7322 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Notices 

workers and former workers of 

American Woodmark, Hardy County 

Plant, Moorefield, West Virginia. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of 

January, 2008. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E8–2236 Filed 2–6–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–62,189] 

Diaz Intermediates Corporation, West 

Memphis, AR; 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 

signed 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 misinterpretation 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, DC, this 30th day of 

January 2008. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E8–2237 Filed 2–6–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–62,207] 

Diaz Intermediates Corporation, 

Brockport, NY; Notice of Negative 

Determination Regarding Application 

for Reconsideration 

By application dated December 28, 

2007, a company official requested 

administrative reconsideration of the 

Department’s negative determination 

regarding eligibility to apply for Trade 

Adjustment Assistance (TAA), 

applicable to workers and former 

workers of the subject firm. The denial 

notice was signed 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 misinterpretation of facts or of 

the law justified reconsideration of the 

decision. 

The investigation revealed that 

workers of the subject firm were in 

support of production of brominated 

chemical intermediates at Diaz 

Intermediates Corporation, West 

Memphis, Arkansas. 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 imports of 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, and 

that 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 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES