import anything--no software, no code'' and
a third competitor stated ``no way, no how'' that the company imports
software. Because all the competitors are domestic, and none of them
have increased or are likely to increase imports, it is impossible for
consumers of the software code or software on a physical medium to buy
an imported product ``like or directly competitive'' to CSC's.
Obviously, CSC has increased its ``delivery'' of software code to the
United States, but because software code is not an article for the
purposes of the Trade Act, such an increase does not qualify to make
plaintiffs eligible for TAA benefits.
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 Computer Sciences
Corporation, Financial Services Group, East Hartford, Connecticut.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of August, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5-4774 Filed 8-31-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
