[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 1 (Friday, January 2, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 115-116]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-32279]


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

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