DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-54,086

LOISLAW.COM, INC.
VAN BUREN, ARKANSAS

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.
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, D.C., this 12th day of May, 2004
/s/ Linda G. Poole

___________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance