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 mis-
interpretation 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. § 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 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, D.C. on this 6th day of September, 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-82,388

ALERIS RECYCLING BENS RUN, LLC
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
WINANS EXTRAS SUPPORT STAFFING AND CDI CORPORATION
FRIENDLY, WEST VIRGINIA

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
(ITC) 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 January 30, 2013 by a representative of the United Steel
Workers, Local 5724-2, on behalf of workers of Aleris Recycling Bens
Run, LLC, Friendly, West Virginia (Aleris). The workers’ firm is
engaged in activities related to the production of pyramid cone
shaped deoxidizers and ingots. The worker group includes on-site
leased workers from Winans Extras Support Staffing and CDI
Corporation.
The petitioner alleged that increased customer imports
contributed importantly to worker separations.
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 that Criterion (2)(A)(ii) has not been
met because imports of articles like or directly competitive with
pyramid cone shaped deoxidizers and ingots produced by Aleris did not
increase during the relevant period. During the relevant period,
Aleris did not import articles like or directly competitive with
deoxidizers and ingots. Surveys conducted by the Department revealed
that, during the relevant period, the subject firm’s declining
customers did not import articles like or directly competitive with
deoxidizers and ingots produced by Aleris.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, Aleris did not
shift production of pyramid cone shaped deoxidizers and ingots, or
like or directly competitive articles, to a foreign country, and did
not acquire production of like or directly competitive articles from
a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Aleris is neither a Supplier nor
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 since Aleris has not been
publically identified by name by the ITC 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 Aleris Recycling Bens Run, LLC, Friendly,
West Virginia, to apply for adjustment assistance, in accordance with
Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 13th day of March, 2013


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





- 11 -