DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-91,882

SPX FLOW, INC.
FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPX FLOW TECHNOLOGY
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM ADECCO, MANPOWER,
SGF GLOBAL, REMEDY STAFFING, AND SUPERIOR TALENT RESOURCES
MCKEAN, PENNSYLVANIA

Notice of Revised Determination
on Reconsideration

On February 2, 2017, the Department of Labor issued an
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
for the workers and former workers of SPX FLOW, Inc., formerly
known as SPX Flow Technology, including on-site leased workers
from Adecco, Manpower, SGF Global, Remedy Staffing, and Superior
Talent Resources, McKean, Pennsylvania (TA-W-91,882), (herein
referred to as “SPX FLOW, Inc.”) has yet to be published in the
Federal Register. The firm is engaged in activities related to
the production of valves and desuperheaters, and supporting
aftermarket components.
To support the request for reconsideration, the petitioner
supplied additional information regarding the firms’ activities and
manufacturing locations.
Based on the new information supplied by the firm and provided
by the petitioner during the reconsideration investigation, the
Department of Labor determines that a shift in production of
activities related to the production of valves and desuperheaters,
and supporting aftermarket components has contributed importantly
to the worker separations at the subject firm.
Conclusion
After careful review of the additional facts obtained on
reconsideration, I determine that workers of SPX FLOW, Inc.,
formerly known as SPX Flow Technology, including on-site leased
workers from Adecco, Manpower, SGF Global, Remedy Staffing, and
Superior Talent Resources, McKean, Pennsylvania who were engaged
in activities related to production of valves and desuperheaters,
and supporting aftermarket components, meet the worker group
certification criteria under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. §
2272(a). In accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. §
2273, I make the following certification:

"All workers of SPX FLOW, Inc., formerly known as SPX Flow
Technology, including on-site leased workers from Adecco,
Manpower, SGF Global, Remedy Staffing, and Superior Talent
Resources, McKean, Pennsylvania, who became totally or
partially separated from employment on or after June 6, 2015,
through two years from the date of this certification, and all
workers in the group threatened with total or partial
separation from employment on date of certification through
two years from the date of certification, are eligible to
apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of
the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.”

Signed in Washington, D.C., this 10th day of March, 2017.


/s/Hope D. Kinglock
______________________________
HOPE D. KINGLOCK
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance




U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-91,882

SPX FLOW, INC.
FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPX FLOW TECHNOLOGY
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM ADECCO, MANPOWER,
SGF GLOBAL, REMEDY STAFFING, AND SUPERIOR TALENT RESOURCES
MCKEAN, PENNSYLVANIA

Notice of Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated January 18, 2017, filed by worker(s)
requested administrative reconsideration of the negative
determination regarding workers’ eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance applicable to workers and former workers of
SPX FLOW, Inc., formerly known as SPX Flow Technology, including
on-site leased workers from Adecco, Manpower, SGF Global, Remedy
Staffing, and Superior Talent Resources, McKean, Pennsylvania.
The determination was issued on December 29, 2016 and the Notice of
Determination has not yet been published in the Federal Register.
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
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified
reconsideration of the decision.
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination
based on the findings that no shift in production to a foreign
country, no increase in imports, no acquisition from a foreign
country, not names within an International Trade Commission final
determination, and not qualifying as a secondary worker.
The request for reconsideration asserts that the subject firm
has locations in foreign countries and that foreign trade did
result in layoffs at the subject firm. The request for
reconsideration furthermore alleges that the worker group was not
accurately identified.
The Department of Labor has carefully reviewed the request for
reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that
the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if
the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of
1974.

Conclusion
After careful review of the application, I conclude that the
claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the
U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is,
therefore, granted.

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 2nd day of February, 2017.


/s/Hope D. Kinglock
_________________________
HOPE D. KINGLOCK
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance



DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-91,882

SPX FLOW, INC.
FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPX FLOW TECHNOLOGY
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM ADECCO, MANPOWER,
SGF GLOBAL, REMEDY STAFFING, AND SUPERIOR TALENT RESOURCES
MCKEAN, PENNSYLVANIA

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), (b)
or (e) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (b) and
(e). 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 criteria must be met:
(1) The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(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.

(2) 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; AND
(iii) the increase in imports described in clause (ii)
contributed importantly to such workers' separation
or threat of separation and to the decline in the
sales or production of such firm.

(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
(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; and
(ii) the shift described in clause (i)(I) or the
acquisition of articles or services described in
clause (i)(II) contributed importantly to such
workers' separation or threat of separation.

For the Department to issue a secondary worker
certification under Section 222(b) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. §
2272(b), 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.

Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), defines the
terms "Supplier" and "Downstream Producer."
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(e) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(e).
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm
under Section 222(e) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(e), 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), the 1-year
period preceding the 1-year period described in
paragraph (2).

The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on June 7, 2016 on behalf of workers of SPX FLOW, Inc.,
formerly known as SPX Flow Technology, including on-site
leased workers from Adecco, Manpower, SGF Global, Remedy
Staffing, and Superior Talent Resources, McKean, Pennsylvania
(herein referred to as "SPX FLOW, Inc."). Although the
petition document included two locations, further investigation
revealed that the workers at McKean, Pennsylvania location are
the subject of this investigation. The workers' firm is engaged
in activities related to the production of valves and
desuperheaters, and supporting aftermarket components (herein
known as "articles"). The subject worker group is engaged in
activities related to the supply of sales, engineering, and
contracting services in support of global production.
The petitioner alleges that work was outsourced to China.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the petitioner, the workers' firm, and the
major declining customer(s) of the workers' firm.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that SPX FLOW, Inc. did not import
sales, engineering, or contracting services in support of
global production like or directly competitive to what SPX
FLOW, Inc. supplies. Furthermore, the major declining
customer(s) of the workers' firm did not import articles like
or directly competitive with the articles produced by the
workers' firm. Additionally, the customer(s) did not
incorporate articles produced by SPX FLOW, Inc. within their
domestic operation.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that SPX FLOW, Inc. did not shift the
supply of sales, engineering, and/or contracting services in
support of global production to a foreign country or acquire
sales, engineering, and/or contracting services in support of
global production from a foreign country. Furthermore, shifts
in production to a foreign country and/or acquisitions of
articles from a foreign country of articles like or directly
competitive to what is produced by the workers' firm, as
alleged by the petitioner, were supported/services supplied by
workers of SPX FLOW, Inc., and would therefore not contribute
importantly to worker separations at SPX FLOW, Inc.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that SPX FLOW, Inc. is not a Supplier
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).
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that SPX FLOW, Inc. does not act as a
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).
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act, have not been satisfied either because
Criterion (1) has not been met since the workers' firm has not
been publicly identified by name by the International Trade
Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an
investigation resulting in an affirmative finding of serious
injury, market disruption, or material injury, or threat
thereof.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that the requirements of Section 222
of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272, have not been met and, therefore,
deny the petition for group eligibility of SPX FLOW, Inc.,
formerly known as SPX Flow Technology, including on-site
leased workers from Adecco, Manpower, SGF Global, Remedy
Staffing, and Superior Talent Resources, McKean, Pennsylvania
engaged in activities related to the supply of sales,
engineering, and contracting services to apply for adjustment
assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
§ 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 29th day of December 2016.

/s/Hope D. Kinglock
______________________________
HOPE D. KINGLOCK
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance