DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-62,659

RICHLOOM HOME FASHIONS
DIVISION OF RICHLOOM FABRICS CORPORATION
CLINTON, SOUTH CAROLINA

Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

On March 27, 2008, the Department issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the
workers and former workers of the subject firm. The notice was
published in the Federal Register on April 24, 2008 (73 FR
22166).
The initial investigation resulted in a negative
determination based on the finding that worker group does not
produce an article within the meaning of Section 222 for the
Trade Act of 1974.
In the request for reconsideration the petitioner stated
that workers of the Sample Department of the subject firm produce
samples of window treatments and bed coverings and requested that
the Department conduct further investigation of the Sample
Department.
On reconsideration, the Department contacted a company
official and requested additional information regarding the
production of samples of window treatments and bed coverings.
The investigation revealed that workers of the Sample Department,
Richloom Home Fashions in Clinton, South Carolina manufacture
samples of window treatments and bed coverings. However, the
investigation also revealed that only one worker was separated
from the Sample Department in 2007 and there was no threat of
future separations.
The subject company did not separate or threaten to separate
a significant number or proportion of workers, as required by
Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. Significant number or
proportion of the workers in a firm or appropriate subdivision
means at least three workers in a workforce of fewer than 50
workers, five percent of the workers in a workforce of over 50
workers, or at least 50 workers. As employment levels at the
subject facility did not decline during the relevant time period
and there was no threat of separations during the relevant
period, criterion (1) has not been met.
Conclusion
After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of
negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Richloom
Home Fashions, division of Richloom Fabrics Corporation, Clinton,
South Carolina.
Signed at Washington, D.C. this 28th day of April, 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-62,659

RICHLOOM HOME FASHIONS
DIVISION OF RICHLOOM FABRICS CORPORATION
CLINTON, SOUTH CAROLINA

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 certification of eligibility
to apply for worker adjustment assistance.
The investigation was initiated on January 10, 2008, in
response to a petition filed on behalf of the workers of Richloom
Home Fashions, division of Richloom Fabrics Corporation, Clinton,
South Carolina. The workers are engaged employment related to
warehousing and distribution of imported window treatments and bed
coverings.
The workers of the subject firm producing window treatments
and bed coverings were certified eligible to apply for adjustment
assistance under petition number TA-W-57,003, issued on May 5,
2005. All workers of Richloom Home Fashions in Clinton, South
Carolina, separated from employment on or after April 13, 2004
through May 5, 2007, were covered by that certification. The
certification was based on increased company imports of window
treatments and bed coverings.
The petitioners, Donna Krantz, Dennis Wallace, and Thomas Heh,
indicated that the basis for seeking certification was a shift in
production by the workers’ firm to China, India and Pakistan;
manufacturing has closed; the office and warehouse remain open; and
that the previous certification has expired.
This petition investigation determined that all production of
window treatments and bed coverings ceased on December 31, 2005.
The majority of workers laid off were covered by the certification
that expired May 5, 2007 (TA-W-57,003). The firm’s sales of
imported window treatments and bed coverings increased from 2006 to
2007.
In order to be certified as eligible to apply for adjustment
assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, the worker
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. Further, certification may be made on one
of three bases: There was an increase in imports (Section
223(a)(2)(A)); there was a shift in production (Section
223(a)(2)(B)); or the workers were adversely affected secondary
workers (Section 223(b)).
The first basis for certification requires, under Section
223(a)(2)(A)(ii), that “imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have
increased.” “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.” Accordingly, the
“representative base period” here was the four quarters running
from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006.
Thus, for there to be increased imports as required by Section
221(a)(2)(A)(ii), imports would have had to increase “compared to”
the period January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006. Further,
Section 221(A)(2)(A)(iii) requires that the increased imports
“contributed importantly . . . to the decline in the sales or
production of” the firm or subdivision. However, since all
production at the workers’ firm ceased on December 31, 2005, prior
to the representative base period, any increase in imports
“compared to” that base period could not have “contributed
importantly . . . to the decline in the sales or production of” the
firm or subdivision. In other words, since production stopped
before the representative base period, any subsequent increase in
imports could not have had any effect whatsoever on the subject
firm’s already stopped production. Accordingly, the petition
cannot be certified under Section 222(a)(2)(A).
Further, the absence of a shift in production by Richloom Home
Fashions during the representative base period precludes
certification on the second basis.
Lastly, the workers cannot be certified as adversely affected
secondary workers, the third basis for certification. A
certification as adversely affected secondary workers requires that
the workers’ firm must, under Section 223(b)(2), be a supplier or
downstream producer to a primary firm. Since Richloom Home
Fashions in Clinton, South Carolina does not produce an article
there is no primary certification on which to rely, and thus, there
is no basis for certification as secondary workers.
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 in the
investigation, I determine all that all workers of Richloom Home
Fashions, division of Richloom Fabrics Corporation, Clinton, South
Carolina, 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 22nd day of February 2008


/s/Linda G. Poole
_____________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance





- 7 -