DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,815

PEAK OILFIELD SERVICES COMPANY
NIKISKI, ALASKA

Notice of Negative Determination
After Statutory Reconsideration

As required by the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reauthorization
Act of 2015 (TAARA 2015), which was enacted as Title IV of the
Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law No. 114-27,
section 405(a)(1)(A), the investigation into this petition was
reopened for a reconsideration investigation to apply the
requirements for worker group eligibility under chapter 2 of title
II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the TAARA 2015, to the
facts of this petition (statutory reconsideration).
The initial investigation, initiated February 5, 2015,
resulted in a negative determination, issued on March 24, 2015,
that was based on no sales and production declines and no shift in
production abroad. The determination was applicable to workers and
former workers of Peak Oilfield Services Company, Nikiski, Alaska
(herein referred to as “Peak Oilfield Services Company”).
The petitioner alleges that, “There has been a significant
and rapid decrease in oil prices due to OPEC and it is expected
to continue for two years or more. As of now, the layoffs
affecting the Cook Inlet Region but will spread to Prudhoe Bay by
May, 2015. As of this morning due to the down turn, a local
health club facility is closing as well since the company is no
longer… The Human Resource Director will provide additional
information however he was not available at this time and wants
to get the process started.”
The workers’ firm is engaged in activities related to the
production of crude oil and natural gas. Specifically, the workers
are contract workers in support of oilfields in Alaska that are not
owned by the subject firm (oilfield support services). The workers
provide “quality-drive, cost-effective construction, maintenance,
industrial cleaning, power generation and transportation services”
for unaffiliated firms (customers/clients). In more detail, the
workers of the firm supply ice road construction, drill rig support
and moving, heavy hauling, lifts and picks for the oil and gas
industry, road maintenance, tank vessel cleaning, facility
construction and maintenance, fabrication (truckable modules,
production modules, and modification to oil and gas equipment) on
and offshore, pipelines and onshore development (includes
exploration to production), and power generation. The workers are
not separately identifiable.
Based on information reviewed during the reconsideration
investigation, the Department of Labor determines that sales and
production at the firm has not declined and the firm has not
shifted production of crude oil and natural gas to a foreign
country or acquired crude oil and natural gas from a foreign
country.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Peak Oilfield Service Company has not
experienced a decline in the sales or production of crude oil,
natural gas, or the contract oilfield services during January
2014 compared to January 2013.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Peak Oilfield Service Company did not
shift the production of crude oil, natural gas, or oilfield
services to a foreign country or acquire crude oil, natural gas,
or oilfield services from a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Peak Oilfield Service Company is not
a Supplier and 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 either because Criterion
(1) has not been met since 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 Peak Oilfield Services
Company, Nikiski, Alaska, who were engaged in activities related
to the production of crude oil, natural gas, and oilfield services
to apply for adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223
of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 4th day of December, 2015

/s/Hope D. Kinglock
______________________________
HOPE D. KINGLOCK
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistan


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,815

PEAK OILFIELD SERVICES COMPANY
NIKISKI, ALASKA

Negative 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 ("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) and
(b) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a) and (b). 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 three criteria must be met:
(1) The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(1)) requires that 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
(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) imports of articles like or directly competitive with
articles produced by such firm or subdivision have
increased; and
(iii) the increase 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 or subdivision.

(B) Shift in Production Path:
(i) 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
(ii)(I) 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;
(II)the country to which the workers' firm has
shifted production of the articles is a beneficiary
country under the African Growth and Opportunity Act,
or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or
(III)there has been or is likely to be an increase
in imports of articles that are like or directly
competitive with articles which are or were produced
by such firm or subdivision.

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 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."
The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on February 5, 2015 by a state workforce office on behalf
of workers of Peak Oilfield Services Company, Nikiski, Alaska.
The workers' firm is engaged in activities related to the
production of oil, natural gas, and petroleum.
The petitioner alleges that, "There has been a
significant and rapid decrease in oil prices due to OPEC and
it is expected to continue for two years or more. As of now,
the layoffs affecting the Cook Inlet Region but will spread to
Prudhoe Bay by May, 2015. As of this morning, due to the down
turn, a local health club facility is closing as well since
the company is no longer... The Human Resource Director will
provide additional information however he was not available at
this time and wants to get the process started."
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers' firm and petitioner.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Peak Oilfield Services Company has
not experienced a decline in sales or production of oil, natural
gas, or petroleum from 2013 to 2014 or from January 2014 to
January 2015.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift production of
articles to a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Peak Oilfield Services Company is
not a Supplier or a 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).
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance
(ATAA), the worker group must be certified eligible to apply for
trade adjustment assistance (TAA). Since the workers are denied
eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified
eligible for ATAA.

Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that all workers of Peak Oilfield
Services Company, Nikiski, Alaska engaged in activities
related to the production of oil, natural gas, and petroleum,
are denied eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance under
Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, and are also
denied eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment
assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, amended.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 24th day of March 2015.

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