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 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, D.C., this 27th day of February, 2003.
/s/ Edward A. Tomchick


EDWARD A. TOMCHICK
Director, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance