Chevron Mining, Inc., a Subsidiary of Chevron Corporation Including On-Site Leased Workers From STU Blattner, Inc. (SBI), Questa, New Mexico; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 57581 [2014-22765]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 186 / Thursday, September 25, 2014 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–85,355] mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Chevron Mining, Inc., a Subsidiary of Chevron Corporation Including On-Site Leased Workers From STU Blattner, Inc. (SBI), Questa, New Mexico; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application dated August 11, 2014, the State of New Mexico requested administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor’s negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, applicable to workers and former workers of Chevron Mining, Inc., Questa, New Mexico (Questa Mine). The determination was issued on July 30, 2014. The Department’s Notice of determination was published in the Federal Register on August 18, 2014 (79 FR 48775). 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 negative determination of the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) petition filed on behalf of workers at Questa Mine was based on the findings that the subject firm does not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222(a) or Section 222(b) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (the Act). During the investigation, the Department obtained information that Questa Mine no longer produced molybdenum disulfide and that the workers at Questa Mine were engaged in employment related to the supply of mine development services (such as block caving) and administrative services. The request for reconsideration states that Chevron Mining, Inc. had been exploring for new mining veins but decided not to reenter the molybdenum market due to the impact of the global market, which resulted in worker separations at Questa Mine. The request cites TAA certifications TA–W–40,739 and TA–W–35,278 as examples of foreign trade impact on Questa Mine, VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:25 Sep 24, 2014 Jkt 232001 and asserts that foreign trade continues to affect workers at Questa Mine. The request also asserts that workers at Questa Mine are eligible to apply for TAA as secondarily-affected workers, under Section 222(b), 19 U.S.C. 2272(b) or Section 222(c), 19 U.S.C. 2272(c) of the Act. During the investigation, the Department received information that revealed that while Questa Mine did produce molybdenum disulfide prior to June 2013, Chevron Mining, Inc. did not reenter the molybdenum market and, consequently, there was no production during the relevant period. In Former Employees of Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation (MGIC) v. United States Secretary of Labor (Court No. 07–00182), the Department stated the policy requiring that the firm employing the subject workers produce an article domestically; that workers providing services incidental to the provision of a services are not engaged in the production of an article for the purposes of the Act; and that the services provided by a workers’ firm would not be considered articles, whether tangible or intangible. The petitioner did not supply facts not previously considered; nor provide additional documentation indicating that there was either (1) a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered or (2) a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justifying reconsideration of the initial determination. Based on these findings, the Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met. Conclusion After careful 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 in Washington, DC, this 4th day of September, 2014. Del Min Amy Chen, Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. 2014–22765 Filed 9–24–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 57581 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA–W) number and alternative trade adjustment assistance (ATAA) by (TA–W) number issued during the period of September 2, 2014 through September 5, 2014. In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met. I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied: A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers’ firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; B. the sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; and C. increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed importantly to such workers’ separation or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied: A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers’ firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; B. there has been a shift in production by such workers’ firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; and C. One of the following must be satisfied: 1. The country to which the workers’ firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States; 2. the country to which the workers’ firm has shifted production of the E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM 25SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 186 (Thursday, September 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 57581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22765]



[[Page 57581]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-85,355]


Chevron Mining, Inc., a Subsidiary of Chevron Corporation 
Including On-Site Leased Workers From STU Blattner, Inc. (SBI), Questa, 
New Mexico; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for 
Reconsideration

    By application dated August 11, 2014, the State of New Mexico 
requested administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor's 
negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for worker 
adjustment assistance, applicable to workers and former workers of 
Chevron Mining, Inc., Questa, New Mexico (Questa Mine). The 
determination was issued on July 30, 2014. The Department's Notice of 
determination was published in the Federal Register on August 18, 2014 
(79 FR 48775).
    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 negative determination of the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) 
petition filed on behalf of workers at Questa Mine was based on the 
findings that the subject firm does not produce an article within the 
meaning of Section 222(a) or Section 222(b) of the Trade Act of 1974, 
as amended (the Act).
    During the investigation, the Department obtained information that 
Questa Mine no longer produced molybdenum disulfide and that the 
workers at Questa Mine were engaged in employment related to the supply 
of mine development services (such as block caving) and administrative 
services.
    The request for reconsideration states that Chevron Mining, Inc. 
had been exploring for new mining veins but decided not to reenter the 
molybdenum market due to the impact of the global market, which 
resulted in worker separations at Questa Mine. The request cites TAA 
certifications TA-W-40,739 and TA-W-35,278 as examples of foreign trade 
impact on Questa Mine, and asserts that foreign trade continues to 
affect workers at Questa Mine. The request also asserts that workers at 
Questa Mine are eligible to apply for TAA as secondarily-affected 
workers, under Section 222(b), 19 U.S.C. 2272(b) or Section 222(c), 19 
U.S.C. 2272(c) of the Act.
    During the investigation, the Department received information that 
revealed that while Questa Mine did produce molybdenum disulfide prior 
to June 2013, Chevron Mining, Inc. did not reenter the molybdenum 
market and, consequently, there was no production during the relevant 
period.
    In Former Employees of Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation 
(MGIC) v. United States Secretary of Labor (Court No. 07-00182), the 
Department stated the policy requiring that the firm employing the 
subject workers produce an article domestically; that workers providing 
services incidental to the provision of a services are not engaged in 
the production of an article for the purposes of the Act; and that the 
services provided by a workers' firm would not be considered articles, 
whether tangible or intangible.
    The petitioner did not supply facts not previously considered; nor 
provide additional documentation indicating that there was either (1) a 
mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered or (2) 
a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justifying reconsideration 
of the initial determination. Based on these findings, the Department 
determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.

Conclusion

    After careful 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 in Washington, DC, this 4th day of September, 2014.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2014-22765 Filed 9-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P