[Federal Register: March 18, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 52)]
[Notices]               
[Page 12939-12940]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18mr03-113]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-41,851]

 
Burlington Resources, Gulf Coast Division, Houston, TX; Notice of 
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application received on October 10, 2002, a petitioner requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of 
the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). The 
denial notice applicable to workers of Burlington Resources, Gulf Coast 
Division, Houston, Texas was signed on September 11, 2002, and 
published in the Federal Register on September 27, 2002 (67 FR 61160).
    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 TAA petition was filed on behalf of workers at Burlington 
Resources, Gulf Coast Division, Houston, Texas engaged in activities 
related to clerical, accounting, legal and marketing services. The 
petition was denied because the petitioning workers did not produce an 
article within the meaning of section 222(3) of the Act.
    The petitioner alleges that the majority of the petitioning worker 
group at Burlington Resources, Gulf Coast Division, Houston, Texas were 
production workers.
    Upon further review and company contact, it was revealed that, 
although the overwhelming majority of workers in the petitioning worker 
group were office workers, a small percentage of the group fulfilled 
other job functions. A review of the job descriptions of these few 
workers revealed that, in addition to administrative functions, they 
were engaged in safety and environmental assessment services, and 
supervisory functions. As these functions do not constitute production, 
the original finding established in the initial investigation remains 
valid.
    The petitioner also cites company data that indicates increased 
imports in natural oil and gas with corresponding declines in domestic 
production. As the petitioning worker group does not produce a product, 
however, this information is irrelevant.
    Finally, the petitioner asserted that a very similar worker group 
at Texaco Exploration (TA-W-41,243 and TA-W-41,243 A-G), was certified 
for trade adjustment assistance, and attached a copy of this 
certification to the request for reconsideration. The petitioner also 
notes that other Burlington Resources facilities have been certified in 
the past.
    A review of the Texaco certification revealed that production 
workers were involved in the petitioning worker group. Although it is 
not indicated that similar work functions were involved in this 
certification, it is possible that workers performing the same 
functions as those in the petitioning worker group could have been part 
of the Texaco certification. If service workers are in direct support 
of petitioning or TAA certified production workers, then workers in 
these support functions may be eligible. In the case of the petitioning 
worker group in this investigation, there are no production workers 
represented. Similarly, past certifications for Burlington Resources 
involved worker groups that included production workers.
    Only in very limited instances are service workers certified for 
TAA, namely the worker separations must be caused by a reduced demand 
for their services from a parent or controlling firm or subdivision 
whose workers produce an article and who are currently under 
certification for TAA.
    In conclusion, the workers at the subject firm did not produce an 
article within the meaning of section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974.

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.


[[Page 12940]]


    Signed at Washington, DC, this 27th day of February, 2003.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-6407 Filed 3-17-03; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-P