DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-80,310

APPLABS, INC.
A SUBSIDIARY OF ATPL
WORKING ON-SITE AT XPEDITE SYSTEMS, LLC
A SUBSIDIARY OF PREMIER GLOBAL SERVICES, INC.
DEERFIELD BEACH, FLORIDA

Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

The initial investigation, initiated July 25, 2011, resulted
in a negative determination, issued on October 4, 2011, that was
based on the finding that worker separations were unrelated to
imports. The determination was applicable to workers and former
workers of Applabs, Inc., a subsidiary of ATPL, Deerfield Beach,
Florida. The notice of determination was published in the Federal
Register on October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66330). The workers’ firm is
engaged in activities related to the production of software,
specifically the firm provides a supply of testing services in
support of clients’ production of software.
As required by the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) Extension
Act of 2011 (the TAAEA), the investigation into this petition was
reopened for a reconsideration investigation to apply the
requirements for worker group eligibility under chapter 2 of title
II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the TAAEA, to the facts
of this petition.
Based on information reviewed during the reconsideration
investigation, the Department of Labor determines that the subject
firm did not shift the supply of services to a foreign country
nor have imports increased during the relevant period.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed no increased imports of services like or
directly competitive with those supplied by the subject firm.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the subject firm did not shift the
supply of software testing services, or a like or directly
competitive service, to a foreign country or acquire such
services from a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Applabs, Inc. is not a Supplier to a
firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification
of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. §
2272(a).
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Applabs, Inc. does not act as a
Downstream Producer to a firm (or subdivision, whichever is
applicable) that employed a group of workers who received a
certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19
U.S.C. § 2272(a).
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act, have not been satisfied since the workers’ firm
has not been publically identified by name by the International
Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an
investigation resulting in an affirmative finding of serious
injury, market disruption, or material injury, or threat thereof.
Conclusion
After careful review, I determine that the requirements of
Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272, have not been met and,
therefore, deny the petition for group eligibility of Applabs,
Inc., a subsidiary of ATPL, Deerfield Beach, Florida, to the supply
of software testing services to apply for adjustment assistance,
in accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 15th day of December, 2011

/s/ Del Min Amy Chen

______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-80,310

APPLABS, INC.
A SUBSIDIARY OF ATPL
WORKING ON-SITE AT XPEDITE SYSTEMS, LLC
A SUBSIDIARY OF
PREMIER GLOBAL SERVICES, INC.
DEERFIELD BEACH, FLORIDA

Negative Determinations Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance
And Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. § 2273, the Department of Labor herein
presents the results of an investigation regarding certification of
eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance.
Workers of a firm may be eligible for worker adjustment
assistance if they satisfy the criteria of subsection (a) and (b)
of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a) and (b). For the
Department of Labor to issue a certification for workers under
Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), the following three
criteria must be met:
(1) The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(1)) requires that a significant
number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or
an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or
partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or
partially separated
(2) The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied in one of two
ways:
(A) Increased Imports Path:
(i) sales or production, or both, at the workers’ firm must
have decreased absolutely, AND
(ii) imports of articles like or directly competitive with
articles produced by such firm or subdivision have
increased; and
(iii) the increase described in clause (ii) contributed
importantly to such workers’ separation or threat of
separation and to the decline in the sales or
production of such firm or subdivision.

(B) Shift in Production Path:
(i) there has been a shift in production by such workers’
firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like
or directly competitive with articles which are produced
by such firm or subdivision; and
(ii)(I) the country to which the workers’ firm has
shifted production of the articles is a party to a free
trade agreement with the United States;
(II)the country to which the workers’ firm has
shifted production of the articles is a beneficiary
country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African
Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin
Economic Recovery Act; or
(III)there has been or is likely to be an increase in
imports of articles that are like or directly
competitive with articles which are or were produced by
such firm or subdivision.

For the Department to issue a secondary worker certification
under Section 222(b) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(b), to workers of
a Supplier or a Downstream Producer, the following criteria must be
met:
(1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in the
workers’ firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm
have become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated;

(2) the workers’ firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer to
a firm that employed a group of workers who received a
certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), and such supply or production
is related to the article that was the basis for such
certification; and

(3) either
(A) the workers’ firm is a supplier and the component parts
it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2)
accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or
sales of the workers’ firm; or
(B) a loss of business by the workers’ firm with the firm
described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the
workers’ separation or threat of separation.

Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), defines the
terms “Supplier” and “Downstream Producer.”
The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on July 25, 2011 by a one-stop operator or partner on behalf
of workers of AppLabs, Inc., a subsidiary of ATPL, working on-
site at Xpedite Systems, LLC, a subsidiary of Premier Global
Services, Inc., Deerfield Beach, Florida (AppLabs). The workers’
firm is engaged in activities related to the production of
software, specifically the firm provides a supply of testing
services in support of client’s production of software.
The petitioner alleges that services are being outsourced to
a foreign country.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers’ firm and its customer.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that AppLabs did not shift activities
related to the production of internal software applications to a
foreign country. Activities were consolidated domestically.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(iii), the investigation
revealed that AppLabs did not import article like or directly
competitive with the software produced by the workers’ firm.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that AppLabs is a not a Supplier or a
Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who
received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a).
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance
(ATAA), the worker group must be certified eligible to apply for
trade adjustment assistance (TAA). Since the workers are denied
eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified
eligible for ATAA.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that all workers of AppLabs, Inc., a
subsidiary of ATPL, working on-site at Xpedite Systems, LLC, a
subsidiary of Premier Global Services, Inc., Deerfield Beach,
Florida are denied eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance
under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, and are
also denied eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment
assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, amended.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 4th day of October 2011


/s/Elliott S. Kushner
______________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance






- 8 -