DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,433

WOLFF FORDING AND COMPANY
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM PARTNERSHIP STAFFING
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

Notice of Negative Determination
After Statutory Reconsideration

As required by the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reauthorization
Act of 2015 (TAARA 2015), which was enacted as Title IV of the
Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law No. 114-27,
section 405(a)(1)(A), the investigation into this petition was
reopened for a reconsideration investigation to apply the
requirements for worker group eligibility under chapter 2 of title
II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the TAARA 2015, to the
facts of this petition (statutory reconsideration).
The initial investigation, initiated July 18, 2014, resulted
in a negative determination, issued on September 9, 2014. The
determination was applicable to workers and former workers of Wolff
Fording and Company, including on-site leased workers from
Partnership Staffing, Richmond, Virginia. The workers are engaged
in activities related to the production of dance apparel and
accessories. The subject worker group includes on-site leased
workers from Partnership Staffing.
Based on information reviewed during the reconsideration
investigation, the Department of Labor determines that the
requirements for certification have not been met.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that imports of articles like or directly
competitive with dance apparel and accessories by Wolff Fording
and Company, including on-site leased workers from Partnership
Staffing, Richmond, Virginia, have not increased.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Wolff Fording and Company did not
shift the production of dance apparel and accessories to a
foreign country or acquire dance apparel and accessories from a
foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Wolff Fording and Company is not a
Supplier 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).
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Wolff Fording and Company does not
act as a Downstream Producer to a firm (or subdivision, whichever
is applicable) 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).
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act, have not been satisfied either because Criterion
(1) has not been met since the workers’ firm has not been publicly
identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a
member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in an
affirmative finding of serious injury, market disruption, or
material injury, or threat thereof.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that the requirements of Section 222 of
the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272, have not been met and, therefore, deny
the petition for group eligibility of Wolff Fording and Company,
including on-site leased workers from Partnership Staffing,
Richmond, Virginia, who were engaged in activities related to the
production of dance apparel and accessories to apply for adjustment
assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. §
2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 11th day of March, 2016


/s/Jessica R. Webster
______________________________
JESSICA R. WEBSTER
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance




DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,433

WOLFF FORDING AND COMPANY
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM PARTNERSHIP STAFFING
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

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 ("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) and
(b) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a) and (b). 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:
(1) The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(1)) requires that 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
(2) 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) imports of articles like or directly competitive with
articles produced by such firm or subdivision have
increased; and
(iii) the increase described in clause (ii) contributed
importantly to such workers' separation or threat of
separation and to the decline in the sales or
production of such firm or subdivision.

(B) Shift in Production Path:
(i) 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
(ii)(I) 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;
(II)the country to which the workers' firm has
shifted production of the articles is a beneficiary
country under the African Growth and Opportunity Act,
or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or
(III)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.

For the Department to issue a secondary worker
certification under Section 222(b) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. §
2272(b), 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 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.

Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), defines the
terms "Supplier" and "Downstream Producer."
The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on July 18, 2014 on behalf of workers of Wolff Fording and
Company, Richmond, Virginia. The workers' firm is engaged in
activities related to the production of dance apparel and
accessories. The worker group includes on-site leased workers
from Partnership Staffing.
The petitioners alleged that they had been operating at a
loss due to competitors changing to offshore production and
that the subject firm was recently purchased by a firm that
intends to send production offshore.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the petitioners and the workers' firm.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift the
production of articles like or directly competitive with dance
apparel and accessories to a foreign country during the period
under investigation. Rather, the investigation confirmed that
no such decision has been made.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(iii), the
investigation revealed that imports of articles like or
directly competitive with the articles produced by Wolff
Fording and Company did not contribute importantly to the
workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline
in sales or production of the subject firm.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the workers' firm is neither a
Supplier nor 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).
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance
(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 Wolff Fording and
Company, including on-site leased workers from Partnership
Staffing, Richmond, Virginia are denied eligibility to apply
for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of
1974, as amended, and are also denied eligibility to apply for
alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the
Trade Act of 1974, amended.

Signed in Washington, D.C. this 9th day of September, 2014.

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