ACCPAC International, Inc., Customer Support, Santa Rosa, CA; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration, 68093-68094 [05-22323]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Notices
statutory exemption is not dispositive of
whether the transaction is in fact a
prohibited transaction;
(3) The availability of this exemption
is subject to the express condition that
the material facts and representations
contained in the application are true
and complete and accurately describe
all material terms of the transaction
which is the subject of this exemption.
In the case of continuing transactions, if
any of the material facts or
representations described in the
application change, the exemption will
cease to apply as of the date of such
change. In the event of any such change,
an application for a new exemption
must be made to the Department; and
(4) Under section 408(a) of ERISA, the
Department finds that the exemption is
administratively feasible, in the
interests of the plan and of its
participants and beneficiaries and
protective of the rights of participants
and beneficiaries of such plan.
Exemption
Accordingly, PTE 99–29 is amended
under the authority of section 408(a) of
the Act and section 4975(c)(2) of the
Code, and in accordance with the
procedures set forth in 29 CFR part
2570, subpart B (55 32836, August 10,
1990), as set forth below:
Section I is amended to read as
follows: ‘‘Bankers Trust Company (now
known as DBTCA) shall not be
precluded from functioning as
‘‘qualified professional asset manager’’
pursuant to Prohibited Transaction
Exemption 84–14 (49 FR 9494, March
13, 1994) (PTE 94–14) for the period
beginning on the date of sentencing
with respect to the charges to which
Bankers Trust Company pled guilty on
March 11, 1999 and ending July 27,
2009, solely because of a failure to
satisfy section I(g) of PTE 84–14 as a
result of the conviction of Bankers Trust
Company for felonies described in the
March 11, 1999 felony information (the
Information) entered in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New
York, provided that:’’
Section I(c) is amended to read as
follows: ‘‘The custody operations that
were part of Bankers Trust Company at
the time of the March 11, 1999
information, and which have
subsequently been reorganized as part of
Global Institutional Services (GIS), are
subject to an annual examination of its
abandoned property and escheatment
policies, procedures and practices by an
independent public accounting firm. the
examination required by this condition
shall determine whether the written
procedures adopted by Bankers Trust
Company are properly designed to
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:18 Nov 08, 2005
Jkt 208001
assure compliance with the
requirements of ERISA. The annual
examination shall specifically require a
determination by the auditor as to
whether the Bank has developed and
adopted internal policies and
procedures that achieve appropriate
control objectives and shall include a
test of a representative sample of
transactions, fifty percent of which must
involve ERISA covered plans, to
determine operational compliance with
such policies and procedures. The
auditor shall issue a written report
describing the steps performed by the
auditor during the course of its
examination. The report shall include
the auditor’s specific findings and
recommendations. This requirement
shall continue to be applicable to the
dustody operations that were part of
Bankers Trust Company as of March 11,
1999, notwithstanding any subsequent
reorganization of the custody operation
function during the term of the
exemption. Such audit requirements
shall be applicable for any year or part
thereof in which DBTCA held ERISA
covered plan assets in custody.’’
Section III(a) is amended to read as
follows: ‘‘For purposes of this
exemption, the term ‘Bankers Trust
Company’ includes Bankers Trust
Company, and any entity that was
affiliated with Bankers Trust Company
prior to the date of the acquisition of
Bankers Trust Corporation by Duetsche
Bank AG, other than BT Alex. Brown
Incorporated and its subsidiaries. This
term also refers to Deutsche Bank Trust
Company Americas (DBTCA).’’
For a more complete statement of
facts and representations supporting the
Department’s decision to grant PTE 99–
29, refer to the proposed exemption (64
FR 30360, July 7, 1999), and the grant
notice (64 FR 30360, June 7, 1999), and
the grant notice (64 FR 40623, July 27,
1999). For a more complete statement of
fact and representations supporting the
Department’s decision to amend PTE
99–29, refer to the notice of proposed
amendment to PTE 99–29 (70 FR 5699,
February 3, 2005).
Signed at Washington, DC, this 31st day of
October, 2005.
Ivan L. Strasfeld,
Director, Office of Exemption Determinations,
Employee Benefits Security Administration,
Department of Labor.
[FR Doc. 05–21962 Filed 11–8–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4520–29–M
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
68093
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–57,143]
ACCPAC International, Inc., Customer
Support, Santa Rosa, CA; Notice of
Negative Determination on
Reconsideration
By letter of August 19, 2005, a
petitioner requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department of
Labor’s Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Eligibility to
Apply for Worker Adjustment
Assistance, applicable to workers of
ACCPAC International, Inc., Customer
Support, Santa Rosa, California. The
denial notice was signed on June 24,
2005, and published in the Federal
Register on July 20, 2005 (70 FR 41793).
The investigation revealed that the
petitioning workers of this firm or
subdivision do not produce an article
within the meaning of Section 222 of
the Act.
The petitioner contends that the
Department erred in its interpretation of
work performed at the subject facility as
a service and further conveys that the
workers of the subject firm supported
the production of the software during
the pre-production phases. The
petitioner further conveys that the
software was recorded on CD media or
floppy diskettes for further distribution
to customers.
A company official was contacted for
clarification in regard to the nature of
the work performed at the subject
facility. The official stated the workers
of the subject firm provided
development, marketing, sales,
professional services, administrative,
training and technical support of the
ACCPAC software. The technical
support representatives of the subject
firm provided post-sale technical
assistance, troubleshooting and training
via telephone to ACCPAC customers
and business partners. In addition, the
workers of the subject firm provided
some support to software development
prior to its release on gold CDs.
However, the physical gold CDs are not
sold to customers, but rather represent
a master copy of the software, which in
its turn is sent for mass-production to an
independent non-affiliated party vendor
for further duplication on CD–ROMs,
floppy diskettes or paper. The official
supported the information previously
provided by the subject firm that
software created at the subject facility is
not mass-produced on any media device
by the subject firm for further
duplication and distribution to
E:\FR\FM\09NON1.SGM
pfrm13
PsN: 09NON1
68094
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Notices
customers and that there are no
products manufactured within the
subject firm.
The sophistication of the work
involved is not an issue in ascertaining
whether the petitioning workers are
eligible for trade adjustment assistance,
but rather only whether they produced
an article within the meaning of section
222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Technical writing, design,
programming, testing and technical
assistance of the software is not
considered production of an article
within the meaning of Section 222 of
the Trade Act. Petitioning workers do
not produce an ‘‘article’’ within the
meaning of the Trade Act of 1974.
Information electronic databases,
technical documentation and codes, are
not tangible commodities, and they are
not listed on the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTS), as
classified by the United States
International Trade Commission
(USITC), Office of Tariff Affairs and
Trade Agreements, which describes
articles imported to the United States.
To be listed in the HTS, an article
would be subject to a duty on the tariff
schedule and have a value that makes it
marketable, fungible and
interchangeable for commercial
purposes. Although a wide variety of
tangible products are described as
articles and characterized as dutiable in
the HTS, informational products that
could historically be sent in letter form
and that can currently be electronically
transmitted are not listed in the HTS.
Such products are not the type of
products that customs officials inspect
and that the TAA program was generally
designed to address.
The investigation on reconsideration
supported the findings of the primary
investigation that the petitioning group
of workers does not produce an article.
Furthermore, workers of the subject firm
did not support production of an article
at any affiliated facility.
The petitioner further alleges that
because workers lost their jobs due to a
transfer of job functions to Canada,
petitioning workers should be
considered import impacted.
The company official stated that the
positions of six technical support
representatives were moved to a
Canadian office as a result of the closure
of the subject firm.
Technical support of informational
documentation that is electronically
transmitted is not considered
production within the context of TAA
eligibility requirements. Further, as
software and technical documentation
do not become products until they are
recorded on media device, there was no
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:18 Nov 08, 2005
Jkt 208001
shift in production of an ‘‘article’’
abroad within the meaning of the Trade
Act of 1974.
Service workers can be certified only
if worker separations are caused by a
reduced demand for their services from
a parent or controlling firm or
subdivision whose workers produce an
article domestically who meet the
eligibility requirements, or if the group
of workers are leased workers who
perform their duties on-site at a facility
that meet the eligibility requirements.
Conclusion
After reconsideration, I affirm the
original notice of negative
determination of eligibility to apply for
worker adjustment assistance for
workers and former workers of ACCPAC
International, Inc., Customer Support,
Santa Rosa, California.
Signed at Washington, DC this 21st day of
October, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 05–22323 Filed 11–8–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–U
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–58,097]
Agilent Technologies, Inc. Wireless
Business Unit a Division of the
Electronic Measurements Group
Loveland, CO; Notice of Termination of
Investigation
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on October 7,
2005, in response to a petition filed by
a State agency representative on behalf
of workers of Agilent Technologies, Inc.,
Wireless Business Unit, a division of the
Electronics Measurements Group,
Loveland, Colorado.
The petitioning group of workers is
covered by a current certification (TA–
W–57,742J) issued on September 30,
2005, applicable to all workers of
Agilent Technologies, Inc., Electronics
Measurement Group, Loveland,
Colorado. Consequently, further
investigation in this case would serve
no purpose, and the investigation has
been terminated.
Signed at Washington, DC this 20th day of
October, 2005.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 05–22328 Filed 11–8–05; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
[TA–W–58,081]
Accufab Industries New Freedom, PA;
Notice of Termination of Investigation
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on October 6,
2005 in response to a petition filed by
a company official on behalf of workers
at Accufab Industries, New Freedom,
Pennsylvania.
The petitioner has requested that the
petition be withdrawn. Consequently,
the investigation has been terminated.
Signed at Washington, DC this 31st day of
October, 2005.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 05–22327 Filed 11–8–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
Investigations Regarding Certifications
of Eligibility To Apply for Worker
Adjustment Assistance
Petitions have been filed with the
Secretary of Labor under section 221(a)
of the Trade Act of 1974 (‘‘the Act’’) and
are identified in the Appendix to this
notice. Upon receipt of these petitions,
the Director of the Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance, Employment
and Training Administration, has
instituted investigations pursuant to
section 221(a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the
investigations is to determine whether
the workers are eligible to apply for
adjustment assistance under Title II,
Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations
will further relate, as appropriate, to the
determination of the date on which total
or partial separations began or
threatened to begin and the subdivision
of the firm involved.
E:\FR\FM\09NON1.SGM
pfrm13
PsN: 09NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 9, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68093-68094]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22323]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-57,143]
ACCPAC International, Inc., Customer Support, Santa Rosa, CA;
Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration
By letter of August 19, 2005, a petitioner requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department of Labor's Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment
Assistance, applicable to workers of ACCPAC International, Inc.,
Customer Support, Santa Rosa, California. The denial notice was signed
on June 24, 2005, and published in the Federal Register on July 20,
2005 (70 FR 41793).
The investigation revealed that the petitioning workers of this
firm or subdivision do not produce an article within the meaning of
Section 222 of the Act.
The petitioner contends that the Department erred in its
interpretation of work performed at the subject facility as a service
and further conveys that the workers of the subject firm supported the
production of the software during the pre-production phases. The
petitioner further conveys that the software was recorded on CD media
or floppy diskettes for further distribution to customers.
A company official was contacted for clarification in regard to the
nature of the work performed at the subject facility. The official
stated the workers of the subject firm provided development, marketing,
sales, professional services, administrative, training and technical
support of the ACCPAC software. The technical support representatives
of the subject firm provided post-sale technical assistance,
troubleshooting and training via telephone to ACCPAC customers and
business partners. In addition, the workers of the subject firm
provided some support to software development prior to its release on
gold CDs. However, the physical gold CDs are not sold to customers, but
rather represent a master copy of the software, which in its turn is
sent for mass-production to an independent non-affiliated party vendor
for further duplication on CD-ROMs, floppy diskettes or paper. The
official supported the information previously provided by the subject
firm that software created at the subject facility is not mass-produced
on any media device by the subject firm for further duplication and
distribution to
[[Page 68094]]
customers and that there are no products manufactured within the
subject firm.
The sophistication of the work involved is not an issue in
ascertaining whether the petitioning workers are eligible for trade
adjustment assistance, but rather only whether they produced an article
within the meaning of section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Technical writing, design, programming, testing and technical
assistance of the software is not considered production of an article
within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act. Petitioning workers
do not produce an ``article'' within the meaning of the Trade Act of
1974. Information electronic databases, technical documentation and
codes, are not tangible commodities, and they are not listed on the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), as classified by
the United States International Trade Commission (USITC), Office of
Tariff Affairs and Trade Agreements, which describes articles imported
to the United States.
To be listed in the HTS, an article would be subject to a duty on
the tariff schedule and have a value that makes it marketable, fungible
and interchangeable for commercial purposes. Although a wide variety of
tangible products are described as articles and characterized as
dutiable in the HTS, informational products that could historically be
sent in letter form and that can currently be electronically
transmitted are not listed in the HTS. Such products are not the type
of products that customs officials inspect and that the TAA program was
generally designed to address.
The investigation on reconsideration supported the findings of the
primary investigation that the petitioning group of workers does not
produce an article. Furthermore, workers of the subject firm did not
support production of an article at any affiliated facility.
The petitioner further alleges that because workers lost their jobs
due to a transfer of job functions to Canada, petitioning workers
should be considered import impacted.
The company official stated that the positions of six technical
support representatives were moved to a Canadian office as a result of
the closure of the subject firm.
Technical support of informational documentation that is
electronically transmitted is not considered production within the
context of TAA eligibility requirements. Further, as software and
technical documentation do not become products until they are recorded
on media device, there was no shift in production of an ``article''
abroad within the meaning of the Trade Act of 1974.
Service workers can be certified only if worker separations are
caused by a reduced demand for their services from a parent or
controlling firm or subdivision whose workers produce an article
domestically who meet the eligibility requirements, or if the group of
workers are leased workers who perform their duties on-site at a
facility that meet the eligibility requirements.
Conclusion
After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative
determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance
for workers and former workers of ACCPAC International, Inc., Customer
Support, Santa Rosa, California.
Signed at Washington, DC this 21st day of October, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 05-22323 Filed 11-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-U
