DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-70,783

T&S HARDWOODS, INC.
SYLVA, NORTH CAROLINA

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated January 5, 2010, a petitioner requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative
determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the
subject firm. The denial notice was signed on December 9, 2009
and will soon be published in the Federal Register.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) 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.
The initial investigation resulted in a negative
determination, based on the finding that imports of hardwood
lumber did not contribute to worker separations at the subject
facility and there was no shift in production from the subject
firm to foreign country during the period under investigation.
The petitioner stated that the workers of the subject firm
should be eligible for TAA because the worker separations were
caused by “increase in foreign imports, and/or a shift in
production and/or services to foreign countries.” The petitioner
did not supply any additional facts or documentation to support
the allegations.
The initial investigation revealed that worker separations
at the subject facility were not caused by increased imports of
hardwood lumber into the United States nor by a shift in
production of hardwood lumber from the subject facility to a
foreign country. T&S Hardwoods, Inc. did not import hardwood
lumber and did not shift production abroad. The Department
surveyed subject firm’s major declining customers regarding their
purchases of hardwood lumber in 2007, 2008, January through April
2008 and January through April 2009. The survey revealed no
imports of hardwood lumber during the relevant period.
The petitioner did not supply facts not previously
considered; nor provide additional documentation indicating that
there was either 1) a mistake in the determination of facts not
previously considered or 2) a misinterpretation of facts or of
the law justifying reconsideration of the initial determination.
After careful review of the request for reconsideration, the
Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.
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 in Washington, D.C., this 21st day of January, 2010

/S/ Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance

4510-FN-P


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-70,783

T&S HARDWOODS INC.
SYLVA, NORTH CAROLINA

Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. § 2273, the Department of Labor herein
presents the results of an investigation regarding certification of
eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance.
Workers of a firm may be eligible for worker adjustment
assistance if they satisfy the criteria of subsection (a), (c) or
(f) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (c), (f). For
the Department of Labor to issue a certification for workers under
Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), the following three
criteria must be met:
I. The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2282(a)(1)) requires that a significant
number or proportion of the workers in the workers’ firm must
have become totally or partially separated or be threatened
with total or partial separation.

II. The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied in one of two
ways:
(A) Increased Imports Path:
(i) sales or production, or both, at the workers’ firm must
have decreased absolutely, AND
(ii) (I) imports of articles or services like or directly
competitive with articles or services produced or
supplied by the workers’ firm have increased, OR
(II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles into which the component
part produced by the workers’ firm was directly
incorporated have increased; OR
(II)(bb) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles which are produced
directly using the services supplied by the
workers’ firm have increased; OR
(III) imports of articles directly incorporating
component parts not produced in the U.S. that are
like or directly competitive with the article into
which the component part produced by the workers’
firm was directly incorporated have increased.

(B) Shift in Production or Supply Path:
(i)(I) there has been a shift by the workers’ firm to a
foreign country in the production of articles or supply
of services like or directly competitive with those
produced/supplied by the workers’ firm; OR
(i)(II) there has been an acquisition from a foreign country
by the workers’ firm of articles/services that are like
or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by
the workers’ firm.

III. The third criterion requires that the increase in imports or
shift/acquisition must have contributed importantly to the
workers’ separation or threat of separation. See Sections
222(a)(2)(A)(iii) and 222(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
§§ 2272(a)(2)(A)(iii), 2272(a)(2)(B)(ii).

Section 222(d) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(d), defines the
terms “Supplier“ and “Downstream Producer.“ For the Department to
issue a secondary worker certification under Section 222(c) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), to workers of a Supplier or a Downstream
Producer, the following criteria 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 is a Supplier or Downstream Producer to
a firm that employed a group of workers who received a
certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), and such supply or production
is related to the article or service that was the basis
for such certification; and

(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.

The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on May 29, 2009 on behalf of workers of T&S Hardwoods Inc.,
Sylva, North Carolina. The workers produce hardwood lumber for
the furniture industry. The petitioners claim that Chinese
producers are using wood from South America to produce furniture.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that criterion II and III were not met. The subject
firm did not import articles like or directly competitive with
the hardwood lumber produced by the workers in 2007, 2008, or in
January through April 2009 nor did the workers’ firm shift
production of hardwood lumber abroad during the relevant period.
The Department also analyzed data provided by the firm’s
major declining customers regarding purchases of hardwood lumber
for 2007, 2008, and January through April 2009. The customers
indicated no direct or indirect imports of hardwood lumber during
the relevant period. Thus, the investigation revealed that
neither increased imports nor a shift in production by T&S
Hardwoods, Inc. contributed importantly to worker separations at
the Sylva, North Carolina facility.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that criterion II has not been met. The workers’ firm is
not a supplier or downstream producer to a firm with a TAA-
certified worker group.
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), have not been satisfied
because the workers’ firm has not been identified in an affirmative
finding of injury by the ITC.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that workers of T&S Hardwoods Inc.,
Sylva, North Carolina who produce hardwood lumber are denied
eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of
the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 9th day of December, 2009


/s/Michael W. Jaffe
______________________________
MICHAEL W. JAFFE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance





- 7 -