DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-62,655

WARP PROCESSING CO., INC.
EXETER, PENNSYLVANIA

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated March 14, 2008, several workers
requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's
negative determination regarding the eligibility for workers and
former workers of Warp Processing Co., Inc., Exeter, Pennsylvania
(the subject firm) to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA)
and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). The negative
determination was issued on February 19, 2008. The Department’s
Notice of negative determination was published in the Federal
Register on March 7, 2008 (73 FR 12466). The subject workers are
engaged in the activity of warping (placing onto beams) synthetic
fibers made of nylon and polyester for the textile industry.
The TAA/ATAA petition was denied based on the Department’s
findings that the subject firm did not import warped synthetic
fibers or shift production to a foreign country, and that the
subject firm did not supply a component part to a manufacturing
company with an existing primary TAA certification.
The workers stated in the request for reconsideration that
the subject firm supplies “customers with warped synthetic fibers
and then our customers weave it into fabric and material and
produce the finished product” and “is secondarily affected.” The
workers further stated that “we know that the other countries are
not importing them on beams but they are importing fabric and
other finished product.” The workers also alleged that Brawer
Brothers is not the subject firm’s only customer and that the
subject firm’s largest customer is Highland Industries.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c), administrative 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.
After careful review of the request for reconsideration, the
support documentation, and previously submitted materials, the
Department determines that there is no new information that
supports a finding that Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974 was
satisfied and that no mistake or misinterpretation of the facts
or of the law with regards to the subject workers’ eligibility to
apply for TAA.
The initial investigation revealed that, during the relevant
period, the subject firm did not conduct business with Highland
Industries and that the subject firm’s only customer was Brawer
Brothers. In addition to investigating whether the subject firm
increased its imports of warped synthetic fabric, the Department
had conducted a survey of not only Brawer Brothers but also its
customers regarding their imports of articles like or directly
competitive with the warped synthetic fabric produced by the
subject workers. The surveys revealed no increased imports.
The three TAA-certified companies referenced in the request
for reconsideration are Native Textiles, Inc. (TA-W-58,587 and
TA-W-58,587A; certification expired February 15, 2008); Cortina
Fabrics (TA-W-52,973; certification expired November 3, 2005);
and Guilford Mills, Inc. (TA-W-39,921; certification expired May
15, 2004). Because the certifications for Cortina Fabrics and
Guilford Mills, Inc. expired prior to the relevant period, facts
which were the basis for the certification applicable to workers
covered by that petition cannot be a basis for certification for
workers covered by this petition.
Although the TAA certification for Native Textiles did not
expire prior to the relevant period, it is irrelevant because the
subject firm did not conduct business with that company during
the relevant period and because warped synthetic fiber is not a
component part of the warp knit synthetic tricot fabric produced
by Native Textiles.
Conclusion
After review of the application and investigative findings,
I conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of
the law or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of
the Department of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the
application is denied.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 18th 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-62,655

WARP PROCESSING CO., INC.
EXETER, PENNSYLVANIA

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 (19 USC 2273), the Department of Labor herein presents the
results of an investigation regarding primary certification of
eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance. The group
eligibility requirements for directly-impacted (primary) workers
under Section 222(a) the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, can be
satisfied in either of two ways:
I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied:
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;

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



II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied:

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;

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;

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.

The investigation was initiated on January 10, 2008 in
response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of
workers of Warp Processing Co., Inc., Exeter, Pennsylvania. The
workers of the subject facility warped synthetic fibers made of
nylon and polyester. Warping is a process by which yarn is placed
onto beams for the textile industry.
Workers of the subject facility were recently denied
eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance on
August 6, 2007, under petition number TA-W-61,820.
This investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C) and
(a)(2)(B)(II.B) have not been met.
The facts obtained in the previous investigation have not
changed.
The subject firm did not import warped synthetic fibers, nor
did it shift production abroad in 2005, 2006, or 2007.
The Department of Labor surveyed declining customers regarding
their purchases of warped synthetic fibers made of nylon and
polyester. The customers indicated no imports during the above
noted relevant period.
An investigation also was conducted in order to determine
whether the petitioning group of workers qualifies as adversely
affected secondary workers as suppliers of component parts to a
firm or subdivision primarily and affected by increased imports or
a shift of production abroad.
In order to make an affirmative determination and issue a
certification of eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance,
the following group eligibility requirements under Section 222(b)
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 (or subdivision) is a supplier or
downstream producer to a firm (or subdivision) that
employed a group of workers who received a certification
of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance
benefits 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 for the firm (or subdivision) 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
(or subdivision) described in paragraph (2) contributed
importantly to the workers’ separation or threat of
separation.

The investigation revealed that criterion 3 has not been met.
Petitioners allege that job losses were due to their firm
losing business as a supplier firm, producing components for trade
certified firms. The investigation revealed the subject firm did
supply component parts utilized by customers engaged in textile
manufacturing; however, workers at these textile manufacturing
firms have not received a primary certification making them
eligible to apply for adjustment assistance.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
USC 2273), as amended, the Department of Labor herein presents the
results of an investigation regarding certification of eligibility
to apply for worker adjustment assistance as an adversely affected
secondary group.
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 assistance
(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 during this
investigation, I determine that workers of Warp Processing Co.,
Inc., Exeter, Pennsylvania, 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 19th day of February 2008


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






- 9 -