DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-54,974

TARKETT, INC.
WHITEHALL, PENNSYLVANIA


Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By letter of August 4, 2004, the 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) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA). The negative determination was signed on June 16, 2004.
Department’s Notice of determination was published in the Federal
Register on July 7, 2004 (69 FR 40983).
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 initial petition was denied because the subject worker
group did not produce an article within the meaning of Section
222(3) of the Act. The Department determined that the workers
sold imported sheet vinyl flooring and provided administrative
and information technology (IT) support for the sales team.
Information supplied in the initial investigation indicate
that production of sheet vinyl flooring at the subject facility
ceased completely in 1999, that sheet vinyl flooring has not been
made domestically since 1999, and that workers at the subject
facility are engaged in the sale of sheet vinyl flooring produced
entirely in Canada. The investigation also revealed that sales,
marketing, and customer service functions are being performed at
the subject facility, and that certain sales and IT positions
moved to Canada.
The petitioner alleges that their job functions are being
performed by workers at an affiliated Canadian facility. The
petitioner infers that the same circumstances that supported a
previous certification for the subject firm (TA-W-39,469; signed
July 31, 2001) should support the current application.
The petitioner also alleges that the subject worker group
supports an affiliated, TAA-certified facility (Tarkett, Inc.,
Newburgh, New York; signed March 24, 2003; TA-W-50,982). The
petitioner further alleges that the closing of the New York site
contributed to worker separations at the subject facility.


The petitioner has not presented any new facts or made any
allegation that facts used in determining TAA eligibility were
erroneous or that there was a misinterpretation of facts. Thus,
the Department reaffirms the determination that the workers at
the subject firm do 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 26th day of August 2004.
/s/ Elliott S. Kushner

_______________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance