Verizon Services Corporation, Customer Service Clerk, General Clerk, Clarksburg, West Virginia; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration, 32461-32462 [2013-12739]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 104 / Thursday, May 30, 2013 / Notices
In addition, the State Workforce
Agencies (SWAs) collect information
from agricultural employers to
determine prevailing, normal, accepted
or common employment practices for a
specific occupational classification. The
burden information for these prevailing
practice determinations is currently
accounted for in OMB Control Number
1205–0457, in which the SWAs report
their overall activities to ETA for grant
making purposes. However, ETA
believes that the work required to
determine the prevailing practice in an
area of employment most logically
correlates to the process used to
determine the prevailing wages in an
area of employment. Therefore, the
Department is proposing to move that
burden from OMB Control Number
1205–0457 to OMB Control Number
1205–0017 and has accounted for the
burden in this collection.
I. Background
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
addresses section below on or before
July 29, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments
to William L. Carlson, Ph.D.,
Administrator, Office of Foreign Labor
Certification, Room C–4312,
Employment & Training Administration,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20210. Telephone number: 202–
693–3010 (this is not a toll-free
number). Individuals with hearing or
speech impairments may access the
telephone number above via TTY by
calling the toll-free Federal Information
Relay Service at 1–877–889–5627 (TTY/
TDD). Fax: 202–693–2768. Email:
ETA.OFLC.Forms@dol.gov subject line:
ETA–232/232–A. A copy of the
proposed information collection request
(ICR) can be obtained by contacting the
office listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
II. Review Focus
The Department is particularly
interested in comments which:
• evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
• evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
• enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submissions
of responses.
The information collection is required
by the Wagner-Peyser Act, codified at 20
CFR part 653, which covers the
requirements for the acceptance and
handling of intrastate and interstate job
clearance orders seeking workers to
perform agricultural or food processing
work on a less than year-round basis.
Section 653.501 states, in pertinent part,
that employers must assure that the
‘‘wages and working conditions are not
less than the prevailing wages and
working conditions among similarly
employed agricultural workers in the
area of intended employment or the
applicable Federal or State minimum
wage, whichever is higher.’’
The collection is also required by
regulations for the temporary
employment of alien agricultural
workers in the United States (20 CFR,
part 655, subpart B) promulgated under
section 218 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA) as amended,
which require employers to pay the
workers at least the adverse effect wage
rate in effect at the time the work is
performed, the prevailing hourly wage
rate, the agreed upon collective
bargaining wage or the legal federal or
State minimum wage rate, whichever is
highest unless special procedures apply
to the occupation. See 20 CFR
655.120(a).
The vehicle for establishing the
prevailing wage rate is ETA Form 232,
The Domestic Agricultural In-Season
Wage Report. This Report contains the
prevailing wage finding based on data
collected by the States from employers
in a specific crop area using the ETA
Form 232–A, Wage Survey Interview
Record.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 May 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
III. Current Actions
In order to meet its statutory
responsibilities under the INA, the
Department needs to extend an existing
collection of information pertaining to
wage rates for various crop activities.
Type of Review: Revision
Title: Domestic Agricultural In-Season
Wage Report and Wage Survey
Interview Record
OMB Number: 1205–0017 and 1205–
0457.
Affected Public: Private sector
business or other for-profits and farms;
and State, local, or tribal Governments.
Form(s): ETA–232 and ETA–232–A
Total Annual Respondents: 24,662
Annual Frequency: 129
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32461
Total Annual Responses: 27,658
Average Time per Response: 35
minutes
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 16,227
Total Annual Burden Cost for
Respondents: 0
Comments submitted in response to
this comment request will be
summarized and/or included in the
request for OMB approval of the ICR;
they will also become a matter of public
record.
Dated: Signed in Washington, DC, on this
23rd day of May, 2013.
Jane Oates,
Assistant Secretary for Employment and
Training, Labor.
[FR Doc. 2013–12851 Filed 5–29–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FP–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–82,095]
Verizon Services Corporation,
Customer Service Clerk, General Clerk,
Clarksburg, West Virginia; Notice of
Negative Determination on
Reconsideration
On January 15, 2013, the Department
of Labor issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration for the workers and
former workers of Verizon Services
Corporation, Customer Service Clerk,
General Clerk, Clarksburg, West Virginia
(subject firm). The Department’s Notice
was published in the Federal Register
on February 6, 2013 (78 FR 8589).
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.
Verizon Services Corporation is
engaged in the supply of
telecommunication and wireless
support services.
Workers of Verizon Services
Corporation’s Customer Service Clerk,
General Clerk business unit at
Clarksburg, West Virginia (subject
worker group) are engaged in
employment related to the supply of
E:\FR\FM\30MYN1.SGM
30MYN1
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
32462
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 104 / Thursday, May 30, 2013 / Notices
customer service and support services
for Verizon Services Corporation
customers/clients.
The initial investigation resulted in a
negative determination based on the
Departments’ findings of no shift in the
supply of customer service and support
services, or like or directly competitive
services, to a foreign country; no
increased imports of customer service
and support services (or like or directly
competitive services) during the
relevant period; that the subject firm is
neither a Supplier or a Downstream
Producer; and that the subject firm was
not named by the International Trade
Commission as required by Section
222(e) of the Trade Act, as amended.
In the request for reconsideration, the
petitioning worker alleged that work
performed by the subject worker group
was outsourced to not only Mexico but
also the Philippines and India; that the
worker group at Clarksburg, West
Virginia are similarly situated as
workers who are eligible to apply for
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA)
under TA–W–81,968; that the workers
‘‘performed all aspects of customer
service in telecommunications’’ such as
order management; that ‘‘inter-company
numbers were changed to Spanish’’; and
that ‘‘When calling within the company
for internet issues, we spoke with
Verizon workers in India.’’
During the reconsideration
investigation, the Department carefully
reviewed the petition and its
attachments, previously-submitted
information from the subject firm, the
certification of TA–W–81,968 and new
information obtained from the subject
firm regarding the allegations set forth
in the request for reconsideration.
During the reconsideration
investigation, the Department confirmed
that the subject firm did not shift to a
foreign country the supply of services
like or directly competitive with the
customer service or support services
supplied by the subject workers and
that, during the relevant period, the
subject firm did not import services like
or directly competitive with the
customer service or support services
supplied by the subject workers. The
subject firm also affirmed that the
petitioning workers voluntarily left
employment from the subject firm, as
permitted by the collective bargaining
agreement applicable to the worker
group at the Clarksburg, West Virginia
facility.
Further, the workers and former
workers eligible to apply for TAA under
TA–W–81,968 (Verizon Business
Networks Services, Inc., Senior
Analysts-Sales Implementation,
Birmingham, Alabama) are not
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:25 May 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
similarly-situated as workers covered by
TA–W–82,095 because the services
supplied by the two worker groups
differ and the petitioning workers
belong to a different business unit.
Further, Verizon Business Networks
Services, Inc. is not the same company
as Verizon Services Corporation.
Therefore, after careful review of the
petition and its attachments, previouslysubmitted information, the request for
reconsideration, the certification of TA–
W–81,968 and information obtained
during the reconsideration
investigation, the Department
determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not
been met.
Conclusion
After careful review, 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 Verizon Services
Corporation, Customer Service Clerk,
General Clerk, Clarksburg, West
Virginia, to apply for adjustment
assistance, in accordance with Section
223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2273.
Signed in Washington, DC on this 16th day
of May, 2013.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2013–12739 Filed 5–29–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–81,313]
Wyatt Virgin Islands (V.I.), Inc., a
Division of Wyatt Field Service
Company, Working On-Site at
Hovensa, LLC Oil Refinery,
Christiansted, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin
Islands; Notice of Negative
Determination on Reconsideration
The initial investigation, instituted on
February 8, 2012, on behalf of workers
and former workers of Wyatt Virgin
Islands (V.I.), Inc., a division of Wyatt
Field Service Company, working on-site
at HOVENSA, LLC Oil Refinery,
Christiansted, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin
Islands (subject facility) resulted in a
negative determination, issued on April
6, 2012. The Department’s Notice of
negative determination was published
in the Federal Register on April 19,
2012 (77 FR 23511).
Workers of Wyatt V.I., Inc. (subject
firm) provided turnaround (intermittent
and ‘‘as needed’’) maintenance services
on-site at the subject facility. The
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
workers of the subject firm working onsite at HOVENSA, LLC Oil Refinery,
Christiansted, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin
Islands (subject worker group) worked
only at the subject facility.
The petition states, ‘‘HOVENSA =
Hess Oil is a joint venture with
Venezuela. Impact of the closure of this
plant & refinery will affect thousands of
people displacing workers workforce.
Losses at the HOVENSA refinery have
totaled $1.3 billion in the past three
years, and are projected to continue.’’
The petitioning worker group
eligibility requirements for workers (and
former workers) of a Firm under Section
222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a), can
be satisfied if the following criteria are
met:
(1) 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; and
(2)(A)(i) the sales or production, or both, of
such firm have decreased absolutely;
(ii)(I) imports of articles or services like or
directly competitive with articles produced
or services supplied by such firm have
increased;
(II) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles—
(aa) into which one or more component
parts produced by such firm are directly
incorporated, or
(bb) which are produced directly using
services supplied by such firm, have
increased; or
(III) imports of articles directly
incorporating one or more component parts
produced outside the United States that are
like or directly competitive with imports of
articles incorporating one or more
component parts produced by such firm 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; or
(B)(i)(I) there has been a shift by such
workers’ firm to a foreign country in the
production of articles or the supply of
services like or directly competitive with
articles which are produced or services
which are supplied by such firm; or
(II) such workers’ firm has acquired from
a foreign country articles or services that are
like or directly competitive with articles
which are produced or services which are
supplied by such 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.
Initial Investigation
The initial investigation began when
three workers filed a petition for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA), dated
February 6, 2012, on behalf of workers
and former workers of Wyatt V.I., Inc.
(subject firm). Although workers of the
E:\FR\FM\30MYN1.SGM
30MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 104 (Thursday, May 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32461-32462]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12739]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-82,095]
Verizon Services Corporation, Customer Service Clerk, General
Clerk, Clarksburg, West Virginia; Notice of Negative Determination on
Reconsideration
On January 15, 2013, the Department of Labor issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers
and former workers of Verizon Services Corporation, Customer Service
Clerk, General Clerk, Clarksburg, West Virginia (subject firm). The
Department's Notice was published in the Federal Register on February
6, 2013 (78 FR 8589).
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.
Verizon Services Corporation is engaged in the supply of
telecommunication and wireless support services.
Workers of Verizon Services Corporation's Customer Service Clerk,
General Clerk business unit at Clarksburg, West Virginia (subject
worker group) are engaged in employment related to the supply of
[[Page 32462]]
customer service and support services for Verizon Services Corporation
customers/clients.
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination
based on the Departments' findings of no shift in the supply of
customer service and support services, or like or directly competitive
services, to a foreign country; no increased imports of customer
service and support services (or like or directly competitive services)
during the relevant period; that the subject firm is neither a Supplier
or a Downstream Producer; and that the subject firm was not named by
the International Trade Commission as required by Section 222(e) of the
Trade Act, as amended.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioning worker alleged
that work performed by the subject worker group was outsourced to not
only Mexico but also the Philippines and India; that the worker group
at Clarksburg, West Virginia are similarly situated as workers who are
eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) under TA-W-
81,968; that the workers ``performed all aspects of customer service in
telecommunications'' such as order management; that ``inter-company
numbers were changed to Spanish''; and that ``When calling within the
company for internet issues, we spoke with Verizon workers in India.''
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department carefully
reviewed the petition and its attachments, previously-submitted
information from the subject firm, the certification of TA-W-81,968 and
new information obtained from the subject firm regarding the
allegations set forth in the request for reconsideration.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department confirmed
that the subject firm did not shift to a foreign country the supply of
services like or directly competitive with the customer service or
support services supplied by the subject workers and that, during the
relevant period, the subject firm did not import services like or
directly competitive with the customer service or support services
supplied by the subject workers. The subject firm also affirmed that
the petitioning workers voluntarily left employment from the subject
firm, as permitted by the collective bargaining agreement applicable to
the worker group at the Clarksburg, West Virginia facility.
Further, the workers and former workers eligible to apply for TAA
under TA-W-81,968 (Verizon Business Networks Services, Inc., Senior
Analysts-Sales Implementation, Birmingham, Alabama) are not similarly-
situated as workers covered by TA-W-82,095 because the services
supplied by the two worker groups differ and the petitioning workers
belong to a different business unit. Further, Verizon Business Networks
Services, Inc. is not the same company as Verizon Services Corporation.
Therefore, after careful review of the petition and its
attachments, previously-submitted information, the request for
reconsideration, the certification of TA-W-81,968 and information
obtained during the reconsideration investigation, the Department
determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.
Conclusion
After careful review, 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 Verizon Services Corporation,
Customer Service Clerk, General Clerk, Clarksburg, West Virginia, to
apply for adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. 2273.
Signed in Washington, DC on this 16th day of May, 2013.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2013-12739 Filed 5-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
