Dentek.Com, Inc. D/B/A Nsequence Center for Advanced Dentistry Reno, NV; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration, 71463 [2010-29432]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 23, 2010 / Notices
71463
APPENDIX—Continued
[TAA petitions instituted between 11/1/10 and 11/5/10]
TA–W
74831
74832
74833
74834
74835
74836
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
Location
CompuCom Systems (Workers) ................................
SK Hand Tools Corporation (Union) .........................
Franklin Electric Company, Inc. (Company) ..............
Fleck (State/One-Stop) ..............................................
Euchre Mountain Logging, Inc. (Company) ...............
Journal Community Publishing (Workers) .................
Menlo Park, CA ...............
Defiance, OH ...................
Oklahoma City, OK ..........
Brookfield, WI ..................
Condon, MT .....................
Waupaca, WI ...................
[FR Doc. 2010–29425 Filed 11–22–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–73,963]
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Dentek.Com, Inc. D/B/A Nsequence
Center for Advanced Dentistry Reno,
NV; Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration
By application dated July 16, 2010,
the petitioner 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 determination was signed on
August 13, 2010. The Department’s
Notice will soon be published in the
Federal Register. Workers at the subject
firm are engaged in employment related
to the production of dental prosthetics
(such as crowns and the bridges).
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 negative determination
applicable to workers and former
workers at Dentek.com, Inc., d/b/a
nSequence Center for Advanced
Dentistry, Reno, Nevada (the subject
firm) was based on the findings that the
subject firm did not, during the period
under investigation, shift to a foreign
country production of dental
prosthetics, or articles like or directly
competitive with those produced by the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Date of
institution
Subject firm (petitioners)
18:02 Nov 22, 2010
Jkt 223001
workers, or acquire these articles from a
foreign country; that the workers’
separation, or threat of separation, was
not related to any increase in imports of
dental prosthetics, or like or directly
competitive articles; and that the
workers did not produce an article or
supply a service that was directly used
in the production of an article or the
supply of service by a firm that
employed a worker group that is eligible
to apply for TAA based on the
aforementioned article or service.
During the reconsideration
investigation, the Department obtained
new information from the subject firm
regarding imports and its operations and
reviewed publically available
information regarding the subject firm
and its operations, as well as additional
information provided by the petitioner.
In a subsequent letter to the
Department, the petitioner states that, in
2008, ‘‘the decision was made to begin
in earnest to out-source all of the crown
and the bridge except for the extreme
rush cases’’ and, as a result of the action,
‘‘all of the staff was released.’’ The
petitioner also alleges that vendors such
as the subject firm send orders ‘‘directly
to China.’’
Information obtained during the
reconsideration investigation confirmed
that the subject firm did not shift
production of dental prosthetics, or like
or directly competitive articles, to a
foreign country, and that, during the
relevant period, the subject firm did not
increase its imports of dental
prosthetics, or like or directly
competitive articles.
A customer survey was not conducted
during the reconsideration investigation
because the customers of the subject
firm are individual dental health care
professionals and not firms. Further, the
prosthetics are custom-made for the
patients of the customers.
The petitioner did not supply facts
not previously considered; nor provide
additional documentation indicating
that there was either (1) a mistake in the
determination of facts not previously
considered or (2) a misinterpretation of
facts or of the law justifying
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
11/05/10
11/05/10
11/05/10
11/05/10
11/05/10
11/05/10
Date of
petition
11/02/10
11/02/10
11/03/10
11/02/10
10/17/10
10/30/10
reconsideration of the initial
determination.
After careful review of the request for
reconsideration, the Department
determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not
been met.
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 10th day of
November, 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010–29432 Filed 11–22–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–73,695]
Woodland Mills Corporation Mill
Spring, NC; Notice of Revised
Determination on Reconsideration
By application dated July 22, 2010
petitioners requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department’s
negative determination regarding the
eligibility of workers and former
workers of Woodland Mills Corporation,
Mill Spring, North Carolina, to apply for
Trade Adjustment Assistance. On
August 4, 2010, the Department issued
a Notice of Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for
Reconsideration. The Department’s
Notice was published in the Federal
Register on August 13, 2010 (75 FR
49524). Workers at the subject firm are
engaged in employment related to the
production of cotton yarn.
The information collected during the
reconsideration investigation revealed
E:\FR\FM\23NON1.SGM
23NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 71463]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29432]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-73,963]
Dentek.Com, Inc. D/B/A Nsequence Center for Advanced Dentistry
Reno, NV; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration
By application dated July 16, 2010, the petitioner 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 determination was signed on August 13, 2010. The
Department's Notice will soon be published in the Federal Register.
Workers at the subject firm are engaged in employment related to the
production of dental prosthetics (such as crowns and the bridges).
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 negative determination applicable to workers and former workers
at Dentek.com, Inc., d/b/a nSequence Center for Advanced Dentistry,
Reno, Nevada (the subject firm) was based on the findings that the
subject firm did not, during the period under investigation, shift to a
foreign country production of dental prosthetics, or articles like or
directly competitive with those produced by the workers, or acquire
these articles from a foreign country; that the workers' separation, or
threat of separation, was not related to any increase in imports of
dental prosthetics, or like or directly competitive articles; and that
the workers did not produce an article or supply a service that was
directly used in the production of an article or the supply of service
by a firm that employed a worker group that is eligible to apply for
TAA based on the aforementioned article or service.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department obtained
new information from the subject firm regarding imports and its
operations and reviewed publically available information regarding the
subject firm and its operations, as well as additional information
provided by the petitioner.
In a subsequent letter to the Department, the petitioner states
that, in 2008, ``the decision was made to begin in earnest to out-
source all of the crown and the bridge except for the extreme rush
cases'' and, as a result of the action, ``all of the staff was
released.'' The petitioner also alleges that vendors such as the
subject firm send orders ``directly to China.''
Information obtained during the reconsideration investigation
confirmed that the subject firm did not shift production of dental
prosthetics, or like or directly competitive articles, to a foreign
country, and that, during the relevant period, the subject firm did not
increase its imports of dental prosthetics, or like or directly
competitive articles.
A customer survey was not conducted during the reconsideration
investigation because the customers of the subject firm are individual
dental health care professionals and not firms. Further, the
prosthetics are custom-made for the patients of the customers.
The petitioner did not supply facts not previously considered; nor
provide additional documentation indicating that there was either (1) a
mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered or (2)
a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justifying reconsideration
of the initial determination.
After careful review of the request for reconsideration, the
Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.
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 10th day of November, 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-29432 Filed 11-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
