[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 18, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 19896]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-5764]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-58,620]


Bankers Trust Services A/K/A Deutsche Bank Services Tennessee, 
Inc., Nashville, TN; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding 
Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated February 22, 2006 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 Bankers Trust Services, a/k/a 
Deutsche Bank Services Tennessee, Inc., Nashville, Tennessee was signed 
on January 26, 2006 and published in the Federal Register on February 
10, 2006 (71 FR 7077).
    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 Bankers Trust 
Services, a/k/a Deutsche Bank Services Tennessee, Inc., Nashville, 
Tennessee were engaged in providing general banking and financial 
services to the public and were 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 providing a 
service and further conveys that workers of the subject firm ``produced 
individualized billing models with separate tangible file folders''. 
The petitioner further states that ``billing would have been impossible 
without the production of these individualized billing models''.
    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 subject firm does not manufacture products that are 
sold on the open market. The official further clarified that workers of 
the subject firm entered account information into an in-house billing 
system for the purpose of billing external clients. The copies of the 
work that was entered into the system was kept in a tangible file 
folder at the subject firm for reference purposes.
    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.
    Entering accounting information into the billing system and making 
copies of the billing financial data for filing purposes 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.
    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 India, petitioning workers should 
be considered import impacted.
    The company official stated that such functions as entry of 
accounting information into a Deutsche Bank billing system for the 
purpose of billing external clients were shifted to India.
    Your petition allegation of jobs transferred to a foreign country 
might be relevant if all other worker group eligibility requirements 
for trade adjustment assistance were met. However, workers of the 
subject firm are engaged in data entry of the account information into 
the in-house billing system and do not meet the requirement of 
producing an article as established in section 222 of the Trade Act. 
Thus, the workers in this case do not meet the worker group eligibility 
requirements of TAA.
    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 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 11th day of April, 2006.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E6-5764 Filed 4-17-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P