DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-62,189

DIAZ INTERMEDIATES CORPORATION
WEST MEMPHIS, ARKANSAS

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration


By letter dated December 28, 2007, a company official
requested administrative reconsideration regarding the
Department’s Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance, applicable to the workers
of the subject firm. The denial notice was singed on November
28, 2007 and published in the Federal Register on December 11,
2007 (72 FR 70346).
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted
under the following circumstances:
(1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously
considered that the determination complained of
was erroneous;
(2) if it appears that the determination complained of
was based on a mistake in the determination of facts
not previously considered; or
(3) if in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a mis-
interpretation of facts or of the law justified
reconsideration of the decision.
The initial investigation resulted in a negative
determination which was based on the finding that imports of
brominated chemical intermediates (i.e. bromobenzene, m-
bromoanisole, n-propyl bromide, and other organics) did not
contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject plant
and no shift of production to a foreign source occurred. The
“contributed importantly” test is generally demonstrated through
a survey of the workers’ firm’s declining customers. The survey
revealed customers did not purchase imported brominated chemical
intermediates during the relevant period. The subject firm did
not import brominated chemical intermediates and no shifted in
production of brominated chemical intermediates to a foreign
country occurred.
The petitioner stated that most of the subject firm’s sales
were for export, however, there were losses in sales to domestic
customers. The petitioner provided the name of a customer which
ceased purchases from the subject firm in 2005 and at the same
time started importing products like or directly competitive with
brominated chemical intermediates produced by the subject firm.
When assessing eligibility for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA), the Department exclusively considers import impact during
the relevant time period (one year prior to the date of the
petition). The Department surveyed customers of the subject firm
regarding their purchases of brominated chemical intermediates
during the relevant period. The survey revealed no imports of
brominated chemical intermediates during the relevant period.
Conclusion
After review of the application and investigative findings,
I conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of
the law or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of
the Department of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the
application is denied.

Signed in Washington, D.C. this 30th day of January 2008.

/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance

4510-FN-P


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-62,189

DIAZ INTERMEDIATES CORPORATION
WEST MEMPHIS, ARKANSAS

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 (19 USC 2273), the Department of Labor herein presents the
results of an investigation regarding certification of eligibility
to apply for worker adjustment assistance. The group eligibility
requirements for directly-impacted (primary) workers under Section
222(a) the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, can be satisfied in
either of two ways:
I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied:
A. 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;
B. the sales or production, or both, of such firm or
subdivision have decreased absolutely; and
C. increased imports of articles like or directly competitive
with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have
contributed importantly to such workers’ separation or
threat of separation and to the decline in sales or
production of such firm or subdivision; or
II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied:

A. 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;

B. 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

C. One of the following must be satisfied:
1. 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;
2. the country to which the workers’ firm has shifted
production of the articles is a beneficiary country
under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth
and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic
Recovery Act; or
3. 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.

The investigation was initiated on September 24, 2007, in
response to a petition filed on behalf of the workers of Diaz
Intermediates Corporation, West Memphis, Arkansas. The workers are
engaged in the production brominated chemical intermediates (i.e.
bromobenzene, m-bromoanisole, n-propyl bromide, and other
organics).
The investigation determined that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) and
(a)(2)(B)(II.B.) have not been met for workers of the subject firm.
The investigation revealed that the subject firm did not shift
production of brominated chemical intermediates from the West
Memphis, Arkansas plant to a foreign country.
Furthermore, the subject firm does not import brominated
chemical intermediates.
Most of the subject firm’s sales were for the export market.
The Department of Labor surveyed the major domestic customers of
the subject firm regarding purchases of brominated chemical
intermediates in 2005, 2006, and in January through October 2007.
The survey revealed that customers did not purchase imports of
brominated chemical intermediates during the relevant period.
In accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of 1974 (26 USC
2813), as amended, the Department of Labor herein presents the
results of its investigation regarding certification of eligibility
to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance (ATAA) for
older workers.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for 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, I determine that workers of Diaz
Intermediates Corporation, West Memphis, Arkansas, are denied
eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of
the Trade Act of 1974, and are also denied eligibility to apply for
alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the
Trade Act of 1974.
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 28th day of November, 2007.
/s/Linda G. Poole
______________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance








- 7 -