Petitioner Type: State
Impact Date:
Filed Date: 08/03/2015
Most Recent Update: 10/16/2017
Determination Date: 01/16/2016
Expiration Date:
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-90,092
GEOKINETICS, INC.
INCLUDING WORKERS WHOSE WAGES ARE REPORTED UNDER
GEOKINETICS, USA, INC., AND INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS
FROM GREYCO SEISMIC PERSONNEL SERVICES
HOUSTON, TEXAS
Notice of Negative Determination
On Second Remand
On April 3, 2017, the United States Court of International
Trade (USCIT) ordered the Department of Labor to conduct further
investigation in Former Employees of Geokinetics, Inc., Houston,
Texas v. United States Secretary of Labor (Court No. 16-00057).
SAR 12. This determination contains information obtained during
both the previous investigations and the latest investigation of
this matter.
On September 16, 2016, the Department issued a negative
determination on voluntary remand regarding eligibility to apply
for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and
former workers of Geokinetics, Inc., including workers whose
wages are reported under Geokinetics, USA, Inc., and including
on-site leased workers from Greyco Seismic Personnel Services,
Houston, Texas (Geokinetics). The workers’ firm provides seismic
data services to oil and gas industry firms engaged in
exploration or drilling for oil or gas, and under 19 U.S.C. §
2272(c)(2) is therefore considered to be a firm producing oil
or natural gas, and considered to be producing articles
directly competitive with imports of oil and with imports of
natural gas.
Background – TA-W-90,092
On July 31, 2015, a petition for TAA was filed by the State
of Utah on behalf of a (presumed) Utah resident who is a former
worker of Geokinetics, Inc., Houston, Texas. AR 1. The subject
worker group includes workers whose wages are reported under
Geokinetics, USA, Inc. and on-site leased workers from Greyco
Seismic Personnel Services.
On January 16, 2016, the Department issued a negative
determination regarding eligibility to apply for TAA applicable
to workers and former workers of the subject firm based on the
finding that the worker group eligibility criteria set forth in
Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272, were not met. AR 93.
The Department’s Notice of Determination was published in the
Federal Register on February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9509).
Administrative reconsideration of the Department’s negative
determination was not requested.
First Remand Investigation - TA-W-90,092
On April 1, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a complaint with the
USCIT which alleged:
* Seismic industry discrimination, noting that other energy
industry firms have received Trade Adjustment Assistance
benefits;
* Oil and gas exploration firms have received Trade
Adjustment Assistance benefits;
* Imports of articles directly incorporating one or more
component parts produced outside the United States that are
like or directly competitive with imports of articles
incorporating one or more component parts produced by such
firm have increased;
* Imports of articles (OPEC oil) like or directly competitive
with articles which are produced (U.S. domestic oil)
directly using services (seismic services) supplied by such
firm have increased;
* Imports of articles (OPEC oil) contributed importantly to
such workers’ separation or threat of separation and to the
decline in the sales or production of such firm;
(allegation of 70,000 oil field jobs lost in the last
year);
* OPEC’s oil imports caused a drop in seismic data
acquisition; and
* Geokinetics, Inc., is a supplier firm to a Trade certified
firm
During the first remand investigation, the Department
gathered additional information and clarified existing
information collected from Geokinetics, Inc., Houston, Texas.
The Department requested the completion of the ETA-9043a form
for firms engaged in the production of an article to obtain
information regarding the worker separations at Geokinetics,
Inc., Houston, Texas and collected and analyzed oil and gas
industry data. AR 124–132, AR 136–150. Under 19 U.S.C. §
2272(c)(2), the Department considers a firm providing seismic
data services to aid in oil exploration activities to be engaged
in the production of oil and/or natural gas rather than the
provision of a service.
While 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c)(2) directs the Department to
conduct an articles import analysis, the Department recognizes
that the subject firm supplies a service and, consequently, can
provide only service sales data. As such, sales data is treated
as equivalent to production data for purposes of this
investigation. Consequently, the Department requested sales and
production figures from Geokinetics, Inc., Houston, Texas for
the period under investigation, and analyzed this data in the
context of industry data regarding production and imports of
crude oil and production of and imports of natural gas.
Based on the additional information collected during the
first remand investigation, the Department determined that the
petitioning worker group did not meet the increased imports
criteria set forth in Section 222(a)(2)(A)(i) and (ii).
Specifically, the data the Department obtained through its
investigation revealed that the subject firm’s sales increased
during the relevant period and imports of oil or natural gas, or
like or directly competitive articles, did not increase during
the relevant period.
On September 16, 2016 the Department issued a negative
determination regarding eligibility to apply for TAA applicable
to workers and former workers of the subject firm.
Second Remand Investigation - TA-W-90,092
On April 3, 2017, the USCIT issued an opinion and order
directing the Department of Labor to clarify or reconsider, as
appropriate, its remand redetermination on Plaintiffs’ petition
for certification for TAA benefits in accordance with the
opinion. On the second remand the Department conducted further
investigation, as appropriate, including reexamining sales data,
further examined imports and foreign competition, surveyed
customers of the subject firm, and followed up on secondary
impacts. SAR 12.
As with the first remand, for purposes of the Plaintiff’s
petition, the Department continues to consider the subject firm,
which supplies a service to customers involved in exploration
and drilling for oil and natural gas, to be a firm producing oil
and natural gas, an article directly competitive with imports of
oil and with imports of natural gas, consistent with 19 U.S.C. §
2272(c)(2). This statutory provision requires the Department
to conduct an articles import analysis. While the special
provision at 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c)(2) applies to the subject
firm, it does not extend to imports into the U.S. by firms
engaged in exploration or drilling, and the Department does not
include data on imports by such foreign firms when determining
whether imports have increased.
The Department nonetheless recognizes that the subject
firm supplies a service and, consequently, can provide only
service sales data. As such, sales data is treated as equivalent
to production data for purposes of this investigation.
Consequently, the Department requested sales and production
figures from Geokinetics, Inc., Houston, Texas for the period
under investigation, and analyzed this data regarding production
and imports of crude oil and production and imports of natural
gas.
Due to the nature of seismic data services, the work would
remain at the customer site regardless of the awardee of the bid
because the services are performed on-site at the oilfield. SAR
560–564.
During the second remand investigation, the Department
collected additional information from the subject firm including
but not limited to domestic monthly sales data for the periods
of 2013, 2014, and January through July 2014, and January
through July 2015. SAR 94–104. A complete customer list for the
after-mentioned periods was also obtained from the subject firm.
SAR 106-109, SAR 114-115, SAR 120-126, SAR 164–168. Further, the
Department conducted a customer survey of a sampling of the
subject firm’s customers; and obtained aggregate United States
import data on articles like or directly competitive with oil
and natural gas. SAR 171–552, SAR 565–574.
The second remand investigation determined that the subject
firm did not acquire services like or directly competitive with
the services supplied by the subject firm from a foreign
country, and also did not shift services to a foreign country or
contract to have the services supplied outside the United
States. Thus, under the analysis directed by 19 U.S.C. §
2272(c)(2) the investigation confirmed that the subject firm did
not shift to a foreign country either the production of oil or
natural gas, or a like or directly competitive article, nor
did it contract to have oil or natural gas, or a like or
directly competitive article, produced in a foreign country.
While the second remand investigation revealed that there
were monthly sales declines and fluctuations, the
investigation confirmed that the subject firm experienced an
overall increase in sales during the relevant period. SAR 104.
The second remand investigation revealed that the subject
firm did not, during the relevant period, import oil or natural
gas, or a like or directly competitive article, from a foreign
country. SAR 94–104.
The Department conducted a survey of a sample of the
subject firm’s major United States customers during the second
remand investigation. Surveys were sent out to 23 customers,
out of which 15 customers responded. SAR 171–552. None of the
surveyed customers reported imports of oil or natural gas, the
relevant imports under 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c)(2).
In addition, the Department conducted a survey of the
subject firm’s lost bids/contracts from 2013 to June 2015. The
Department sent out bid surveys to all of the companies to
which the subject firm had submitted unsuccessful bids, and
received responses from all of the lost potential customers. No
bids were lost to foreign competitors. SAR 416-552.
The second remand investigation confirmed that aggregate
United States imports of crude oil and natural gas did not
increase, although during the same period of time United
States production of crude oil and natural gas was decreasing.
SAR 553–569.
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 into the
criteria required for 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. § 2272(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; AND
(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), the 1-year
period preceding the 1-year period described in
paragraph (2).
Due to the statutory provision at 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c)(2),
the subject firm is considered to be engaged in the production
of oil or natural gas, and thus to be producing articles
directly competitive with imports of oil and with imports of
natural gas. Enacted in order provide workers employed by
exploration and drilling firms eligibility for TAA on the same
basis as workers employed by firms engaged in production, 19
U.S.C. § 2272(c)(2) does not apply to imports into the U.S. by
firms engaged in exploration or drilling services. Thus the
articles considered “like” are those that are “substantially
identical in inherent or intrinsic characteristics (i.e.
materials from which the articles are made, appearance,
quality, texture, etc.)” to oil and gas, not to seismic
services. 29 C.F.R. 90.2.
The Department has deemed the representative base period
to be August 2013 through July 2014 and the relevant time
period to be August 2014 through July 2015. 29 C.F.R. 90.2
During the course of the second remand investigation,
information was collected from the workers’ firm, SAR 1–164,
the workers’ firm’s major customers, SAR 171–552, and the
United States Energy Information Administration, SAR 565–573,
regarding the periods of January through July 2014 and January
through July 2015.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that imports of crude oil and natural
gas did not increase and therefore did not contribute
importantly to the separations at Geokinetics, Inc., Houston,
Texas. Aggregate United States imports of crude oil and
natural gas did not increase during the period under review
despite the fact that United States production of crude oil
and natural gas was decreasing. SAR 565 - 573.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift the
production of oil or natural gas or a like or directly
competitive article to a foreign country or acquire oil or
natural gas or a like or directly competitive article from a
foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Geokinetics, Inc., Houston, Texas,
is not a Supplier nor does it act as 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 fact, none of the subject firm’s customers
were Trade certified.
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act, are not satisfied 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 Geokinetics, Inc.,
including workers whose wages are reported under Geokinetics,
USA, Inc., and including on-site leased workers from Greyco
Seismic Personnel Services, Houston, Texas, engaged in
activities related to the production of oil and natural gas, to
apply for adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223
of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 16th day of October, 2017
/s/ Del-Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL-MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-90,092
GEOKINETICS, INC.
INCLUDING WORKERS WHOSE WAGES ARE REPORTED UNDER
GEOKINETICS, USA, INC. AND ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
GREYCO SEISMIC PERSONNEL SERVICES
HOUSTON, TEXAS
Notice of Negative Determination On Remand
On June 3, 2016, the United States Court of International
Trade (USCIT) granted the Department of Labor’s request for
voluntary remand of the Department’s earlier negative determination
regarding worker group eligibility for trade adjustment assistance
(TAA) in order to conduct further investigation in Former Employees
of Geokinetics, Inc., Houston, Texas v. United States Secretary of
Labor (Court No. 16-00057).
On July 31, 2015, a petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA) was filed by the State of Utah on behalf of a former worker
of Geokinetics, Inc., Houston, Texas (subject firm). The subject
worker group includes workers whose wages are reported under
Geokinetics, USA, Inc. and on-site leased workers from Greyco
Seismic Personnel Services. The workers’ firm is engaged in
activities related to the supply of seismic data services to firms
within the oil industry. AR 1-5, 90-91, 96.
These “services” are identified as production of oil under
19 U.S.C. 2272(c)(2).
The initial investigation revealed that the subject firm had
neither shifted abroad services like or directly competitive with
the seismic data services supplied by the subject worker group, nor
acquired such services from abroad, and there had not been an
increase in imports of services like or directly competitive with
those supplied by the subject firm. The initial investigation also
revealed that the subject firm could not be considered a Supplier
or Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a worker group
eligible to apply for TAA. Furthermore, the workers’ firm has not
been publicly identified by name by the International Trade
Commission (ITC) 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.
AR 90-92. On January 16, 2016, the Department of Labor (Department)
issued a negative determination regarding the eligibility to apply
for TAA of workers and former workers of the subject firm. AR 93-
98. The Department’s Notice of determination was published in the
Federal Register on February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9509).
Administrative reconsideration of the Department’s negative
determination was not requested.
In its complaint, the Plaintiff asserts:
• Seismic industry discrimination (noting that other energy
industry firms have received Trade Adjustment Assistance benefits);
• Oil and gas exploration firms have received Trade
Adjustment Assistance benefits;
• Imports of articles directly incorporating one or more
component parts produced outside the United States that are like or
directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or
more component parts produced by such firm have increased;
• Imports of articles (OPEC oil) like or directly
competitive with articles which are produced (U.S. domestic oil)
directly using services (seismic services) supplied by such firm
have increased;
• Imports of articles (OPEC oil) contributed importantly to
such workers’ separation or threat of separation and to the decline
in the sales or production decline of such firm; (70,000 oil field
jobs lost in the last year);
• OPEC’s oil imports have caused a drop in seismic data
acquisition; and
• Geokinetics, Inc., is a supplier firm to a Trade
certified firm.
On June 2, 2016, the Department requested voluntary remand.
Pursuant to the USCIT Order issued on June 3, 2016, the Department
conducted a remand investigation which considered aggregate imports
of oil and gas and domestic production. AR 118.
During the remand investigation, the Department carefully
reviewed previously collected information, reviewed revised
information from the subject firm regarding sales/production during
the relevant time period, reviewed oil and gas aggregate import
data and domestic production data as part of an industry analysis,
and solicited input from the Plaintiff. AR 62,74, 80-81, 84-85, 88-
89, 125-152.
For purposes of the Trade Act, as amended, and consistent with
19 U.S.C. 2272(c)(2), the subject firm is engaged in the production
of oil; consequently, the subject firm’s sales data functions as
production data.
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm under
Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), can be satisfied if
the following criteria are met:
(1) 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; and
(2)(A)(i) the sales or production, or both, of such firm have
decreased absolutely;
(ii)(I) imports of articles or services like or directly
competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such
firm have increased;
(II) imports of articles like or directly competitive with
articles—
(aa) into which one or more component parts produced by
such firm are directly incorporated, or
(bb) which are produced directly using services supplied by
such firm,
have increased; or
(III) imports of articles directly incorporating one or more
component parts produced outside the United States that are
like or directly competitive with imports of articles
incorporating one or more component parts produced by such
firm have increased; and
(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; or
(B)(i)(I) there has been a shift by such workers’ firm to a
foreign country in the production of articles or the supply of
services like or directly competitive with articles which are
produced or services which are supplied by such firm; or
(II) such workers’ firm has acquired from a foreign country
articles or services that are like or directly competitive
with articles which are produced or services which are
supplied by such 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.
The petition is dated July 31, 2015. AR 2. Therefore, for
purposes of determining increased imports, per 29 CFR 90.2, the
relevant time period is August 2014 through July 2015 and the
representative base period is August 2013 through July 2014.
Industry data obtained during the remand investigation shows
that aggregate imports of oil and gas during the relevant period
decreased when compared to the representative base period and that
domestic production increased each year since 2013. AR 136-150,
158-160.
Information reviewed during the remand investigation confirmed
that the criterion set forth in Section 222(a)(1) has been met.
The data shows that a significant number or proportion of workers
at the subject firm is totally or partially separated, or
threatened with such separation. AR 126.
During the remand investigation, the subject firm submitted
revised sales/production data for 2013, 2014, and partial year 2015
(encompassing the relevant time period and representative base
period). The data shows increased sales/production during the
relevant period. AR 132. Consequently, the Department finds that
the criterion set forth in Section 222(a)(2)(A) has not been met.
Information reviewed during the remand investigation confirmed
that the criterion set forth in Section 222(a)(2)(B) has not been
met. Specifically, there has not been a shift to a foreign country,
or acquisition from a foreign country, by the subject firm in the
production of articles like or directly competitive with the oil
which is produced by the subject firm. AR 126, 132.
Information reviewed during the remand investigation confirmed
that the criterion set forth in Section 222(b) has not been met.
Specifically, the subject firm is neither a Supplier nor Downstream
Producer to a firm that employed a worker group eligible to apply
for TAA. AR 160.
Information reviewed during the remand investigation
confirmed that the criterion set forth in Section 222(d) has not
been met. Specifically, the subject firm has not been publicly
identified by name by the ITC 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.
AR 160.
Based on a careful review of previously submitted information,
new information obtained during the remand investigation, and
industry data regarding oil and gas domestic production and
aggregate imports, the Department reaffirms that the petitioning
workers have not met the eligibility criteria of Section 222(a) of
the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Conclusion
After careful reconsideration of the administrative record, I
affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility
to apply for worker adjustment assistance applicable to workers and
former workers of Geokinetics, Inc., including workers whose wages
are reported under Geokinetics, USA, Inc., and on-site leased
workers from Greyco Seismic Personnel Services, Houston, Texas.
Signed at Washington, D.C. this 16th day of September, 2016
/s/Del Min Amy Chen
___________________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-90,092
GEOKINETICS, INC.
INCLUDING WORKERS REPORTING WAGES
UNDER GEOKINETICS, USA, INC., AND ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
GREYCO SEISMIC PERSONNEL SERVICES
HOUSTON, TEXAS
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. § 2272(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; AND
(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), the 1-year
period preceding the 1-year period described in
paragraph (2).
The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on August 3, 2015 by the state workforce office on behalf
of workers of Geokinetics, Inc., including workers reporting
wages under Geokinetics USA, Inc., and on-site leased workers
from Greyco Seismic Personnel Services, Houston, Texas
(Geokinetics). The workers’ firm is engaged in activities
related to the supply of seismic data acquisition (oil & gas).
The subject worker group includes the survey department.
The petitioner alleges: “OPEC’s decision to increase oil
production caused widespread lay-offs and job cuts in the
energy industry”.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers’ firm, the petition, and bid
surveys.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm, customers, and aggregate
U.S. imports of services like or directly competitive with the
services supplied by Geokinetics, have not increased.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift the supply of
seismic data acquisition (oil & gas) or a like or directly
competitive service to a foreign country or acquire seismic
data acquisition (oil & gas) or a like or directly competitive
service from a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Geokinetics is not a Supplier 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).
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Geokinetics does not act as 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).
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 Geokinetics, Inc.,
including workers reporting wages under Geokinetics USA, Inc.,
and on-site leased workers from Greyco Seismic Personnel
Services, Houston, Texas, engaged in activities related to the
supply of seismic data acquisition (oil & gas), to apply for
adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 16th day of January, 2016.
/s/Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-90,092
GEOKINETICS, INC.
INCLUDING WORKERS WHOSE WAGES ARE REPORTED UNDER
GEOKINETICS, USA, INC., AND INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS
FROM GREYCO SEISMIC PERSONNEL SERVICES
HOUSTON, TEXAS
Notice of Negative Determination
On Second Remand
On April 3, 2017, the United States Court of International
Trade (USCIT) ordered the Department of Labor to conduct further
investigation in Former Employees of Geokinetics, Inc., Houston,
Texas v. United States Secretary of Labor (Court No. 16-00057).
SAR 12. This determination contains information obtained during
both the previous investigations and the latest investigation of
this matter.
On September 16, 2016, the Department issued a negative
determination on voluntary remand regarding eligibility to apply
for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and
former workers of Geokinetics, Inc., including workers whose
wages are reported under Geokinetics, USA, Inc., and including
on-site leased workers from Greyco Seismic Personnel Services,
Houston, Texas (Geokinetics). The workers’ firm provides seismic
data services to oil and gas industry firms engaged in
exploration or drilling for oil or gas, and under 19 U.S.C. §
2272(c)(2) is therefore considered to be a firm producing oil
or natural gas, and considered to be producing articles
directly competitive with imports of oil and with imports of
natural gas.
Background – TA-W-90,092
On July 31, 2015, a petition for TAA was filed by the State
of Utah on behalf of a (presumed) Utah resident who is a former
worker of Geokinetics, Inc., Houston, Texas. AR 1. The subject
worker group includes workers whose wages are reported under
Geokinetics, USA, Inc. and on-site leased workers from Greyco
Seismic Personnel Services.
On January 16, 2016, the Department issued a negative
determination regarding eligibility to apply for TAA applicable
to workers and former workers of the subject firm based on the
finding that the worker group eligibility criteria set forth in
Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272, were not met. AR 93.
The Department’s Notice of Determination was published in the
Federal Register on February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9509).
Administrative reconsideration of the Department’s negative
determination was not requested.
First Remand Investigation - TA-W-90,092
On April 1, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a complaint with the
USCIT which alleged:
* Seismic industry discrimination, noting that other energy
industry firms have received Trade Adjustment Assistance
benefits;
* Oil and gas exploration firms have received Trade
Adjustment Assistance benefits;
* Imports of articles directly incorporating one or more
component parts produced outside the United States that are
like or directly competitive with imports of articles
incorporating one or more component parts produced by such
firm have increased;
* Imports of articles (OPEC oil) like or directly competitive
with articles which are produced (U.S. domestic oil)
directly using services (seismic services) supplied by such
firm have increased;
* Imports of articles (OPEC oil) contributed importantly to
such workers’ separation or threat of separation and to the
decline in the sales or production of such firm;
(allegation of 70,000 oil field jobs lost in the last
year);
* OPEC’s oil imports caused a drop in seismic data
acquisition; and
* Geokinetics, Inc., is a supplier firm to a Trade certified
firm
During the first remand investigation, the Department
gathered additional information and clarified existing
information collected from Geokinetics, Inc., Houston, Texas.
The Department requested the completion of the ETA-9043a form
for firms engaged in the production of an article to obtain
information regarding the worker separations at Geokinetics,
Inc., Houston, Texas and collected and analyzed oil and gas
industry data. AR 124–132, AR 136–150. Under 19 U.S.C. §
2272(c)(2), the Department considers a firm providing seismic
data services to aid in oil exploration activities to be engaged
in the production of oil and/or natural gas rather than the
provision of a service.
While 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c)(2) directs the Department to
conduct an articles import analysis, the Department recognizes
that the subject firm supplies a service and, consequently, can
provide only service sales data. As such, sales data is treated
as equivalent to production data for purposes of this
investigation. Consequently, the Department requested sales and
production figures from Geokinetics, Inc., Houston, Texas for
the period under investigation, and analyzed this data in the
context of industry data regarding production and imports of
crude oil and production of and imports of natural gas.
Based on the additional information collected during the
first remand investigation, the Department determined that the
petitioning worker group did not meet the increased imports
criteria set forth in Section 222(a)(2)(A)(i) and (ii).
Specifically, the data the Department obtained through its
investigation revealed that the subject firm’s sales increased
during the relevant period and imports of oil or natural gas, or
like or directly competitive articles, did not increase during
the relevant period.
On September 16, 2016 the Department issued a negative
determination regarding eligibility to apply for TAA applicable
to workers and former workers of the subject firm.
Second Remand Investigation - TA-W-90,092
On April 3, 2017, the USCIT issued an opinion and order
directing the Department of Labor to clarify or reconsider, as
appropriate, its remand redetermination on Plaintiffs’ petition
for certification for TAA benefits in accordance with the
opinion. On the second remand the Department conducted further
investigation, as appropriate, including reexamining sales data,
further examined imports and foreign competition, surveyed
customers of the subject firm, and followed up on secondary
impacts. SAR 12.
As with the first remand, for purposes of the Plaintiff’s
petition, the Department continues to consider the subject firm,
which supplies a service to customers involved in exploration
and drilling for oil and natural gas, to be a firm producing oil
and natural gas, an article directly competitive with imports of
oil and with imports of natural gas, consistent with 19 U.S.C. §
2272(c)(2). This statutory provision requires the Department
to conduct an articles import analysis. While the special
provision at 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c)(2) applies to the subject
firm, it does not extend to imports into the U.S. by firms
engaged in exploration or drilling, and the Department does not
include data on imports by such foreign firms when determining
whether imports have increased.
The Department nonetheless recognizes that the subject
firm supplies a service and, consequently, can provide only
service sales data. As such, sales data is treated as equivalent
to production data for purposes of this investigation.
Consequently, the Department requested sales and production
figures from Geokinetics, Inc., Houston, Texas for the period
under investigation, and analyzed this data regarding production
and imports of crude oil and production and imports of natural
gas.
Due to the nature of seismic data services, the work would
remain at the customer site regardless of the awardee of the bid
because the services are performed on-site at the oilfield. SAR
560–564.
During the second remand investigation, the Department
collected additional information from the subject firm including
but not limited to domestic monthly sales data for the periods
of 2013, 2014, and January through July 2014, and January
through July 2015. SAR 94–104. A complete customer list for the
after-mentioned periods was also obtained from the subject firm.
SAR 106-109, SAR 114-115, SAR 120-126, SAR 164–168. Further, the
Department conducted a customer survey of a sampling of the
subject firm’s customers; and obtained aggregate United States
import data on articles like or directly competitive with oil
and natural gas. SAR 171–552, SAR 565–574.
The second remand investigation determined that the subject
firm did not acquire services like or directly competitive with
the services supplied by the subject firm from a foreign
country, and also did not shift services to a foreign country or
contract to have the services supplied outside the United
States. Thus, under the analysis directed by 19 U.S.C. §
2272(c)(2) the investigation confirmed that the subject firm did
not shift to a foreign country either the production of oil or
natural gas, or a like or directly competitive article, nor
did it contract to have oil or natural gas, or a like or
directly competitive article, produced in a foreign country.
While the second remand investigation revealed that there
were monthly sales declines and fluctuations, the
investigation confirmed that the subject firm experienced an
overall increase in sales during the relevant period. SAR 104.
The second remand investigation revealed that the subject
firm did not, during the relevant period, import oil or natural
gas, or a like or directly competitive article, from a foreign
country. SAR 94–104.
The Department conducted a survey of a sample of the
subject firm’s major United States customers during the second
remand investigation. Surveys were sent out to 23 customers,
out of which 15 customers responded. SAR 171–552. None of the
surveyed customers reported imports of oil or natural gas, the
relevant imports under 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c)(2).
In addition, the Department conducted a survey of the
subject firm’s lost bids/contracts from 2013 to June 2015. The
Department sent out bid surveys to all of the companies to
which the subject firm had submitted unsuccessful bids, and
received responses from all of the lost potential customers. No
bids were lost to foreign competitors. SAR 416-552.
The second remand investigation confirmed that aggregate
United States imports of crude oil and natural gas did not
increase, although during the same period of time United
States production of crude oil and natural gas was decreasing.
SAR 553–569.
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 into the
criteria required for 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. § 2272(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; AND
(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), the 1-year
period preceding the 1-year period described in
paragraph (2).
Due to the statutory provision at 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c)(2),
the subject firm is considered to be engaged in the production
of oil or natural gas, and thus to be producing articles
directly competitive with imports of oil and with imports of
natural gas. Enacted in order provide workers employed by
exploration and drilling firms eligibility for TAA on the same
basis as workers employed by firms engaged in production, 19
U.S.C. § 2272(c)(2) does not apply to imports into the U.S. by
firms engaged in exploration or drilling services. Thus the
articles considered “like” are those that are “substantially
identical in inherent or intrinsic characteristics (i.e.
materials from which the articles are made, appearance,
quality, texture, etc.)” to oil and gas, not to seismic
services. 29 C.F.R. 90.2.
The Department has deemed the representative base period
to be August 2013 through July 2014 and the relevant time
period to be August 2014 through July 2015. 29 C.F.R. 90.2
During the course of the second remand investigation,
information was collected from the workers’ firm, SAR 1–164,
the workers’ firm’s major customers, SAR 171–552, and the
United States Energy Information Administration, SAR 565–573,
regarding the periods of January through July 2014 and January
through July 2015.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that imports of crude oil and natural
gas did not increase and therefore did not contribute
importantly to the separations at Geokinetics, Inc., Houston,
Texas. Aggregate United States imports of crude oil and
natural gas did not increase during the period under review
despite the fact that United States production of crude oil
and natural gas was decreasing. SAR 565 - 573.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift the
production of oil or natural gas or a like or directly
competitive article to a foreign country or acquire oil or
natural gas or a like or directly competitive article from a
foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Geokinetics, Inc., Houston, Texas,
is not a Supplier nor does it act as 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 fact, none of the subject firm’s customers
were Trade certified.
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act, are not satisfied 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 Geokinetics, Inc.,
including workers whose wages are reported under Geokinetics,
USA, Inc., and including on-site leased workers from Greyco
Seismic Personnel Services, Houston, Texas, engaged in
activities related to the production of oil and natural gas, to
apply for adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223
of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 16th day of October, 2017
/s/ Del-Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL-MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-90,092
GEOKINETICS, INC.
INCLUDING WORKERS WHOSE WAGES ARE REPORTED UNDER
GEOKINETICS, USA, INC. AND ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
GREYCO SEISMIC PERSONNEL SERVICES
HOUSTON, TEXAS
Notice of Negative Determination On Remand
On June 3, 2016, the United States Court of International
Trade (USCIT) granted the Department of Labor’s request for
voluntary remand of the Department’s earlier negative determination
regarding worker group eligibility for trade adjustment assistance
(TAA) in order to conduct further investigation in Former Employees
of Geokinetics, Inc., Houston, Texas v. United States Secretary of
Labor (Court No. 16-00057).
On July 31, 2015, a petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA) was filed by the State of Utah on behalf of a former worker
of Geokinetics, Inc., Houston, Texas (subject firm). The subject
worker group includes workers whose wages are reported under
Geokinetics, USA, Inc. and on-site leased workers from Greyco
Seismic Personnel Services. The workers’ firm is engaged in
activities related to the supply of seismic data services to firms
within the oil industry. AR 1-5, 90-91, 96.
These “services” are identified as production of oil under
19 U.S.C. 2272(c)(2).
The initial investigation revealed that the subject firm had
neither shifted abroad services like or directly competitive with
the seismic data services supplied by the subject worker group, nor
acquired such services from abroad, and there had not been an
increase in imports of services like or directly competitive with
those supplied by the subject firm. The initial investigation also
revealed that the subject firm could not be considered a Supplier
or Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a worker group
eligible to apply for TAA. Furthermore, the workers’ firm has not
been publicly identified by name by the International Trade
Commission (ITC) 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.
AR 90-92. On January 16, 2016, the Department of Labor (Department)
issued a negative determination regarding the eligibility to apply
for TAA of workers and former workers of the subject firm. AR 93-
98. The Department’s Notice of determination was published in the
Federal Register on February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9509).
Administrative reconsideration of the Department’s negative
determination was not requested.
In its complaint, the Plaintiff asserts:
• Seismic industry discrimination (noting that other energy
industry firms have received Trade Adjustment Assistance benefits);
• Oil and gas exploration firms have received Trade
Adjustment Assistance benefits;
• Imports of articles directly incorporating one or more
component parts produced outside the United States that are like or
directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or
more component parts produced by such firm have increased;
• Imports of articles (OPEC oil) like or directly
competitive with articles which are produced (U.S. domestic oil)
directly using services (seismic services) supplied by such firm
have increased;
• Imports of articles (OPEC oil) contributed importantly to
such workers’ separation or threat of separation and to the decline
in the sales or production decline of such firm; (70,000 oil field
jobs lost in the last year);
• OPEC’s oil imports have caused a drop in seismic data
acquisition; and
• Geokinetics, Inc., is a supplier firm to a Trade
certified firm.
On June 2, 2016, the Department requested voluntary remand.
Pursuant to the USCIT Order issued on June 3, 2016, the Department
conducted a remand investigation which considered aggregate imports
of oil and gas and domestic production. AR 118.
During the remand investigation, the Department carefully
reviewed previously collected information, reviewed revised
information from the subject firm regarding sales/production during
the relevant time period, reviewed oil and gas aggregate import
data and domestic production data as part of an industry analysis,
and solicited input from the Plaintiff. AR 62,74, 80-81, 84-85, 88-
89, 125-152.
For purposes of the Trade Act, as amended, and consistent with
19 U.S.C. 2272(c)(2), the subject firm is engaged in the production
of oil; consequently, the subject firm’s sales data functions as
production data.
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm under
Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), can be satisfied if
the following criteria are met:
(1) 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; and
(2)(A)(i) the sales or production, or both, of such firm have
decreased absolutely;
(ii)(I) imports of articles or services like or directly
competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such
firm have increased;
(II) imports of articles like or directly competitive with
articles—
(aa) into which one or more component parts produced by
such firm are directly incorporated, or
(bb) which are produced directly using services supplied by
such firm,
have increased; or
(III) imports of articles directly incorporating one or more
component parts produced outside the United States that are
like or directly competitive with imports of articles
incorporating one or more component parts produced by such
firm have increased; and
(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; or
(B)(i)(I) there has been a shift by such workers’ firm to a
foreign country in the production of articles or the supply of
services like or directly competitive with articles which are
produced or services which are supplied by such firm; or
(II) such workers’ firm has acquired from a foreign country
articles or services that are like or directly competitive
with articles which are produced or services which are
supplied by such 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.
The petition is dated July 31, 2015. AR 2. Therefore, for
purposes of determining increased imports, per 29 CFR 90.2, the
relevant time period is August 2014 through July 2015 and the
representative base period is August 2013 through July 2014.
Industry data obtained during the remand investigation shows
that aggregate imports of oil and gas during the relevant period
decreased when compared to the representative base period and that
domestic production increased each year since 2013. AR 136-150,
158-160.
Information reviewed during the remand investigation confirmed
that the criterion set forth in Section 222(a)(1) has been met.
The data shows that a significant number or proportion of workers
at the subject firm is totally or partially separated, or
threatened with such separation. AR 126.
During the remand investigation, the subject firm submitted
revised sales/production data for 2013, 2014, and partial year 2015
(encompassing the relevant time period and representative base
period). The data shows increased sales/production during the
relevant period. AR 132. Consequently, the Department finds that
the criterion set forth in Section 222(a)(2)(A) has not been met.
Information reviewed during the remand investigation confirmed
that the criterion set forth in Section 222(a)(2)(B) has not been
met. Specifically, there has not been a shift to a foreign country,
or acquisition from a foreign country, by the subject firm in the
production of articles like or directly competitive with the oil
which is produced by the subject firm. AR 126, 132.
Information reviewed during the remand investigation confirmed
that the criterion set forth in Section 222(b) has not been met.
Specifically, the subject firm is neither a Supplier nor Downstream
Producer to a firm that employed a worker group eligible to apply
for TAA. AR 160.
Information reviewed during the remand investigation
confirmed that the criterion set forth in Section 222(d) has not
been met. Specifically, the subject firm has not been publicly
identified by name by the ITC 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.
AR 160.
Based on a careful review of previously submitted information,
new information obtained during the remand investigation, and
industry data regarding oil and gas domestic production and
aggregate imports, the Department reaffirms that the petitioning
workers have not met the eligibility criteria of Section 222(a) of
the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Conclusion
After careful reconsideration of the administrative record, I
affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility
to apply for worker adjustment assistance applicable to workers and
former workers of Geokinetics, Inc., including workers whose wages
are reported under Geokinetics, USA, Inc., and on-site leased
workers from Greyco Seismic Personnel Services, Houston, Texas.
Signed at Washington, D.C. this 16th day of September, 2016
/s/Del Min Amy Chen
___________________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-90,092
GEOKINETICS, INC.
INCLUDING WORKERS REPORTING WAGES
UNDER GEOKINETICS, USA, INC., AND ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
GREYCO SEISMIC PERSONNEL SERVICES
HOUSTON, TEXAS
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. § 2272(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; AND
(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), the 1-year
period preceding the 1-year period described in
paragraph (2).
The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on August 3, 2015 by the state workforce office on behalf
of workers of Geokinetics, Inc., including workers reporting
wages under Geokinetics USA, Inc., and on-site leased workers
from Greyco Seismic Personnel Services, Houston, Texas
(Geokinetics). The workers’ firm is engaged in activities
related to the supply of seismic data acquisition (oil & gas).
The subject worker group includes the survey department.
The petitioner alleges: “OPEC’s decision to increase oil
production caused widespread lay-offs and job cuts in the
energy industry”.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers’ firm, the petition, and bid
surveys.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm, customers, and aggregate
U.S. imports of services like or directly competitive with the
services supplied by Geokinetics, have not increased.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift the supply of
seismic data acquisition (oil & gas) or a like or directly
competitive service to a foreign country or acquire seismic
data acquisition (oil & gas) or a like or directly competitive
service from a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Geokinetics is not a Supplier 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).
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Geokinetics does not act as 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).
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 Geokinetics, Inc.,
including workers reporting wages under Geokinetics USA, Inc.,
and on-site leased workers from Greyco Seismic Personnel
Services, Houston, Texas, engaged in activities related to the
supply of seismic data acquisition (oil & gas), to apply for
adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 16th day of January, 2016.
/s/Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance