OAG Worldwide, Inc., Custom Products Department, Downers Grove, IL; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 72658 [E5-6882]

Agencies

• Employment and Training Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 6, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 72658]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-6882]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-57,938]


OAG Worldwide, Inc., Custom Products Department, Downers Grove, 
IL; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for 
Reconsideration

    By application dated October 19, 2005 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 OAG Worldwide, Inc., Custom 
Products Department, Downers Grove, Illinois was signed on October 4, 
2005, and published in the Federal Register on November 4, 2005 (70 FR 
67196).
    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 
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of 
the decision.
    The TAA petition filed on behalf of workers at OAG Worldwide, Inc., 
Custom Products Department, Downers Grove, Illinois were engaged in 
running database queries of airline schedules to provide customized 
information for customers worldwide was denied because the petitioning 
workers did 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 workers of the subject firm ``assemble custom 
software products and work closely with the IT teams in the United 
States to assemble the products''.
    A company official was contacted for clarification in regard to the 
nature of the work performed at the subject facility. The official 
stated that the role of the petitioning group of workers at the subject 
firm is providing airline schedules and other data to customers 
worldwide. In particular, workers of the subject firm query the OAG 
database, compile and audit information and create data files. These 
data files are further delivered to customers in electronic format. The 
official further clarified that this query is a programming process 
written by the information technology staff of the subject firm was for 
the internal use. The official supported the information previously 
provided by the subject firm that databases and software created at the 
subject facility are not mass-produced on any media device by the 
subject firm for further duplication and distribution to 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 whether they produce an article within the 
meaning of section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
    Querying the databases and compiling electronic information 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 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 the United Kingdom, petitioning 
workers should be considered import impacted.
    The company official stated that creation of the customer data 
files was transferred from the subject facility to the United Kingdom.
    Compiling and creating databases which contain informational 
documentation and are electronically transmitted is not considered 
production within the context of TAA eligibility requirements.
    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 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 25th day of November, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E5-6882 Filed 12-5-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P