DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-53,939

TIPPINS, INC.
PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA

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 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, D.C., this 7th day of May, 2004.

/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
_______________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance