[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