[Federal Register: January 2, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 1)]
[Notices]
[Page 115-116]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02ja04-90]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-52,651]
R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., Lancaster Financial Printing Division,
Lancaster, PA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration
By application postmarked on October 15, 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 R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company,
Lancaster Financial Printing Division, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, was
signed on September 4, 2003, and published in the Federal Register on
October 10, 2003 (68 FR 58719).
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 R.R. Donnelley &
Sons Company, Lancaster Financial Printing Division, Lancaster,
Pennsylvania. Subject firm workers perform composition, programming,
and proof reading of HTML web pages for financial reports. The petition
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 refers to ``the production of Edgar and HTML pages as a final
product''.
A company official was contacted for clarification in regard to the
nature of the work performed at the subject facility. The official
clarified that workers of Lancaster Financial Printing Division are
engaged in composition and data entry, and that some portion of data
entry and composition process was indeed outsourced to India. In its
turn this data is sent back to R.R. Donnelly & Sons Company in the
United States via electronic documents, which are either electronically
delivered to customers or printed domestically for further
distribution. The official concluded that layoffs at the subject firm
are mainly attributable to a decline in volume of work over the past
years.
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(3) of the Trade Act of 1974.
The petitioner appears to allege that, because petitioning workers
create electronic documents in different formats, their work should be
considered production.
Data entry and composition are not considered production of an
article within the meaning of section 222(3) of the Trade Act.
Petitioning workers do not produce an ``article'' within the meaning of
the Trade Act of 1974. Formatted electronic documents and databases are
not tangible commodities, that is, marketable products, and they are
not listed on the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTS), published by the United States International Trade Commission
(USITC), Office of Tariff Affairs and Trade Agreements, which describes
all articles imported to or exported from the United States.
Furthermore, when a Nomenclature Analyst of the USITC was contacted in
regards to whether virtual networks and databases provided by subject
firm workers fit into any existing HTS basket categories, the
Department was informed that no such categories exist.
In addition, the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program was
established to help workers who produce articles and who lose their
jobs as a result of trade agreements. Throughout the Trade Act an
article is often referenced as something that can be subject to a duty.
To be subject to a duty on a tariff schedule an article will have a
value that makes it marketable, fungible and interchangeable for
commercial purposes. But, 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 employment work products
that customs officials inspect and that the TAA program was generally
designed to address.
The petitioner also alleges that imports impacted layoffs,
asserting that because workers lost their jobs due to a transfer of job
functions to India, petitioning workers should be considered import
impacted.
The petitioning worker group is not considered to have engaged in
production, thus any foreign transfer of their job duties is irrelevant
within the context of eligibility for trade adjustment assistance.
Conclusion
After review of the application and investigative findings, I
conclude that there has been no error or
[[Page 116]]
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 2nd day of December, 2003.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-32279 Filed 12-31-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P