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 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, D.C., this 9th day of July, 2010

/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance

4510-FN-P


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

Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. § 2273, the Department of Labor
herein presents the results of an investigation regarding
certification of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment
assistance.
Workers of a firm may be eligible for worker adjustment
assistance if they satisfy the criteria of subsection (a), (c)
or (f) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (c), (f).
For the Department of Labor to issue a certification for workers
under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), the
following three criteria must be met:
I. The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2282(a)(1)) requires that a significant
number or proportion of the workers in the workers’ firm
must have become totally or partially separated or be
threatened with total or partial separation.

II. The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied in one of two
ways:
(A) Increased Imports Path:
(i) sales or production, or both, at the workers’ firm
must have decreased absolutely, AND
(ii) (I) imports of articles or services like or directly
competitive with articles or services produced or
supplied by the workers’ firm have increased, OR
(II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles into which the
component part produced by the workers’ firm was
directly incorporated have increased; OR
(II)(bb) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles which are produced
directly using the services supplied by the
workers’ firm have increased; OR
(III) imports of articles directly incorporating
component parts not produced in the U.S. that are
like or directly competitive with the article
into which the component part produced by the
workers’ firm was directly incorporated have
increased.

(B) Shift in Production or Supply Path:
(i)(I) there has been a shift by the workers’ firm to a
foreign country in the production of articles or
supply of services like or directly competitive with
those produced/supplied by the workers’ firm; OR
(i)(II) there has been an acquisition from a foreign
country by the workers’ firm of articles/services that
are like or directly competitive with those
produced/supplied by the workers’ firm.

III. The third criterion requires that the increase in imports
or shift/acquisition must have contributed importantly to
the workers’ separation or threat of separation. See
Sections 222(a)(2)(A)(iii) and 222(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act,
19 U.S.C. §§ 2272(a)(2)(A)(iii), 2272(a)(2)(B)(ii).

Section 222(d) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(d), defines the
terms “Supplier” and “Downstream Producer.” For the Department
to issue a secondary worker certification under Section 222(c)
of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), to workers of a Supplier or a
Downstream Producer, the following criteria must be met:
(1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in
the workers’ firm or an appropriate subdivision of the
firm have become totally or partially separated, or
are threatened to become totally or partially
separated;

(2) the workers’ firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer
to a firm that employed a group of workers who
received a certification of eligibility under Section
222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), and such
supply or production is related to the article or
service that was the basis for such certification; and

(3) either
(A) the workers’ firm is a supplier and the component
parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph
(2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the
production or sales of the workers’ firm; or
(B) a loss of business by the workers’ firm with the firm
described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to
the workers’ separation or threat of separation.

Workers of a firm may also be considered eligible if they
are publicly identified by name by the International Trade
Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an
investigation resulting in a category of determination that is
listed in Section 222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f).
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm
under Section 222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), can be
satisfied if the following criteria are met:
(1) the workers’ firm is publicly identified by name by
the International Trade Commission as a member of a
domestic industry in an investigation resulting in--
(A) an affirmative determination of serious injury or
threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) an affirmative determination of market disruption
or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) an affirmative final determination of material
injury or threat thereof under section
705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and
1673d(b)(1)(A));
(2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period
beginning on the date on which--
(A) a summary of the report submitted to the
President by the International Trade Commission
under section 202(f)(1) with respect to the
affirmative determination described in paragraph
(1)(A) is published in the Federal Register under
section 202(f)(3); or
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described
in subparagraph (1) is published in the Federal
Register; and
(3) the workers have become totally or partially
separated from the workers’ firm within--
(A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year
period preceding the 1-year period described in
paragraph (2).

The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on December 31, 2009 on behalf of workers of Dow Jones
and Company, Sharon Pennsylvania Print Plant, a subsidiary of
News Corporation, West Middlesex, Pennsylvania. The workers
are engaged in employment related to the production of print
publications (such as newspapers).
The petitioners allege that separations are the result of
a company decision to consolidate domestic locations and the
decline of film production used in the production of print
publications.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Criterion III has not been met
because the workers’ separation was not related to the
increase in imports of print publications or shift in
production of print publications to a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Criterion (2) has not been met
because the workers did not produce a component part that was
used by a firm with TAA-certified workers in the production of
an article that was the basis for TAA-certification.
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), have not been met
because the workers’ firm has not been identified in an
affirmative finding of injury by the International Trade
Commission.


Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that workers of Dow Jones and
Company, Sharon Pennsylvania Print Plant, a subsidiary of News
Corporation, West Middlesex, Pennsylvania, who are engaged in
employment related to the production of print publications,
are denied eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance under
Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 21st day of May, 2010

/s/Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance



- 10 -