DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-81,387

EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY
IPS – DAYTON LOCATION
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM ADECCO
DAYTON, OHIO


Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration

On March 2, 2012, the Department of Labor (Department)
initiated an investigation in response to a Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) petition filed on behalf of workers and former
workers of Eastman Kodak Company, IPS-Dayton Location, including
on-site leased workers from Adecco, Dayton, Ohio (hereafter
referred to as “Eastman Kodak-IPS-Dayton”). On May 18, 2012, the
Department denied the petition for group eligibility to apply for
TAA. The Department’s Notice of negative determination was
published in the Federal Register on June 6, 2012 (77 FR 33494).
On August 1, 2012, the Department issued a Notice of
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for
Reconsideration, applicable to Eastman Kodak-IPS-Dayton. The
Department’s Notice of affirmative determination was published in
the Federal Register on August 14, 2012 (77 FR 48549).
On March 19, 2013, the Department issued a Notice of
Termination of Reconsideration Investigation to workers and
former workers of Eastman Kodak-IPS-Dayton (TA-W-81,387) which
stated that the worker group on whose behalf the request for
reconsideration was filed is eligible to apply for TAA under the
amended certification for TA-W-74,813A. The Department’s Notice of
termination of reconsideration investigation was published in the
Federal Register on April 9, 2013 (78 FR 21155).
On June 21, 2013, the Department issued a Notice of
Termination of Certification applicable to workers and former
workers eligible to apply for TAA under TA-W-74,813A. The
Department’s Notice of Termination of Certification was published
in the Federal Register on July 5, 2013 (78 FR 40507). In the
Notice of Termination of Certification, the Department stated that
the reconsideration investigation of TA-W-81,387 would be re-opened
and a determination on reconsideration would be issued accordingly.
During the re-opened reconsideration investigation, the
Department contacted the workers who filed the initial petition for
information and received additional information from one of the
petitioners.
The petition alleges that production of printers shifted from
the Dayton, Ohio facility to a foreign country. In an attachment to
the petition, the petitioners state that “a few years back our
facility . . . shipped the manufacture of . . . fluid systems and
controllers to . . . China”; that “in 2010 a large portion of the
print head refurbishment for the 4” (four inch) product line was
shipped to . . . China”; that “all of the printed circuit board
production and testing was moved to China”; that a “portion of the
new product under development (Stream) was moved to Mexico for
manufacture” in 2011; that people from Malaysia spent months in the
fall of 2011 “to learn the processes of manufacture so equipment
can be sent to their facility in Malaysia”; and that “production of
the new Stream product is to be done in Malaysia.”
During the re-opened reconsideration investigation, a former
worker stated that separations at the Dayton, Ohio facility were
due to the shift in production to China and/or Mexico; that
production of “legacy” products were shifted to a facility in China
that builds cameras and desktop printers; that the shift of
production to China also resulted in reduced need for “testing and
repair of new build circuit boards and electronic assembly”; that
production of ink jet print systems and the “Four Inch” product
line were shifted to China; and that, in April 2012, three of the
remaining workers were separated “because the remaining repair work
was shifted to a third party company in the Dayton area.”
During the re-opened reconsideration investigation, the
Department obtained updated information from Eastman Kodak Company
regarding operations at the Dayton, Ohio facility and responses to
the afore-mentioned allegations.
Based on information obtained during the re-opened
reconsideration investigation, the Department determines that while
there was some production shift abroad in 2006 to 2008, no such
shift occurred in 2012 and 2013, and that the shift which occurred
during 2006 to 2008 did not contribute to worker separations at the
Dayton, Ohio facility in 2012 and 2013.
Rather, information obtained during the reconsideration
investigation confirmed that worker separations at the Dayton, Ohio
facility in 2012 and 2013 have been part of bankruptcy-related
activities, including restructuring and domestic outsourcing of
some services, and have not resulted in a shift of production
abroad.
Conclusion
After careful review of previously-submitted information and
information obtained during the reconsideration investigation, I
affirm that the requirements of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272, have not
been met and, therefore, affirm the denial of the petition for
group eligibility for Eastman Kodak Company, IPS-Dayton Location,
Dayton, Ohio, to apply for adjustment assistance, in accordance
with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C., § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 23rd day of October, 2013

/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-81,387

EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY
IPS – DAYTON LOCATION
DAYTON, OHIO

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 March 2, 2012 by three workers on behalf of workers of
Eastman Kodak Company, IPS-Dayton Location, Dayton, Ohio (subject
firm). The workers’ firm is engaged in activities related to the
production of commercial color ink jet printers.
The petitioners allege that the subject firm is shifting
production to a foreign country.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers’ firm.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the subject firm, customer, and
aggregate U.S. imports of articles like or directly competitive
with the commercial color ink jet printers produced by the
subject firm have not increased.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the subject firm did not shift the
production of commercial color ink jet printers, or a like or
directly competitive article, to a foreign country or acquire the
production of commercial color ink jet printers, or a like or
directly competitive article, from a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Eastman Kodak Company is not a
Supplier 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).
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Eastman Kodak Company does not act as
a 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 since the workers’ firm
has not been publically 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 Eastman Kodak Company, IPS-
Dayton Location, Dayton, Ohio, to apply for adjustment assistance,
in accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 18th day of May, 2012


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