DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,788

ENGINEERED POLYMER SOLUTIONS
(AKA EPS, DBA VALSPAR COATINGS)
ARCHITECTUAL/CONSUMER DIVISION
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
AEROTEK, ONIN STAFFING, AND ADECCO
GARLAND, TEXAS

Notice of Negative Determination
After Statutory Reconsideration

As required by the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reauthorization
Act of 2015 (TAARA 2015), which was enacted as Title IV of the
Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law No. 114-27,
section 405(a)(1)(A), the investigation into this petition was
reopened for a reconsideration investigation to apply the
requirements for worker group eligibility under chapter 2 of title
II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the TAARA 2015, to the
facts of this petition (statutory reconsideration).
The initial investigation, initiated January 23, 2015,
resulted in a negative determination, issued on April 14, 2015,
that was based on the finding that the predominate cause of layoffs
was not related to a shift in production or increased imports. The
determination was applicable to workers and former workers of
Engineered Polymer Solutions (aka EPS, dba Valspar Coatings),
Architectural/Consumer Division, Garland, Texas. The workers’
firm is engaged in activities related to the production of paint.
The subject worker group includes on-site leased workers from
Aerotek, Onin Staffing, and Adecco.
The petitioner alleges that, “TA-W-73,098 and 80,060 reflect
the negative impact trade considerations have had on the paint
manufacturing industry as a whole and for this company in
particular. It is believed that the closure of Valspar Garland
facilities reflects continuation of this trend.”
Based on information reviewed during the reconsideration
investigation, the Department of Labor determines that shift in
production to a foreign country, acquisition of production from a
foreign country, or increased imports of articles did not
contribute to the worker separations at the subject firm.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that imports did not increase when
comparing 2013 to 2014. In response to the petitioner’s
allegations, the certifications (TA-W-73,098 and TA-W-80,060)
cited increased imports that occurred outside the aforementioned
period.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift the production
of paint or a like or directly competitive article to a foreign
country or acquire paint or a like or directly competitive
article from a foreign country. Production was shifted to another
Valspar Coatings facility located inside the United States.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Valspar Coatings is not a Supplier or
acts 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 either because Criterion
(1) has not been met since the workers’ firm 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, 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 Engineered
Polymer Solutions (aka EPS, dba Valspar Coatings),
Architectural/Consumer Division, including on-site leased workers
from Aerotek, Onin Staffing, and Adecco, Garland, Texas, who were
engaged in employment related to production of paint to apply for
adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act,
19 U.S.C. § 2273.

Signed in Washington, D.C. this 30th day of December, 2015.


/s/Hope D. Kinglock
______________________________
HOPE D. KINGLOCK
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance



DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,788

ENGINEERED POLYMER SOLUTIONS
(AKA EPS, DBA VALSPAR COATINGS)
ARCHITECTUAL/CONSUMER DIVISION
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
AEROTEK, ONIN STAFFING, AND ADECCO
GARLAND, TEXAS

Negative Determinations Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance
And Alternative Trade 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) and
(b) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a) and (b). 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. § 2272(a)(1)) requires that a significant
number or proportion of the workers in such 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 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) imports of articles like or directly competitive with
articles produced by such firm or subdivision have
increased; and
(iii) the increase 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 or subdivision.

(B) Shift in Production Path:
(i) there has been a shift in production by such workers'
firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles
like or directly competitive with articles which are
produced by such firm or subdivision; and
(ii)(I) the country to which the workers' firm has
shifted production of the articles is a party to a
free trade agreement with the United States;
(II)the country to which the workers' firm has
shifted production of the articles is a beneficiary
country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African
Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin
Economic Recovery Act; or
(III)there has been or is likely to be an increase
in imports of articles that are like or directly
competitive with articles which are or were produced
by such firm or subdivision.

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 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."
The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on January 23, 2015 by a State Workforce Office on behalf
of workers of Valspar Engineered Polymer Solutions (aka EPS,
dba Valspar Coatings), Architectural/Consumer Division,
Garland, Texas. The workers' firm is engaged in activities
related to the production of paint. The worker group includes
on-site leased workers from Aerotek, Onin Staffing, and Adecco.
The petitioner alleges that, "TA-W-73,098 and 80,060
reflect the negative impact trade considerations have had on the
paint manufacturing industry as a whole and for this company in
particular. It is believed that the closure of Valspar Garland
facilities reflects continuation of this trend."
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers' firm, and its major declining
customer.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A), the investigation
revealed that imports of articles like or directly competitive
with the articles produced by Valspar Engineered Polymer
Solutions did not contribute importantly to such workers'
separation or threat of separation and to the decline in sales
or production of such firm or subdivision.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift production of
paint to a foreign country. Rather, the investigation confirmed
that the worker separations were related to a shift in
production to another location within the United States.
With respect to Section 222(b)of the Act, the investigation
revealed that Valspar Engineered Polymer Solutions 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).
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance
(ATAA), the worker group must be certified eligible to apply for
trade adjustment assistance (TAA). Since the workers are denied
eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified
eligible for ATAA.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that all workers of Valspar
Engineered Polymer Solutions (aka EPS, dba Valspar Coatings),
Architectural/Consumer, including on-site leased workers from
Aerotek, Onin Staffing, and Adecco, Garland, Texas engaged in
activities related to the production of paint are denied
eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223
of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, and are also denied
eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance
under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, amended.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 14th day of April 2015.

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