DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-81,351

TRUSEAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
A DIVISION OF QUANEX BUILDING PRODUCTS CORPORATION
BARBOURVILLE, KENTUCKY

Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

On April 27, 2012, the Department of Labor issued an
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
for the workers and former workers of Truseal Technologies, a
Division of Quanex Building Products Corporation, Barbourville,
Kentucky (subject firm). The subject firm produces flashing used
in building construction and sealants used in window and door
products and photovoltaic panels. Workers are not separately
identifiable by article produced.
The negative determination was based on the Department’s
findings of no subject firm sales or production declines and no
shift of production to a foreign country.
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 request for reconsideration alleges that the subject firm
has shifted to Germany the production of articles like or directly
competitive with the flashing and sealant produced by the subject
firm and that this information was provided by a company official.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
received confirmation from the subject firm of no shift to (or
acquisition from) a foreign country the production of articles
like or directly competitive with the flashing and sealant
produced by the subject firm. Rather, the subject firm
consolidated production to an existing, affiliated domestic
facility.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
also contacted the company official identified in the request for
reconsideration. The company official clarified that, while the
subject firm does have a facility in Germany, there was no shift
in production to any facility than the Cambridge, Ohio facility
and the workers who filed the request for reconsideration had
misunderstood him.
Previously-submitted information revealed that subject firm
employment, sales, and production did not decline prior to the
plant closure in August 2012. Rather, employment, sales, and
production increased in 2011 from 2010 levels.
Therefore, after careful review of previously-submitted
information, the request for reconsideration, and information
obtained during reconsideration investigation, the Department
determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.
Conclusion
After careful reconsideration, I affirm the original notice
of negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Truseal
Technologies, a Division of Quanex Building Products Corporation,
Barbourville, Kentucky.
Signed in Washington, D.C. on this 27th day of September, 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-81,351

TRUSEAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
A DIVISION OF QUANEX BUILDING PRODUCTS CORPORATION
BARBOURVILLE, KENTUCKY

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
three 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.

Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), defines the
terms “Supplier” and “Downstream Producer.” 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.

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 February 21, 2011 by a union official from the United
Steel Workers, Local 8411, on behalf of workers of Truseal
Technologies, Inc., a division of Quanex Building Products
Corporation, Barbourville, Kentucky. The workers’ firm is engaged
in activities related to the production of flashing product used in
building construction, and of sealants used in photovoltaic panels,
window and door products, and glass.
The petitioner alleges 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)(i) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Truseal Technologies has not
experienced a decline in the sales or production of flashing
product or sealants during the relevant period under investigation.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Truseal Technologies did not shift the
production of flashing product or sealants to a foreign country or
acquire flashing product or sealants from a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Truseal Technologies 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 Truseal Technologies does not act as a
Downstream Producer to a firm (or subdivision, whichever is
applicable) 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 Criterion (1)
has not been met 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 Truseal Technologies, Inc., a
division of Quanex Building Products Corporation, Barbourville,
Kentucky, engaged in activities related to the production of
flashing product and sealants to apply for adjustment assistance,
in accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 16th day of March, 2012


/s/Michael W. Jaffe
______________________________
MICHAEL W. JAFFE
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance




- 3 -