DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-81,066

CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY
TRAINER REFINERY
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
SHRACK, YOUNG, AND ASSOCIATES, INC., AND
PROJECT CONTROL ASSOCIATES
TRAINER, PENNSYLVANIA

Notice of Revised Determination
on Reconsideration


On April 30, 2012, the Department of Labor issued a Notice of
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
applicable to workers and former workers of ConocoPhillips Company,
Trainer Refinery, Trainer, Pennsylvania (subject firm). The subject
firm is engaged in activities related to the production of
gasoline, distillate, and heavy oil. The subject worker group
includes on-site leased workers from Shrack, Young, and Associates,
Inc. and Project Control Services.
Based on information obtained during the reconsideration
investigation, the Department determines that increased imports of
articles like or directly competitive with gasoline, distillate,
and heavy oil contributed importantly to workers’ separations.
Section 222(a)(1) has been met because a significant number or
proportion of the workers in such workers’ firm have become totally
or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or
partially separated.
Section 222(a)(2)(A)(i) has been met because the sales and/or
production of gasoline, distillate, and heavy oil by ConocoPhillips
Company, Trainer Refinery, Trainer, Pennsylvania have decreased
absolutely.
Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) has been met because imports by
ConocoPhillips Company of articles like or directly competitive
with those produced by ConocoPhillips Company, Trainer Refinery,
Trainer, Pennsylvania, have increased during the relevant period.
Finally, Section 222(a)(2)(A)(iii) has been met because the
increased imports contributed importantly to the worker group
separations and sales/production declines at ConocoPhillips
Company, Trainer Refinery, Trainer, Pennsylvania.
Conclusion
After careful review of the additional facts obtained on
reconsideration, I determine that workers of ConocoPhillips
Company, Trainer Refinery, Trainer, Pennsylvania, who were engaged
in employment related to the production of gasoline, distillate,
and heavy oil, 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 ConocoPhillips Company, Trainer Refinery,
including on-site leased workers from Shrack, Young, and
Associates, Inc. and Project Control Services, Trainer,
Pennsylvania Pennsylvania, who became totally or partially
separated from employment on or after February 13 2010,
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 16th day of July, 2012

/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-FN-P


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-81,066

CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY
TRAINER REFINERY
TRAINER, 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. § 2282(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.
(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)(1), the 1-year
period preceding the 1-year period described in
paragraph (2).

The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on November 8, 2011 by a union official from the United Steel
Workers Local 10-34, on behalf of workers of ConocoPhillips
Company, Trainer Refinery, Trainer, Pennsylvania. The workers’
firm is engaged in activities related to production of refined
petroleum products.
The petitioner alleges that increased U.S. imports of refined
petroleum products contributed importantly to sales, production,
and employment declines at the subject firm.
During the course of the investigation, data was collected
from the workers’ firm and from the U.S. Energy Information
Administration.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that imports of articles like or directly
competitive with the refined petroleum products produced by
ConocoPhillips Company, Trainer Refinery have not increased.
Specifically, the subject firm has not increased imports of refined
petroleum products, and aggregate U.S. imports of refined petroleum
products have decreased from 2009 to 2010 and from 2010 to 2011.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm has not shifted production of
refined petroleum products to a foreign country or acquired refined
petroleum products from a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that ConocoPhillips Company, Trainer
Refinery is not 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).
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act, have not been satisfied because 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 ConocoPhillips Company,
Trainer Refinery, Trainer, Pennsylvania engaged in activities
related to the production of gasoline, distillate, heavy oil, and
other refined petroleum products, to apply for adjustment
assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. §
2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 7th day of February, 2012

/s/ Michael W. Jaffe
______________________________
MICHAEL W. JAFFE
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance








- 4 -