[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 148 (Tuesday, August 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46988-46989]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-19404]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[NAFTA-3854]


Chevron Products Company, Roosevelt, UT Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application transmitted May 25, 2000, the petitioners request 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's denial of TA-W-
37,240, TA-W-36,295I, and North American Free Trade Agreement-
Transitional Adjustment Assistant (NAFTA-TAA). The NAFTA-TAA petition 
number was not provided.
    At an earlier date, the same petitioners filed application for 
reconsideration of the Department's denial of Trade Adjustment 
Assistance (TAA) for workers of Chevron Products Company, Roosevelt, 
Utah, TA-W-37,240, and were notified that their was dismissed. The 
dismissal notice, dated March 29, 2000, was published in the Federal 
Register on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19387). With respect to TA-W-36,295I, 
the petition is a certification issued on July 6, 1999, applicable to 
workers of Chevron Production, Chevron USA, Inc., all locations in 
Utah. Since the petitioners in this case are not employees of that 
company, there is no basis to reexamine the findings of that 
investigation.
    The only petition that the Department may consider under the May 
25, 2000 appeal, is the denial of NAFTA-TAA for workers and former 
workers of Chevron Products Company, Roosevelt, Utah (NAFTA-3854), 
signed on April 24, 2000, and published in the Federal Register on May 
11, 2000 (65 FR 30444).
    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;

[[Page 46989]]

    (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 petitioners explain that the low price of imported crude oil 
forced U.S. producers to reduce activity which contributed to a loss of 
demand by oil producers for gaugers, and thus, worker separations at 
the subject firm. The petitioners also cite an increase in Canadian 
crude imports, including imports by Chevron, to replace lost production 
in the local area.
    The petition investigation conducted on behalf of workers at 
Chevron Products Company in Roosevelt, Utah, revealed that there were 
no company imports of crude oil.
    The petitioners state that other trucking and non-producing 
entities have been certified for TAA. That is not relevant to worker 
groups applying for NAFTA-TAA eligibility.
    The Department's denial of NAFTA-TAA for workers engaged in lifting 
and transporting crude oil at Chevron Products Company, Roosevelt, 
Utah, NAFTA-3854, was based on the finding that the worker group 
provided a service and did not produce an article within the meaning of 
Section 250(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. As explained in 
the decision document for NAFTA-3854, eligibility requirement criteria 
under which service workers could be certified under the Trade Act were 
not met for the petitioning worker group. There were no NAFTA-TAA 
certifications in effect for workers of Chevron Products Company. Other 
findings of the investigation, not elaborated on in the decision 
document, show that the subject firm workers lifted and transported 
crude oil that was primarily purchased from unaffiliated firms.
    The petitioners add that the Department's negative determination 
was premature because Utah had not issued their preliminary findings of 
the investigation. The Department had all of the information necessary 
(from the investigation conducted in response to the TAA petition for 
the same worker group), with which to determine if the group 
eligibility criteria under paragraph (a)(1) of Section 250 of the Trade 
Act of 1974 were met.
    The petitioners state that the individual issuing denials of worker 
group eligibility should not be reviewing appeals. The response is that 
there is no provision in the Federal Regulations for any other means of 
administrative reconsideration. The appeal process described in 29 CFR 
Sec. 90.18, affords the worker group the opportunity to present to the 
certifying officer (the

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 21st day of July 2000.
Grant D. Beale,
Program Manager, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 00-19404 Filed 7-31-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M