J & J Forging Inc., Monaca, Pennsylvania; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration [03/18/2003]
Volume 68, Number 52, Page 12937
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-41,893]
J & J Forging Inc., Monaca, Pennsylvania; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application received on October 21, 2002, a petitioner requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative
determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of
the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). The
denial notice applicable to workers of J & J Forging Inc., Monaca,
Pennsylvania was signed on September 11, 2002, and published in the
Federal Register on September 27, 2002 (67 FR 61160).
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 TAA petition was filed on behalf of workers at J & J Forging
Inc., Monaca, Pennsylvania engaged in activities related to processing
steel, titanium and copper alloy materials. The petition was denied
because the petitioning workers did not produce an article within the
meaning of section 222(3) of the Act.
The petitioner alleges that a nearby (unaffiliated) facility that
was certified for TAA benefits produced similar products, and thus
believes that workers at J & J Forging Inc. should be certified.
A review of the products produced for this nearby facility revealed
that some of the production is similar to that performed at the subject
facility. However, the metal processed at the certified facility is
owned by the company, whereas the subject firm performs finishing work
on metal owned by customers of the subject firm. J & J Forging Inc.
does not sell the metal they process and therefore their function is
considered a service.
Only in very limited instances are service workers certified for
TAA, namely the worker separations must be caused by a reduced demand
for their services from a parent or controlling firm or subdivision
whose workers produce an article and who are currently under
certification for TAA.
The petitioner also appears to assert that the results of the
events of 9/11 increased the import impact on subject firm workers.
As the work done at the subject facility is not considered
production, import impact is not relevant.
In conclusion, the workers at the subject firm did not produce an
article within the meaning of section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974.
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, DC, this 27th day of February, 2003.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-6408 Filed 3-17-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
|
