DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-62,333

LIBERTY FIBERS CORPORATION
LOWLAND, TENNESSEE

Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

On December 11, 2007, the Department of Labor (Department)
issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for
Reconsideration for workers and former workers of Liberty Fibers
Corporation, Lowland, Tennessee (the subject firm). The
Department’s Notice of affirmative determination was published in
the Federal Register on December 19, 2007 (72 FR 71962).
A certification for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) applicable to
workers at the subject firm was issued on October 21, 2005 and
remained valid until October 21, 2007 (TA-W-58,039). The
certification was based on the Department’s finding that the
subject workers produced rayon staple fiber and that increased
imports of articles like or directly competitive with those
produced by the subject firm contributed importantly to subject
firm sales or production declines and to workers’ separations.
On August 24, 2007, a TAA/ATAA petition (TA-W-62,049) was
filed by a company official on behalf of workers and former
workers of the subject firm. The petition was withdrawn on
August 29, 2007. The Department issued a Notice of Termination
of Investigation on September 4, 2007.
On October 22, 2007, a TAA/ATAA petition was filed by a
company official on behalf of workers and former workers of the
subject firm (TA-W-62,333). The petition stated that the subject
firm produced rayon staple fiber, the subject firm closed on
September 26, 2005, and that “Five (5) employees remain in the
employment of the company to assist the bankruptcy trustee. The
remaining employees will be laid off in the next 6-9 months.”
The initial determination, issued on November 13, 2007,
stated that the workers performed maintenance of a closed fiber
production facility, that the workers no longer support a firm or
appropriate subdivision that produces an article domestically,
and, thus, the subject worker group can not be considered import
impacted or affected by a shift in production of an article
The request for reconsideration stated that the subject firm
ceased operations in September 2005, that a Chapter 7 bankruptcy
(dissolution) trustee was appointed in November 2005, and that
the trustee retained the service of several employees to assist
in the settlement of the corporation’s estate. The request also
stated that, with regards to petition TA-W-58,039, the Department
“accurately designated the loss of those permanent jobs to be the
result of increased imports activity” and asserts that workers
covered by petition TA-W-62,333 should be eligible to apply for
TAA and ATAA on the same basis (increased imports).
In order to be certified as eligible to apply for adjustment
assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, the
petitioning group must work for a firm or appropriate subdivision
that produces an article domestically, and there must be a
relationship between the workers' work and the article produced
by the workers' firm or appropriate subdivision.
Under Section 223(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended,
TAA certification may be made if the following criteria are met:
Section (a)(2)(A)--
A. 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; and
B. the sales or production, or both, of such firm or
subdivision have decreased absolutely; and
C. increased imports of articles like or directly competitive
with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have
contributed importantly to such workers’ separation or
threat of separation and to the decline in sales or
production of such firm or subdivision;

or

Section (a)(2)(B)--

A. 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; and

B. 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

C. One of the following must be satisfied:
1. 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; or

2. 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
3. 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.

Because the request for reconsideration asserts that the
workers covered by TA-W-62,333 should be certified for TAA and
ATAA for the same reason that the workers covered by TA-W-58,039
were certified (increased imports), the Department investigated
whether the criteria set forth in Section (a)(2)(A) were met.
The Section (a)(2)(A) requires that “imports of articles
like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm
or subdivision have increased” and increased imports must have
“contributed importantly to such workers’ separation or threat of
separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm
or subdivision.”
To be certified based on increased imports, the Department
must find that increased imports is a cause that contributed
importantly to a two-part effect: the workers’ separation or
threat of separation, and the decline in subject firm sales or
production. Because the cause must precede the effect, it
follows that increased imports must occur before or coincide with
the subject firm’s sales or production decline, and, that without
that effect, causality cannot be established.
“Increased imports,” defined at 29 CFR 97.2, means “that
imports have increased either absolutely or relative to domestic
production compared to a representative base period. The
representative base period shall be one year consisting of the
four quarters immediately preceding the date which is twelve
months prior to the date of the petition.”
Because the date of the petition is October 22, 2007, the
relevant period (the twelve months prior to the petition date) is
October 2006 through September 2007 and the representative base
period is October 2005 through September 2006. Therefore, for
there to be increased imports, imports during October 2006
through September 2007 would have to increase compared to the
period of October 2005 through September 2006.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
confirmed that the subject firm ceased operation and closed
permanently in September 2005, that the subject firm filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy (reorganization) on September 29, 2005, and
that the case was converted to Chapter 7 bankruptcy (dissolution)
on November 21, 2005.
Because there were no subject firm sales or production since
September 2005, the Department finds that there could not have
been any decline in sales or production at the subject firm
during the relevant period. Consequently, increased imports
could not have “contributed importantly to . . . the decline in
sales or production of” the subject firm. Accordingly, the
subject workers cannot be certified under Section 222(a)(2)(A).
Further, the Department finds that because the subject firm
permanently closed in September 2005, there was not production
that could have shifted to a foreign country. Accordingly, the
subject workers cannot be certified under Section 222(a)(2)(B).
Although the request for reconsideration did not allege that
the subject workers were adversely affected as secondary workers
(workers of a firm that supply component parts to a TAA-certified
company or finished or assembled for a TAA-certified company),
the Department expanded the investigation to determine whether
they would be eligible to apply for TAA on this basis. Such a
certification, under Section 223(b)(2), must be based in the
certification of a primary firm.
Prior to the closure in September 2005, the subject firm
produced a final article (rayon staple fiber) and, therefore,
neither supplied component parts to other companies nor finished
or assembled an article for other companies. Even if the subject
firm did engage in such activity, the activity occurred prior to
September 2005, and, therefore, occurred prior to the relevant
period and cannot be a basis for certification. Accordingly, the
subject workers cannot be certified under Section 223(b)(2).
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA), the subject worker group must be certified eligible to
apply for TAA. Since the petitioning worker group is denied
eligibility to apply for TAA, the subject workers cannot be
certified eligible for ATAA.
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 Liberty
Fibers Corporation, Lowland, Tennessee.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 7th day of March 2008


/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
___________________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance

4510-FN-P


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-62,333

LIBERTY FIBERS CORPORATION
LOWLAND, TENNESSEE

Negative Determination 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 (19 USC 2273), the Department of Labor herein presents the
results of an investigation regarding certification of eligibility
to apply for worker adjustment assistance.
The investigation was initiated on October 22, 2007, in
response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of
workers of Liberty Fibers Corporation, Lowland, Tennessee. The
workers performed maintenance of a closed facility formerly
producing fiber.
The investigation revealed that the current workers of
Liberty Fibers Corporation in Lowland, Tennessee do not produce
an article within the meaning of Section 222(a)(2) of the Act.
In order to be considered eligible to apply for adjustment
assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, the worker
group seeking certification (or on whose behalf certification is
being sought) must work for a "firm" or appropriate subdivision
that produces an article and there must be a relationship between
the workers' work and the article produced by the workers' firm
or appropriate subdivision. The petitioning maintenance workers
no longer support a firm or appropriate subdivision that produces
an article domestically and thus the worker group can not be
considered import impacted or affected by a shift in production
of an article.
All production at Lowland, Tennesse ceased more than two
years ago. A certification for trade adjustment assistance
benefits applicable to production workers at Lowland, Tennessee
was issued by the Department of Labor on October 21, 2005 and
remained valid until October 21, 2007 (TA-W-58,039).
In addition, in accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of
1974 (26 USC 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor herein
presents the results of its investigation regarding certification
of eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assis-
tance (ATAA) for older workers.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for 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 Liberty Fibers
Corporation, Lowland, Tennessee are denied eligibility to apply
for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of
1974, and are also denied eligibility to apply for alternative
trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of
1974.
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 13th day of November 2007

/s/ Richard Church
______________________________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance







- 8 -