[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 18, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Page 12937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-6408]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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