Liberty Fibers Corporation, Lowland, TN; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration, 14272-14273 [E8-5227]
Download as PDF
14272
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 52 / Monday, March 17, 2008 / Notices
Signed at Washington, DC this 6th day of
March 2008.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8–5226 Filed 3–14–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–62,333]
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Liberty Fibers Corporation, Lowland,
TN; 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The petition was withdrawn on August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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 Mar 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
workers no longer support a firm or
appropriate subdivision that produces
an article domestically, and, thus, the
subject worker group cannot 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
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM
17MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 52 / Monday, March 17, 2008 / Notices
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
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 TAAcertified 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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 Mar 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
Signed at Washington, DC, this 7th day of
March 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8–5227 Filed 3–14–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–62,893]
Sylmark, Inc., Los Angeles, CA; Notice
of Termination of Investigation
In accordance with section 221 of the
Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on February
25, 2008 in response to a petition filed
by a California State Workforce Office
on behalf of workers of Sylmark, Inc.,
Los Angeles, California.
The petitioner has requested that the
petition be withdrawn. Consequently,
the investigation has been terminated.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 6th day of
March, 2008.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8–5224 Filed 3–14–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
Sunshine Act Meetings of the Board of
Directors and One of its Committees
Time and Date: The Legal Services
Corporation (‘‘LSC’’) Board of Directors
(‘‘Board’’) and its 2008 Ad Hoc
Committee will meet on March 24, 2008
via conference call. The meetings will
occur in the order set forth in the
following schedule, with the second
meeting commencing immediately after
adjournment of the first.
MEETING SCHEDULE 1
Monday, March 24,
2008
1. 2008 Ad Hoc Committee.
2. Board of Directors
Time
4:30 p.m.
(Follows Immediately).
1 Please note that the times in this notice
are Eastern Daylight Saving Time.
LOCATION: 3333 K Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20007, 3rd Floor
Conference Center.
STATUS OF MEETINGS: Open. Directors
will participate by telephone conference
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
14273
in such a manner as to enable interested
members of the public to hear and
identify all persons participating in the
meeting. Members of the public wishing
to observe the meeting may do so by
joining participating staff at the location
indicated above. Members of the public
wishing to listen to the meeting by
telephone should call 1–800–857–4830
and enter 34309 on the key pad when
prompted. To enhance the quality of
your listening experience as well as that
of others, and to eliminate background
noises that interfere with the audio
recording of the proceeding, please
mute your telephone during the
meeting.
2008 AD HOC Committee
Agenda
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1. Consider and act on adoption of
agenda.
2. Consider and act on
recommendations to make to the Board
of Directors regarding proposed
responses to recommendations made by
the Government Accountability Office
in its report on LSC’s grants
management.
3. Consider and act on whether to
recommend to the Board of Directors
that it establish an Audit Committee
and, if so, to adopt a draft charter to
recommend to the Board for such Audit
Committee.
4. Consider and act on other business.
5. Consider and act on motion to
adjourn the meeting.
Board of Directors
Agenda
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1. Report of 2008 Ad Hoc Committee.
2. Consider and act on
recommendations of the 2008 Ad Hoc
Committee.
3. Consider and act on LSC Ethics and
Compliance Code and designation of
Ethics Officer(s).
4. Consider and act on dissolution of
2007 Search Committee for LSC
Inspector General.
5. Consider and act on other business.
6. Consider and act on motion to
adjourn the meeting
CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION:
Patricia Batie, Manager of Board
Operations, at (202) 295–1500.
SPECIAL NEEDS: Upon request, meeting
notices will be made available in
alternate formats to accommodate visual
and hearing impairments. Individuals
who have a disability and need an
accommodation to attend the meeting
may notify Patricia Batie at (202) 295–
1500.
E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM
17MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 52 (Monday, March 17, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14272-14273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-5227]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-62,333]
Liberty Fibers Corporation, Lowland, TN; 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 cannot 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
[[Page 14273]]
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, DC, this 7th day of March 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-5227 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P