Denied
« back to search results

TAW-91153  /  Horizon Mud Company, Inc. (Midland, TX)

Petitioner Type: State
Impact Date:
Filed Date: 11/18/2015
Most Recent Update: 08/24/2016
Determination Date: 08/24/2016
Expiration Date:

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-91,153

HORIZON MUD COMPANY, INC.
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
IRVIN WELLSITE CONSULTANTS, LLC
MIDLAND, 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 November 18, 2015 by the State of Washington on behalf of
workers of Horizon Mud Company, Inc., including on-site leased
workers from Irvin Wellsite Consultants, LLC, Midland, Texas
(Horizon Mud). The workers' firm is engaged in activities related
to the production of crude oil (supplying on-site drilling fluids
engineering services for oil production).
The petition states "a decreased in the price of crude oil,
due to an increase of oil production from global suppliers of
crude oil has made drilling oil wells in the U.S. cost
prohibitive." The petition includes a November 10, 2015 letter
and supporting documentation, including a copy of the
determination of petition TA-W-70,551 (issued September 29, 2009).


Because the petition date is November 17, 2015, the
relevant time period is November 2014 through October 2015 and
the representative base period is November 2013 through October
2014. 29 CFR 90.2
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers' firm, the U.S. Energy Information
Administration, and public sources.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that increased imports of articles like
or directly competitive with the crude oil produced by Horizon
Mud did not contribute importantly to worker separations and
sales/production declines. Specifically, Horizon Mud did not
increase imports of crude oil (or like or directly competitive
articles) during the relevant time period when compared to the
representative base period and aggregate imports of crude oil
(or like or directly competitive articles) did not increase
during the relevant time period when compared to the
representative base period.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Horizon Mud did not shift the
production of crude oil (or like or directly competitive
articles) to a foreign country or acquire such production from a
foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Horizon Mud is neither a Supplier
nor 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).
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act, have not been satisfied because Criterion (1)
has not been met since Horizon Mud 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 Horizon Mud Company, Inc.,
including on-site leased workers from Irvin Wellsite Consultants,
LLC, Midland, Texas, to apply for adjustment assistance, in
accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 24th day of August 2016.
/s/Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance