DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-91,248

EXAL CORPORATION
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM ALLIANCE INDUSTRIAL
SOLUTIONS AND RYAN ALTERNATIVE STAFFING
YOUNGSTOWN, OHIO

Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

On July 5, 2016, the Department of Labor issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration applicable
to workers and former workers of Exal Corporation, including on-
site leased workers from Alliance Industrial Solutions and Ryan
Alternative Staffing, Youngstown, Ohio (workers’ firm). The
workers’ firm is engaged in activities related to the production of
aluminum cans used for beverages. The notice was posted in the
Federal Registry on October 22, 2018 (83 FR 55302).
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 petition, filed by the State Workforce Office, states “The
following information was provided by a former employee of Exal
Corporation. The former employee of Exal Corporation has requested
assistance from Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services in
filing this application. As an Aluminum canister production
facility, the Exal Corporation produces canisters for companies
such as Fabreeze, Nabisco, Axe, Old Spice, Coca Cola, and
Budweiser. In speaking with a former employee the company has lost
contracts for Nabisco and Fabreeze to a Canadian Based company that
can produce the product at a lower cost. The company has also moved
production of various lines of Axe and Old Spice to the Exal Plants
located in South America for the same reasons. The employee also
states that the plant no longer produces the various scents or
flavors of a product they once did as those contracts have been
undertaken by plants in Canada or South America.”
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
carefully reviewed previously-submitted information and publically
available information, contacted the subject firm, and conducted a
survey of the subject firm’s major declining customer(s).
The investigation revealed that, during the relevant period,
neither firm nor customer imports of articles like or directly
competitive with those produced by the workers’ firm increased when
compared to the representative base period (2014 compared to 2015).
Furthermore, the workers’ firm reported an increase in sales during
the same period, increased imports did not contribute importantly
to workers separations.
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 Exal
Corporation, including on-site leased workers from Alliance
Industrial Solutions and Ryan Alternative Staffing, Youngstown,
Ohio, 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 2nd day of April, 2019.

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



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-91,248

EXAL CORPORATION
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM ALLIANCE INDUSTRIAL
SOLUTIONS AND RYAN ALTERNATIVE STAFFING
YOUNGSTOWN, OHIO

Notice of Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated June 22, 2016, the state workforce office
requested administrative reconsideration of the negative
determination regarding workers’ eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance applicable to workers and former workers of
Exal Corporation, including on-site leased workers from Alliance
Industrial Solutions and Ryan Alternative Staffing, Youngstown,
Ohio. The determination was issued on May 26, 2016 and the Notice
of Determination was published in the Federal Register on June 28,
2016 (81 FR 42000).
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 findings that there was no increase in imports by the
workers’ firm or its customers, nor was there a foreign shift or
acquisition by the workers’ firm or its customers. In addition,
neither the workers’ firm nor its customers reported imports of
articles like or directly competitive with articles for which the
article produced by the workers’ firm were directly incorporated.
The request for reconsideration asserts that the subject firm
and customer continues to import from a foreign location like or
directly competitive articles while decreasing articles produced
within the United States. The request for reconsideration included
new facts.
The Department of Labor has carefully reviewed the request for
reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that
the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if
the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of
1974.

Conclusion
After careful review of the application, I conclude that the
claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the
U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is,
therefore, granted.

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 5th day of July, 2016.

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




DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-91,248

EXAL CORPORATION
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM ALLIANCE INDUSTRIAL
SOLUTIONS AND RYAN ALTERNATIVE STAFFING
YOUNGSTOWN, 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. § 2272(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; AND
(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), the 1-year
period preceding the 1-year period described in
paragraph (2).

The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on December 22, 2015 by a state workforce office on
behalf of workers of Exal Corporation, Youngstown, Ohio (Exal
Corporation). The workers' firm is engaged in activities
related to the production of aluminum canisters. The subject
worker group includes on-site leased workers from Alliance
Industrial Solutions and Ryan Alternative Staffing.
The petitioner alleges that the subject firm shifted
production to another country and that a competitor is
importing products at a lower cost.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers' firm, workers, and customers.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm and customer imports of
articles like or directly competitive with the articles
produced by Exal Corporation have not increased.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift the
production of aluminum canisters or a like or directly
competitive article to a foreign country or acquire aluminum
canisters 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 Exal Corporation 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 Exal Corporation 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 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 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 Exal Corporation,
including on-site leased workers from Alliance Industrial
Solutions and Ryan Alternative Staffing, Youngstown, Ohio
engaged in activities related to the production of aluminum
canisters to apply for adjustment assistance, in accordance with
Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.

Signed in Washington, D.C. this 26th day of May 2016.

/s/Jessica R. Webster
______________________________
JESSICA R. WEBSTER
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance