[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 100 (Monday, May 24, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29573-29574]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-11624]


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

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