[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 100 (Monday, May 24, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29580-29581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-11626]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-53,939]


Tippins, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA; Notice of Negative Determination 
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of March 15, 2004, petitioners requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of 
the subject firm to apply for

[[Page 29581]]

Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). The denial notice was signed on 
February 12, 2004 and published in the Federal Register on March 12, 
2004 (69 FR 11888).
    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, filed on behalf of workers at Tippins, Inc., 
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania engaged in the refurbishing of steel and 
aluminum rolling mill machinery was denied because the ``contributed 
importantly'' group eligibility requirement of section 222(3) of the 
Trade Act of 1974, was not met. The ``contributed importantly'' test is 
generally demonstrated through a survey of the workers' firm's domestic 
customers. The Department conducted a survey of domestic entities to 
which the subject firm submitted bids in 2001, 2002, and 2003. The 
survey revealed that none of these companies awarded contracts to 
foreign sources during the relevant period. The subject firm did not 
increase its reliance on imports during the relevant period, nor did 
they shift production to a foreign source.
    The petitioner alleges that in recent years all of Tippins' 
competitors became foreign firms and thus, any jobs Tippins lost should 
be considered as a loss to foreign competition.
    Upon the initial investigation, the subject firm provided a list of 
lost bids during the relevant time period. As established in the 
initial investigation, the majority of these bids were for contracts on 
work to be done abroad. The loss of such bids could not therefore be 
attributed to imports and is irrelevant in this investigation. The 
subject firm also provided a major lost bid with a domestic contractor. 
It was revealed upon the contact with this entity, that the contract 
was awarded to another domestic firm.

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 7th day of May, 2004.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 04-11626 Filed 5-21-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P