DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-75,135

FLOWSERVE CORPORATION
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO

Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

On April 6, 2011, the Department of Labor (Department) issued
an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for
Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of Flowserve
Corporation, Albuquerque, New Mexico (subject firm). The Notice was
published in the Federal Register on April 14, 2011 (76 FR 21040).
Workers at the subject firm manufactured industrial pumps. The
petitioner (a State of New Mexico workforce agent) alleged that the
subject firm shifted production to a foreign country.
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 investigation resulted in a negative determination
based on the findings that Section 222(a) of the Trade Act of 1974,
as amended, was not met because no workers were totally or
partially separated, or threatened with such separation, during the
one year period before the petition date (January 21, 2011).
In request for reconsideration, the State of New Mexico
workforce agent asserted that “at least 4 workers were separated
during the one year period prior to the petition date” and provided
four support documents (“Separation Agreement and Release” related
to Louis Reynolds; “Notice to Employees” which is part of the
“Separation Agreement and Release”; “Signatures” which is part of
the “Separation Agreement and Release”; and “Support
Documentation”) provided by Louis Reynolds.
The “Separation Agreement and Release” document established
that Louis Reynolds was separated from employment with Flowserve
Corporation (Flowserve) on January 25, 2011.
The “Notice to Employees” document identifies four individuals
in the “Charlotte, NC facility” selected for separation and has a
handwritten note that Louis Reynolds is one of the individuals.
The “Signatures” document shows that Louis Reynolds signed the
“Separation Agreement and Release” on March 4, 2010.
The fourth document is a narrative by Mr. Reynolds about the
closure of the Albuquerque, New Mexico facility on March 31, 2009;
his reassignment to Vernon, California in October 2009; his weekly
commute to and from Albuquerque, New Mexico and Vernon, California
during October 2009 through January 2010; and his separation from
employment with Flowserve on January 25, 2010.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
contacted the State of New Mexico workforce agent who filed both
the petition and the request for reconsideration for clarification.
The Department also contacted Flowserve for clarification of
previously-submitted information and additional information.
The State of New Mexico workforce agent confirmed that his
intent in filing the Trade Adjustment Assistance petition and the
request for reconsideration was to assist Mr. Reynolds.
Flowserve confirmed that production at the Albuquerque, New
Mexico facility ceased in May 2009, that all production employees
were separated in July 2009, and that all non-production employees
were reassigned to the Vernon, California facility during August-
September 2009. Flowserve also confirmed that by January 2010,
there were no workers at the Albuquerque, New Mexico facility.
Flowserve also clarified that although Mr. Reynolds was
reassigned from Albuquerque, New Mexico to Charlotte, North
Carolina in June 2009, he assisted with the closure of the New
Mexico facility until the end of July 2009 and worked at Vernon,
California from August 2009 until he was separated from Flowserve.
The reconsideration investigation also confirmed that neither
the Vernon, California facility nor the Charlotte, North Carolina
facility of Flowserve employed workers who are eligible to apply
for Trade Adjustment Assistance.
After a careful review of previously-submitted information and
additional information obtained by the Department during the
reconsideration investigation, the Department determines that
there was no worker group at Flowserve Corporation, Albuquerque,
New Mexico during the investigation period. Therefore, no workers
were totally or partially separated from employment at Flowserve
Corporation, Albuquerque, New Mexico, or threatened with such
separation. Further, the Department determines that there was no
mistake in fact and no misinterpretation of the facts or the law.
Conclusion
After careful consideration of the administrative record, I
affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility
to apply for worker adjustment assistance for workers and former
workers of Flowserve Corporation, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Signed in Washington, D.C, on this 12th day of August, 2011
/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
_______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-FN-P


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-75,135

FLOWSERVE CORPORATION
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO

Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. § 2273, the Department of Labor herein
presents the results of an investigation regarding certification of
eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance.
Workers of a firm may be eligible for worker adjustment
assistance if they satisfy the criteria of subsection (a), (c) or
(f) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (c), (f). For
the Department of Labor to issue a certification for workers under
Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), the following three
criteria must be met:
I. The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2282(a)(1)) requires that a significant
number or proportion of the workers in the workers’ firm must
have become totally or partially separated or be threatened
with total or partial separation.

II. The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied in one of two
ways:
(A) Increased Imports Path:
(i) sales or production, or both, at the workers’ firm must
have decreased absolutely, AND
(ii) (I) imports of articles or services like or directly
competitive with articles or services produced or
supplied by the workers’ firm have increased, OR
(II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles into which the component
part produced by the workers’ firm was directly
incorporated have increased; OR
(II)(bb) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles which are produced
directly using the services supplied by the
workers’ firm have increased; OR
(III) imports of articles directly incorporating
component parts not produced in the U.S. that are
like or directly competitive with the article into
which the component part produced by the workers’
firm was directly incorporated have increased.

(B) Shift in Production or Supply Path:
(i)(I) there has been a shift by the workers’ firm to a
foreign country in the production of articles or supply
of services like or directly competitive with those
produced/supplied by the workers’ firm; OR
(i)(II) there has been an acquisition from a foreign country
by the workers’ firm of articles/services that are like
or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by
the workers’ firm.

III. The third criterion requires that the increase in imports or
shift/acquisition must have contributed importantly to the
workers’ separation or threat of separation. See Sections
222(a)(2)(A)(iii) and 222(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
§§ 2272(a)(2)(A)(iii), 2272(a)(2)(B)(ii).

Section 222(d) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(d), defines the
terms “Supplier” and “Downstream Producer.” For the Department to
issue a secondary worker certification under Section 222(c) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), to workers of a Supplier or a Downstream
Producer, the following criteria must be met:
(1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in the
workers’ firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm
have become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated;

(2) the workers’ firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer to
a firm that employed a group of workers who received a
certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), and such supply or production
is related to the article or service that was the basis
for such certification; and

(3) either
(A) the workers’ firm is a supplier and the component parts
it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2)
accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or
sales of the workers’ firm; or
(B) a loss of business by the workers’ firm with the firm
described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the
workers’ separation or threat of separation.

Workers of a firm may also be considered eligible if they
are publicly identified by name by the International Trade
Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation
resulting in a category of determination that is listed in
Section 222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f).
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm under
Section 222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), can be satisfied if
the following criteria are met:
(1) the workers’ firm is publicly identified by name by the
International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic
industry in an investigation resulting in--
(A) an affirmative determination of serious injury or
threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) an affirmative determination of market disruption
or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) an affirmative final determination of material
injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A)
or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A));
(2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning
on the date on which--
(A) a summary of the report submitted to the President
by the International Trade Commission under section
202(f)(1) with respect to the affirmative
determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is
published in the Federal Register under section
202(f)(3); or
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described in
subparagraph (1) is published in the Federal
Register; and
(3) the workers have become totally or partially
separated from the workers’ firm within--
(A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year
period preceding the 1-year period described in
paragraph (2).

The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on January 25, 2011 by a New Mexico state workforce
official on behalf of workers of Flowserve Corporation,
Albuquerque, New Mexico. The workers manufactured industrial
pumps.
The petitioner alleges that the firm has shifted production
of industrial pumps to a foreign country. The investigation
included analysis of data provided by a company official.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that Criterion I has not been met because no workers
were totally or partially separated during the one year period
before the petition date, and no separations are threatened.
Rather, all of the worker separations occurred more than one year
before the petition date.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that Criterion (1) has not been met because no workers
were totally or partially separated during the one year period
before the petition date, and no separations are threatened.
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), have not been satisfied
because the workers’ firm has not been identified in an affirmative
finding of injury by the International Trade Commission.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that workers of Flowserve Corporation,
Albuquerque, New Mexico are denied eligibility to apply for
adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. §
2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 28th day of February, 2011


/s/Michael W. Jaffe
______________________________
MICHAEL W. JAFFE
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance




- 9 -