[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 142 (Monday, July 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43563-43564]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-18191]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-73,199]


Dow Jones & Company, Sharon Pennsylvania Print Plant a Subsidiary 
of News Corporation, West Middlesex, Pennsylvania; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated June 21, 2010, a petitioner requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment 
Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the 
subject firm. The determination was signed on May 21, 2010. The 
Department's Notice of determination was published in the Federal 
Register on June 7, 2010 (75 FR 32224). The workers are engaged in the 
production of print publications.
    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 negative determination of the TAA petition filed on behalf of 
workers at Dow Jones & Company, Sharon Pennsylvania Print Plant, a 
subsidiary of News Corporation, West Middlesex, Pennsylvania, was based 
on the finding that the workers' separations were not related to an 
increase in imports of print publications or a shift in production of 
print publications to a foreign country, nor did the workers produce a 
component part that was used by a firm that employed a worker group 
currently eligible to apply for TAA.
    In the request for reconsideration the petitioner stated that the 
workers of the subject firm should be eligible for TAA because the 
``plates and film came from a company currently approved for TRA, 
Konica'' and that those plates and film directly impacted the subject 
firm's production.
    Increased imports of component parts, tools, or equipment related 
to the production of printed publications cannot be a basis for TAA 
certification under Section 222(a)(2)(A) because the statute requires 
either increased imports

[[Page 43564]]

of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by the 
workers' firm, increased imports of articles like or directly 
competitive with articles into which one or more component parts 
produced by the workers' firm are directly incorporated, or increased 
imports of articles like or directly incorporating one or more 
component parts produced outside of the United States that are like or 
directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or more 
component parts produced by the workers' firm.
    During the initial investigation, the Department inquired into the 
allegation that ``As of July 2010 our film used to produce the 
newspaper and made in Japan will no longer be manufactured anywhere.'' 
The investigation confirmed that the subject firm produced print 
publications and revealed that, while there is a general decline of the 
film manufacturing industry, the separations at the subject firm are 
unrelated to increased imports of articles like or directly competitive 
with the print publications produced at the subject firm or a shift of 
production to a foreign country, or acquisition from a foreign country, 
of articles like or directly competitive with the print publications 
produced at the subject firm.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleges that the 
subject workers are eligible to apply for TAA as adversely affected 
secondary workers.
    The petitioning workers do not meet the criteria set forth in 
Section 222(c) because the subject firm neither supplied component 
parts for the product made by a firm that employed a worker group that 
is currently eligible to apply for TAA (Konica) nor engaged in a 
further stage of production of the articles produced by a firm that 
employed a worker group that is currently eligible to apply for TAA 
(Konica). Neither of those relationships exists between Dow Jones & 
Company, West Middlesex, Pennsylvania, and any Konica facility.
    The petitioner did not supply facts not previously considered; nor 
provide additional documentation indicating that there was either (1) a 
mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered or (2) 
a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justifying reconsideration 
of the initial determination.
    After careful review of the request for reconsideration, the 
Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.

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 in Washington, DC, this 9th day of July 2010.
 Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-18191 Filed 7-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P