[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 72 (Tuesday, April 15, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18263-18264]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-9148]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-50,059]


Flowserve, Williamsport, PA; 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

[[Page 18264]]

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, DC this 8th day of April, 2003.
Edward A. Tomchick
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-9148 Filed 4-14-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P