US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-80,485

R.R. DONNELLEY, INC.
BLOOMSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA

Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

On March 1, 2012, the Department of Labor issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for workers and former workers of R.R. Donnelley, Inc., Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania (subject firm). The Department’s Notice of affirmative determination was published in the Federal Register on February 21, 2012 (77 FR 9972). The workers are engaged in employment related to the production of hard and soft cover books.
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 initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the findings that the subject firm did not import hard and soft cover books, or articles like or directly competitive, during the relevant time period. A survey conducted on the subject firm’s major customer revealed no imports of hard and soft cover books, or articles like or directly competitive.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioners claimed that worker separations at the subject firm were attributable to the subject firm’s international operations and increased import competition of hard and soft cover books, as well as electronic books (e-books).
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department reviewed and confirmed information provided during the initial investigation and collected additional information from the subject firm and the surveyed customer.
The reconsideration investigation findings revealed that the subject firm has not shifted the production of hard and soft cover books to a foreign country and does not import hard and soft cover books, or like or directly competitive articles. The reconsideration investigation was extended to consider the trade impact from a shift of production or imports of e-books. The information revealed that the production of e-books by the subject firm takes place domestically. Additionally, subject firm’s customer stated that it does not import e-books.
Based on a careful review of information obtained during the initial investigation and the reconsideration investigation, the Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.

Conclusion
After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of R.R. Donnelley, Inc., Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania. Accordingly, the application is denied.
Signed in Washington, D.C. on this 27th day of April, 2012

/S/Del Min Amy Chen
_______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-FN-P






U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-80,485

RR DONNELLEY, INC.
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
MANPOWER AND KELLY SERVICES
BLOOMSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA


Notice of Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated February 25, 2012, the petitioners
requested administrative reconsideration of the negative
determination regarding workers’ eligibility to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former
workers of RR Donnelley, Inc., including on-site leased workers
from Manpower and Kelly Services, Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania
(subject firm). The Department’s Notice of determination was
issued on February 3, 2012 and published in the Federal Register on
February 21, 2012 (77 FR 9973).
The workers engage in activities related to the production of
hard and soft cover books. The initial determination was based on
the findings that worker separations were not attributable to
increased imports by the subject firm or its declining customers of
articles like or directly competitive with hard and soft cover
books or a shift to/acquisition from a foreign country by the
workers’ firm in the production of articles like or directly
competitive with hard and soft cover books.

In the request for reconsideration, the petitioners supplied
new information regarding the subject firm’s operations overseas
and possible import competition.
The Department of Labor has carefully reviewed the request for
reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that
the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if
the workers meet the eligibility requirements to apply for TAA.
Conclusion
After careful review of the application, I conclude that the
claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the
U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is,
therefore, granted.
Signed at Washington, D.C., this 1st day of March, 2012

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

4510-FN-P






DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-80,485

RR DONNELLEY, INC.
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
MANPOWER AND KELLY SERVICES
BLOOMSBURG, 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), (b) or
(e) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (b) and (e).
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
criteria must be met:
(1) 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.

(2) 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.
(iii) the increase in imports described in clause (ii)
contributed importantly to such workers’ separation or
threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or
production of such firm.

(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
(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; and
(ii) the shift described in clause (i)(I) or the acquisition
of articles or services described in clause (i)(II)
contributed importantly to such workers’ separation or
threat of separation.

For the Department to issue a secondary worker certification
under Section 222(b) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(b), 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.

Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), defines the
terms “Supplier” and “Downstream Producer.”
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(e) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(e).
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm under
Section 222(e) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(e), 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 September 30, 2011 by a Union Representative on behalf of
workers of RR Donnelley, Inc., Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania. The
workers’ firm is engaged in activities related to the production of
hard and soft cover books. The worker group includes on-site
leased workers from Manpower and Kelly Services.
The petitioner alleges that the introduction of electronic
book devices contributed to worker separations.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers’ firm and its largest customer.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that RR Donnelley, Inc., Bloomsburg,
Pennsylvania, did not increase imports of articles like or directly
competitive with hard and soft cover books in 2009, 2010, or 2011.
A survey of RR Donnelley’s largest declining customers revealed
that imports of articles like or directly competitive with hard and
soft cover books have not increased during that period.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that RR Donnelley, Inc., Bloomsburg,
Pennsylvania, has not shifted the production of articles like or
directly competitive with hard and soft cover books to a foreign
country and has not acquired articles like or directly
competitive with hard and soft cover books from a foreign
country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that RR Donnelley, Inc., Bloomsburg,
Pennsylvania, is not 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).
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act, have not been satisfied because RR Donnelley,
Inc., Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, has not been publicly identified
by name by the International Trade Commission as a member of a
domestic industry in an investigation resulting in an affirmative
finding of serious injury, market disruption, or material injury,
or threat thereof.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that the requirements of Section 222 of
the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272, have not been met and, therefore, deny
the petition for group eligibility of RR Donnelley, Inc.,
including on-site leased workers from Manpower and Kelly
Services, Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, engaged in activities related
to production of hard and soft cover books, to apply for
adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act,
19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 3rd day of February, 2012

/s/ Michael W. Jaffe

______________________________
MICHAEL W. JAFFE
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance







- 8 -