UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-96,308

ALBERS FINISHING & SOLUTIONS

CHENEY, KANSAS

Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility

To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended ("Act"), 19 U.S.C.§ 2273, the Department of Labor
("Department") herein presents the results of an investigation
regarding certification of eligibility to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance ("TAA") for workers.

The investigation was initiated in response to a TAA petition
dated September 24, 2020 and filed on September 25, 2020 by a State
Workforce Office, on behalf of workers and former workers of Albers
Finishing and Solutions, Cheney, Kansas (hereafter referred to
as a "group of workers"). In accordance with 20 C.F.R. 618 a group
of workers is defined as, ""¦inclusive of teleworkers and staffed
workers."

The group of workers is engaged in activities related to metal
finishing services and are not separately identifiable by service.

The petition alleged that worker separations, or threats
thereof, were due to foreign trade because, the company
supplies/supports operations at certified petition #95,556, Spirit
Aerosystems.

During the course of the investigation, the Department
collected information from the petitioner(s), the workers' firm,
and other relevant sources.

Workers of a firm may be eligible for TAA if they satisfy the
criteria of subsection (a), (b) or (e) of Section 222 of the Trade
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (b) and (e).

For the Department to issue a certification for workers under
Section 222(a) of the Trade Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), the following
criteria must be met:

Employment Criterion

(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such
workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated.

The Department determines that the employment criterion has
been met.

Decreased Sales and Production Criterion

(2)(A)(i) The sales or production, or both, of such firm have
decreased absolutely;

According to 20 C.F.R. 618.225(a)(2)(ii)(B), "Analysis of
sales or production data must generally consist of a comparison of
sales or production data on the petition date to sales or
production data on the date that is 1 year prior to the petition
date."

The Department determines that the decreased sales or
production criterion has not been met. During the period relevant
to the investigation sales and supply of services increased from

Increased Imports Criterion

(2)(A)(ii)(I) Imports of articles or services like or directly
competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such
firm have increased;

(II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly competitive with
articles into which one or more component parts produced by such
firm are directly incorporated have increased;

(bb) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles
which are produced directly using services supplied by such firm,
have increased; AND

(III) imports of articles directly incorporating one or more
component parts produced outside the United States that are like or
directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or
more component parts produced by such firm have increased.

The Department did not make a determination on whether the
increased imports criterion was met because the decreased sales or
production criterion was not met.

Contributed Importantly Criterion

(2)(A)(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.

The Department did not make a determination on whether the
contributed importantly criterion was met because no finding
regarding the increased imports criterion was made.

Shift/Acquisition Criterion

(2)(B)(i)(I) there has been a shift by the workers' firm to a
foreign country in the production of articles or the supply of
services like or directly competitive with articles which are
produced or services which are supplied by such firm; or

(II) such workers' firm has acquired from a foreign country
articles or services that are like or directly competitive with
articles which are produced or services which are supplied by such
firm;

According to 20 C.F.R. 618.225(b)(2)(ii)(B), "Analysis of
shift/activity must generally consist of a (1) Comparison of shift
data on the petition date to shift data on the date that is 1 year
prior to the petition date; (2) Review of shift activity during
the 1-year period prior to the petition date; and (3) Review of
evidence provided by the workers' firm regarding shift activity
scheduled to occur after the petition date."

According to 20 C.F.R. 618.225(b)(2)(iii)(A), "Analysis of
impact of shift activity on worker separations must generally
consist of determining: (1) Whether there are one or more events
or factors that sever or lessen the causal nexus between the
shift activity and worker separations or threat of separation;
(2) What percentage of the workers' firm sales or production
declines was attributable to the firm's shift activity; (3)
Whether operations at the workers' firm domestic facility or
facilities decreased at the same or at a greater rate than
operations at the foreign facility or facilities; and (4) Whether
there are other events or factors that mitigate or amplify the
impact of shift activity on the workers' firm."

According to 20 C.F.R. 618.225(c)(2)(ii), "Analysis of
acquisition data must generally consist of a (A) Comparison of
acquisition data on the petition date to acquisition data on the
date that is 1 year prior to the petition date; (B) Review of
acquisition data during the 1-year period prior to the petition
date; and (C) Review of evidence provided by the workers' firm
regarding acquisition activity scheduled to occur after the
petition date."

According to 20 C.F.R. 618.225(c)(3)(i), "Analysis of impact
of acquisition data on worker separations must generally consist
of determining: (A) Whether there are one or more events or
factors that lessen or sever the causal nexus between the
acquisition activity and worker separations or threat of
separation; (B) What percentage of the workers' firm sales or
production declines was attributable to the firm's acquisition
activity; (C) Whether operations at the workers' firm domestic
facility or facilities decreased at the same or at a greater rate
than contractor or licensee operations in the foreign country;
and (D) Whether there are other events or factors that mitigate
or amplify the impact of acquisition activity on the workers'
firm."

The Department determines that the shift/acquisition
criterion has not been met. The workers' firm did not shift
services to a foreign country or acquire like or directly
competitive services from a foreign country.

Contributed Importantly Criterion

(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.

The Department did not make a determination on whether the
contributed importantly criterion was met because the
shift/acquisition criterion was not met.

For the Department to issue a certification for workers under
Section 222(b) of the Trade Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(b), the following
criteria must be met:

Employment Criterion

(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.

The Department determines that the employment criterion has
been met.

Supplier/Downstream Producer Criterion

(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 subsection (a), and such
supply or production is related to the article or service
that was the basis for such certification (as defined in
subsection (c) (3)and (4)); and

Section 222(c)(4) of the Trade Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c),
defines the term "Supplier" to mean "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 a group of
workers employed by such other firm."

Section 222(c)(3) of the Trade Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c),
defines the term "Downstream Producer" to mean "a firm that
performs additional, value-added production processes or services
directly for another firm for articles or services with respect
to which a group of workers in such other firm has been certified
under subsection (a)." For purposes of this "Downstream Producer"
definition, the Trade Act provides that, ""¦value-added production
processes or services include final assembly, finishing, testing,
packaging, or maintenance or transportation services."

The Department determines that the supplier/downstream
producer criterion has not been met. The workers' firm did not act
as a Supplier or Downstream Producer to a firm whose workers were
certified eligible to apply for TAA. The workers' firm confirmed
that they did not directly supply Spirit Aerosystems with services

20% or Contributed Importantly Criterion

(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 determined
under paragraph (I).

20 C.F.R. 618.225(d)(5) states that "the component part
supplied represented at least 20 percent of the supplier's
production or sales during the 1-year period prior to the
petition date, or loss of business with the firm, during the

1-year period prior to the petition date, contributed importantly
to separations or threat of separation at the workers' firm."
Sec. 222(c) of the Trade Act and 20 C.F.R. 618.110 defines
contributed importantly as, "a cause that is important but not
necessarily more important than any other cause."

The Department did not make a determination on whether the
20% or contributed importantly criterion was met because the
supplier/downstream producer criterion was not met.

For the Department to issue a certification for workers under
Section 222(e) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(e), the following
criteria must be met:

Member of Domestic Industry Criterion

(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);

(A)an affirmative determination of market disruption or
threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(B) 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));



The Department determines that the member of a domestic
industry criterion has not been met.

Timely Petition Filing Criterion

(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 (B) or (C) of paragraph (1) is published in
the Federal Register; and


The Department did not make a determination on whether the
timely petition filing criterion was met because the member of
domestic industry criterion was not met.

Employment Criterion

(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 Department did not make a determination on whether the
employment criterion was met because no finding regarding the
timely petition filing criterion was made.

Conclusion

After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that the requirements of Section 222
of the Trade Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272, have not been met and,
therefore, deny the petition for group eligibility of Albers
Finishing & Solutions, Cheney, Kansas, who are engaged in
activities related to metal finishing services apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance for workers, in accordance with Section 223
of the Trade Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.

Signed in Washington, D.C. this 1st day of March, 2021



/s/ Hope D. Kinglock
_______________________
HOPE D. KINGLOCK

Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance