Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Notices 68093

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 

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

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 

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 

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–58,081] 

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

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]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–P

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.