[Federal Register: May 24, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 100)]
[Notices]
[Page 29573-29574]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24my04-90]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-54 086]
Loislaw.Com, Inc., Van Buren, AR; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application postmarked March 5, 2004, 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 Loislaw.com, Inc., Van Buren,
Arkansas was signed on February 9, 2004, and published in the Federal
Register on March 12, 2004 (69 FR 11888).
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 mis-
interpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the
decision.
The TAA petition was filed on behalf of workers at Loislaw.com,
Inc., Van Buren, Arkansas engaged in data entry by digitizing existing
public records and making them accessible in an on-line database. 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 further described the functions performed by workers of the subject
firm, which consist of editing, coding, quality control and building of
the legal material to the internet and CD-ROM. The petitioner further
states that edited material put on CD-ROM and the Internet for further
consumption by the paying public is a commodity of convenience for the
legal profession and should be considered a product.
A company official was contacted for clarification in regard to the
nature of the work performed at the subject facility. The official
stated that workers at the subject firm are engaged in publishing and
collection of electronic and print legal and public records data, which
is further digitized into a proprietary format. The official further
clarified that only a small portion of the databases are distributed
via CD-ROM, with the vast majority of the database customers receiving
the edited and digitized data over the internet. According to the
company official the burning process of the data on CD-ROM is performed
at the subject facility in Van Buren, Arkansas.
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.
[[Page 29574]]
Data collection, editing and coding are 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. Formatted electronic databases and codes are not
tangible commodities, that is, marketable products, 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 petitioner also alleges that imports caused 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 company official stated that for a number of years, Loislaw.com
has utilized outside vendors to edit the material in India. However,
the edited documents are returned to Loislaw.com to the Van Buren,
Arkansas facility via electronic copies through the Internet for
further control checks in order to be distributed to customers via the
Internet or copied and distributed on CD-ROMs. Informational material
that is electronically transmitted is not considered production within
the context of TAA eligibility requirements, so there are no imports of
products in this instance. Further, as the edited material does not
become a product until it is recorded on media device, there was no
shift in production of an ``article'' within the meaning of the Trade
Act of 1974.
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 12th day of May, 2004.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 04-11624 Filed 5-21-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P