[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 175 (Wednesday, September 10, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Page 53394]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-22996]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-51,834]


Agilent Technologies, Inc., Information Technology Division (IT), 
Colorado Springs, CO; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding 
Application for Reconsideration

    By application of July 17, 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), Colorado Springs, Colorado was 
signed on June 16, 2003, and published in the Federal Register on July 
3, 2003 (68 FR 39976).
    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 was filed on behalf of workers at Agilent 
Technologies, Inc., Information Technology Division (IT), Colorado 
Springs, 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 appears to imply that the petitioning worker group 
should be considered eligible for TAA on the basis that they served as 
secondary upstream supplier to a trade certified firm.
    In fact, in order to be eligible for TAA, workers must produce an 
article. Further, in order to meet TAA eligibility requirements as 
secondary upstream suppliers, the worker group must produce a component 
part of the product that was the basis of the TAA certification for the 
customer firm.
    Only in very limited instances are service workers certified for 
TAA, namely the worker separations must be caused by a reduced demand 
for their services from a parent or controlling firm or subdivision 
whose workers produce an article and who are currently under 
certification for TAA.

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 13th day of August 2003.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-22996 Filed 9-9-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P