DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-92,063

BRENNTAG PACIFIC, INC.
A DIVISION OF BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA, INC.
A SUBSIDIARY OF THE BRENNTAG GROUP
PORTLAND, OREGON

Notice of Revised Determination
on Remand

On November 2, 2017, the U.S. Court of International Trade
(USCIT) granted the U.S. Department of Labor’s (the
Department’s) motion for voluntary remand for further
investigation in Former Employees of Brenntag Pacific, Inc., a
division of Brenntag North America, Inc., a subsidiary of The
Brenntag Group, Portland, Oregon v. United States, Case No. 17-
00234.
On July 13, 2016, three workers filed a petition for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) on behalf of workers of Brenntag
Pacific, Inc., a division of Brenntag North America, Inc., a
subsidiary of The Brenntag Group, Portland, Oregon (the subject
firm).
The subject firm was engaged in activities related to the
production of chemical blends, which have a variety of
applications including use in the food, water treatment,
household, industrial, and institutional, wood products, and
general industrial markets.
During the initial investigation, it was revealed that a
significant number or proportion of workers at the subject firm
were totally or partially separated from employment or were
threatened to become totally or partially separated during the
relevant period.
However, during the initial investigation, it was
determined that imports of articles like or directly competitive
with the articles produced by the subject firm have not
increased and that the subject firm did not shift production to
a foreign country, or acquire products from a foreign country,
like or directly competitive to what the workers’ firm produced.
During the initial investigation, the Department also
conducted a survey of the subject firm’s major declining
customer(s); however, the survey revealed that during the
relevant period customers did not increase reliance on imports
of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by
the subject firm. Additionally, the major declining customer(s)
of the workers’ firm did not incorporate chemical blends into a
finished article warranting a look into finished article
imports.
The initial investigation also revealed that the subject
firm was not a supplier or a downstream producer to a firm whose
workers were certified eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance. Lastly, the initial investigation revealed that the
subject firm was not identified in an affirmative finding of
injury by the International Trade Commission.
A negative determination regarding worker group eligibility
to apply for TAA was issued on July 18, 2017. The notice was
published within the Federal Register on September 28, 2017 (82
FR 45312).
Administrative reconsideration of the Department’s negative
determination was requested. However, a request for judicial
review came in before a determination on the administrative
reconsideration application could occur.
In the Complaint to the USCIT, dated September 11, 2017,
the Plaintiff stated the following:
* “Brenntag Pacific had significant business in the oil and
gas industry. This business saw significant decline because
of a direct attack to the US Oil Producers by OPEC dropping
the import barrel below the domestic cost to produce. This
had the effect of reduction on customers' business,
reductions in their work force, and reductions in Brenntag
Pacific's work force. I was told that [the] Trade Act does
not consider Oil imports as viable claims.”
* “Imports from China are causing a shift in the Domestic
Chemical industry. Domestic Producers partner with a
distributor, and work through them. Chinese import is
available to all, including the end user.”
The USCIT’S order granting voluntary remand, dated
November 2, 2017, directed the Department to (1) conduct
further investigation as appropriate; (2) determine whether
petitioning workers are eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance; and (3) issue the appropriate redetermination on
remand.
During the remand investigation, the Department gathered
additional information and clarified existing information
collected from the subject firm. The Department requested that
the subject firm confirm that the information provided during
the initial investigation was correct and updated, as
necessary.
The Department fully reviewed all material received during
the initial investigation and the remand investigation, and
considered the contents of each document as it applies to the
TAA for workers program in accordance with the statute,
regulations, and other authority.
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm
under Section 222(b) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(b), can be
satisfied if the following criteria are 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
term “Supplier” as “a firm that produces and supplies directly
to another firm component parts for articles, or services, used
in the production of articles or in the supply of services, as
the case may be, that were the basis for a certification of
eligibility under subsection (a) [of Section 222 of the Act] of
a group of workers employed by such other firm.”
Based on the information collected during the remand
investigation, the Department determined that Section 222(b)(1)
has been met because a significant number or proportion of the
workers in such workers’ firm have become totally or partially
separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially
separated.
Section 222(b)(2) has been met because the subject firm is
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), and such supply is related to the
finished article that was the basis for such certification.
Section 222(b)(3)(A) has been met because the chemical
blends produced by the subject firm for a firm that employed a
certified worker group accounted for at least 20 percent of
the production or sales of the subject firm.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that workers of Brenntag Pacific,
Inc., a division of Brenntag North America, Inc., a subsidiary
of The Brenntag Group, Portland, Oregon, who are engaged in
activities related to the production of chemical blends, meet
the worker group certification criteria under Section 222(b) of
the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(b). In accordance with Section 223 of
the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273, I make the following certification:


“All workers of Brenntag Pacific, Inc., a division of
Brenntag North America, Inc., a subsidiary of The
Brenntag Group, Portland, Oregon, who became totally or
partially separated from employment on or after July 13,
2015 through two years from the date of certification, and
all workers in the group threatened with total or partial
separation from employment on the date of certification
through two years from the date of certification, are
eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2
of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.”
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 4th day of January 2018.

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


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-92,063

BRENNTAG PACIFIC, INC.
A DIVISION OF BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA, INC.
A SUBSIDIARY OF THE BRENNTAG GROUP
PORTLAND, OREGON

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 July 28, 2016 by three workers on behalf of workers of
Brenntag Pacific, Inc., a division of Brenntag North America,
Inc., a subsidiary of The Brenntag Group, Portland, Oregon
(herein referred to as "Brenntag Pacific"). The workers' firm
is engaged in activities related to the production of chemical
blends.
The petitioners provided the following allegation: "OPEC
dropped the cost of their barrel of oil to a pricing level below
what domestic producers can compete. The effect was for domestic
producers to halt the drilling of new wells and reduce
production of existing wells. Brenntag Pacific's oil and gas
business dropped 40%. This has caused ongoing reductions in
staffing levels."
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the petitioner(s), the workers' firm, and major
declining customer(s) of the workers' firm.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that imports of chemical blends did not
increase. The workers' firm did not report imports of chemical
blends or articles like or directly competitive in 2015 or
2016. Furthermore, the major declining customer(s) of the
workers' firm also did not report imports of chemical blends
or articles like or directly competitive in 2015 or 2016.
Lastly, the major declining customer(s) of the workers' firm
did not incorporate chemical blends into a finished article
warranting a look into finished article imports.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift the
production of chemical blends or a like or directly competitive
article to a foreign country or acquire chemical blends 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 Brenntag Pacific 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 Brenntag Pacific 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).
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 Brenntag Pacific,
Inc., a division of Brenntag North America, Inc., a subsidiary
of The Brenntag Group, Portland, Oregon engaged in activities
related to the production of chemical blends to apply for
adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 18th day of July 2017.
/s/Hope D. Kinglock
______________________________
HOPE D. KINGLOCK
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance