DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-50,059

FLOWSERVE
WILLIAMSPORT, PENNSYLVANIA

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application of March 18, 2003, petitioners requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative
determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the
subject firm. The denial notice was signed on February 19, 2003,
and published in the Federal Register on March 10, 2003 (68 FR
11409).
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 petition for the workers of Flowserve, Williamsport,
Pennsylvania was denied because the “contributed importantly”
group eligibility requirement of Section 222(3) of the Trade Act
of 1974, as amended, was not met.
The petitioners allege that they are import impacted because
their company’s contract with a foreign customer “specifies that
50% of the contract work will be done at (foreign) facilities.”
Further, the petitioners note that Flowserve is required to buy
valves and materials from foreign vendors and re-sell them to
their foreign customer “thus taking work away from Williamsport.”
Contact with a company official confirmed that all
production for this customer was exclusively for export purposes.
As trade adjustment assistance is concerned exclusively with
whether imports impact layoffs of petitioning worker groups, the
above-mentioned allegations regarding agreements between the
subject firm and their foreign customer base are irrelevant.
The petitioners list several Flowserve affiliates that have
been certified for trade adjustment assistance due to import
impact, and suggest that, as a result, the petitioning worker
group should be equally eligible.
In fact, all of the facilities listed by the petitioners
were certified due to increased imports from the company of
products like or directly competitive with those produced at the
certified facilities. In the case of the subject firm, sales and
production were relatively stable during the investigative period
and any declines immediately prior to plant closure corresponded
with a shift of production to an affiliated domestic facility.
There was no evidence of import impact; as has been established
above, the only foreign production impact allegations did not
concern imports.
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 8th day of April, 2003

/s/ Edward A. Tomchick

EDWARD A. TOMCHICK
Director, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance