[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 192 (Thursday, October 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61385-61386]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24188]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-82,388]


Aleris Recycling Bens Run, LLC, a Subsidiary of Aleris 
Corporation, Including On-Site Leased Workers From Winans Extras 
Support Staffing and CDI Corporation, Friendly, West Virginia; Notice 
of Negative Determination on Reconsideration

    On May 8, 2013, the Department of Labor (Department) issued an 
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for 
the workers and former workers of Aleris Recycling Bens Run, LLC, 
Friendly, West Virginia (subject firm). The Department's Notice of 
determination was published in the Federal Register on May 24, 2013 (78 
FR 31593). The workers were engaged in employment related to the 
production of pyramid- and cone-shaped deoxidizers, aluminum ingot in 
multiple alloys, and recycled secondary ingot and sows. Workers were 
not separately identifiable by article produced. The worker group 
included on-site leased workers from Winans Extras Support Staffing and 
CDI Corporation. The subject firm shut down in March 2013.
    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 
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of 
the decision.
    The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination 
based on the Department's findings that worker separations were not 
attributable to increased imports of pyramid- and cone-shaped 
deoxidizers, aluminum ingot in multiple alloys, and recycled secondary 
ingot and sows (or articles like or directly competitive), by the 
subject firm or its declining customers, or a shift/acquisition of the 
production of pyramid- and cone-shaped deoxidizers, aluminum ingot in 
multiple alloys, and recycled secondary ingot and sows (or articles 
like or directly competitive) to/from a foreign country by the workers' 
firm during the time period under investigation (2011 and 2012).
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleged that 
workers at the subject firm were impacted by foreign competition and 
that the initial negative determination was erroneous because the 
Department did not understand the articles produced by the subject firm 
and their use by the subject firm's customers.
    Further, during the course of the reconsideration investigation, 
the petitioner provided additional information in which he alleged that 
the subject firm was a supplier to customers whose workers were 
eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). Therefore, the 
petitioner alleged that workers of the subject firm are eligible to 
apply for TAA as secondarily-affected workers.
    During the reconsideration investigation, the Department reviewed 
and confirmed information obtained during the initial investigation, 
sought clarification of previously-submitted information, and collected 
additional information from the subject firm and one of its major 
customers.
    The reconsideration investigation findings confirmed that the 
subject firm did not import articles like or directly competitive with 
pyramid- and cone-shaped deoxidizers, aluminum ingot in multiple 
alloys, and recycled secondary ingot and sows in the period under 
investigation. Additionally, the findings confirmed that the subject 
firm did not shift the production of pyramid- and cone-shaped 
deoxidizers, aluminum ingot in multiple alloys, and recycled secondary 
ingot and sows (or like or directly competitive articles) to a foreign 
country or acquire the production of these article, or any like or 
directly competitive articles, from a foreign country during the period 
under investigation.
    During the initial investigation, the Department conducted a 
customer survey of the major customers of the subject firm, which 
captured the majority of the subject firm's sales during the relevant 
time period. The surveyed customers reported no imports of articles 
like or directly competitive with those produced by the workers at the 
subject firm. Because the survey captured the majority of the subject 
firm's customer volume, no additional customer survey was conducted 
during the reconsideration investigation. During the reconsideration 
investigation, however, the Department contacted one of the surveyed 
customers to confirm information provided by this customer during the 
initial investigation.
    The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm under 
Section 222(b) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(b), can be satisfied if the 
following criteria are 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. Sec.  
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

[[Page 61386]]

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 term 
``Supplier'' as ``a firm that produces and supplies directly to another 
firm component parts for articles, or services used in the production 
of articles or in the supply of services, as the case may be, that were 
the basis for a certification of eligibility under subsection (a) [of 
Section 222 of the Act] of a group of workers employed by such other 
firm.''
    With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the reconsideration 
investigation revealed that the subject firm 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).
    After careful review of the request for reconsideration, 
previously-submitted information, and information obtained during the 
reconsideration investigation, the Department determines that 29 CFR 
90.18(c) has not been met.

Conclusion

    After careful review, 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 Aleris Recycling Bens Run, LLC, a 
subsidiary of Aleris Corporation, Friendly, West Virginia, to apply for 
adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 
U.S.C. 2273.

    Signed in Washington, DC on this 6th day of September, 2013.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2013-24188 Filed 10-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P