Innovative Dental, Inc., Reno, Nevada; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 16821-16822 [2014-06679]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Notices
respondents, proposed frequency of
response, and estimated total burden
may be obtained free of charge from the
RegInfo.gov Web site at https://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201402-1218-007
(this link will only become active on the
day following publication of this notice)
or by contacting Michel Smyth by
telephone at 202–693–4129, TTY 202–
693–8064, (these are not toll-free
numbers) or by email at DOL_PRA_
PUBLIC@dol.gov.
Submit comments about this request
by mail or courier to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL–OSHA,
Office of Management and Budget,
Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202–
395–6881 (this is not a toll-free
number); or by email: OIRA_
submission@omb.eop.gov. Commenters
are encouraged, but not required, to
send a courtesy copy of any comments
by mail or courier to the U.S.
Department of Labor-OASAM, Office of
the Chief Information Officer, Attn:
Departmental Information Compliance
Management Program, Room N1301,
200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; or by email:
DOL_PRA_PUBLIC@dol.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202–693–
4129, TTY 202–693–8064, (these are not
toll-free numbers) or by email at DOL_
PRA_PUBLIC@dol.gov.
Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR
seeks to extend PRA authorization for
the information collection requirements
specified in the Logging Operations
Standard and codified at 29 CFR
1910.266(f), (g), and (i). The Standard
requires a covered employer to assure
operating and maintenance instructions
are available on a machine or in the area
where the machine is operated. For
vehicles, an employer must assure that
operating and maintenance instructions
are available for each vehicle. The
standard also requires an employer to
provide training to workers and to
certify that the training has been
provided. The Occupational Safety and
Health Act authorizes this information
collection. See 29 U.S.C. 657.
This information collection is subject
to the PRA. A Federal agency generally
cannot conduct or sponsor a collection
of information, and the public is
generally not required to respond to an
information collection, unless it is
approved by the OMB under the PRA
and displays a currently valid OMB
Control Number. In addition,
notwithstanding any other provisions of
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:43 Mar 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
law, no person shall generally be subject
to penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information that does not
display a valid Control Number. See 5
CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL
obtains OMB approval for this
information collection under Control
Number 1218–0198.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot
be for more than three (3) years without
renewal, and the current approval for
this collection is scheduled to expire on
March 31, 2014. The DOL seeks to
extend PRA authorization for this
information collection for three (3) more
years, without any change to existing
requirements. The DOL notes that
existing information collection
requirements submitted to the OMB
receive a month-to-month extension
while they undergo review. For
additional substantive information
about this ICR, see the related notice
published in the Federal Register on
December 5, 2013 (78 FR 73208).
Interested parties are encouraged to
send comments to the OMB, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs at
the address shown in the ADDRESSES
section within 30 days of publication of
this notice in the Federal Register. In
order to help ensure appropriate
consideration, comments should
mention OMB Control Number 1218–
0198. The OMB is particularly
interested in comments that:
• 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 submission of
responses.
Agency: DOL–OSHA.
Title of Collection: Logging
Operations Standard.
OMB Control Number: 1218–0198.
Affected Public: Private Sector—
businesses or other for-profits.
Total Estimated Number of
Respondents: 8,286.
Total Estimated Number of
Responses: 50,904.
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
16821
Total Estimated Annual Time Burden:
1,622 hours.
Total Estimated Annual Other Costs
Burden: $0.
Dated: March 19, 2014.
Michel Smyth,
Departmental Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014–06589 Filed 3–25–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–82,998]
Innovative Dental, Inc., Reno, Nevada;
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for
Reconsideration
By application dated September 27,
2013, a separated worker requested
administrative reconsideration of the
Department of Labor’s negative
determination regarding eligibility to
apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA), applicable to workers and former
workers of the subject firm (issued
September 12, 2013). The Department’s
Notice of determination was published
in the Federal Register on October 3,
2013 (78 FR 61394).
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 of the
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA)
petition filed on behalf of workers at
Innovative Dental, Inc., Reno, Nevada
was based on the Department’s findings
that a significant number or proportion
of workers at the subject firm has not
been totally or partially separated, or
threatened with such separation. In a
worker group of fewer than fifty
workers, a significant number or
proportion of workers is three workers.
29 CFR 90.2
The request for reconsideration stated
that ‘‘over 60% of the dental laboratory
restorations in this country are
manufactured overseas . . . or across
our Southern border’’ and did not
provide any information regarding the
E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM
26MRN1
16822
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Notices
number or proportion of workers
separated at the subject firm. The
request for reconsideration did not
include any supporting documents. The
Department contacted the worker for
information regarding the number or
proportion of workers separated from
the subject firm, but did not receive any
additional information.
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. Based on these findings,
the Department determines that 29 CFR
90.18(c) has not been met.
Conclusion
After careful 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 13th day of
March, 2014.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2014–06679 Filed 3–25–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–82,371]
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
T-Mobile USA, Inc., Core Fault Isolation
Team, Engineering Division,
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania; Notice of
Negative Determination on
Reconsideration
On May 8, 2013, the Department of
Labor issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration for the workers and
former workers of T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
Core Fault Isolation Team, Engineering
Division, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
(subject firm). The Department’s Notice
was published in the Federal Register
on May 24, 2013 (78 FR 31592). The
subject workers are engaged in activities
related to the supply of technical
trouble-shooting services for T-Mobile
USA, Inc. customers. T-Mobile USA,
Inc. is an international mobile
communications company.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:43 Mar 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
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 based on no
shift in services and no company or
customer imports of like or directly
competitive services.
In the request for reconsideration, the
petitioners asserted that the subject firm
had acquired from a foreign country
services like or directly competitive
with those provided by the workers at
the subject firm and that the subject
workers provided value-added services
to a firm that employed a worker group
eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (T-Mobile, Allentown,
Pennsylvania; TA–W–81,520).
Specifically, the request states ‘‘our
separations were in fact attributable to
the shift of services to a foreign country
by T-Mobile USA.’’
In support of the assertion that the
workers are secondarily-affected, the
request states ‘‘our team was created to
provide this location [Allentown,
Pennsylvania call center] with a value
added service by providing the bridge
for the communication gap between TMobile USA’s Allentown technical
support group and T-Mobile USA’s
engineering teams.’’
During the reconsideration
investigation, the Department carefully
reviewed previously-submitted
information, reviewed the certification
of TA–W–81,520, and directed the
subject firm to address the assertions in
the request for reconsideration.
Information obtained during the
reconsideration investigation revealed
that the Core Fault Isolation Team
received work orders from various call
centers (not only the Allentown or
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania centers),
operation centers, and from other
internal and external customers.
Based on information obtained during
the reconsideration investigation, the
Department affirms that the subject firm
did not import from another country the
supply of technical trouble-shooting
services; that the subject firm did not
shift to a foreign country or acquire from
a foreign country the supply of services
like or directly competitive with those
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
provided by the workers at the subject
firm; that the subject workers do not
qualify as Downstream Producers
because they did not supply valueadded services, as defined by the Trade
Act, as amended.
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, affirm the negative
determination applicable to workers and
former workers of T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
Core Fault Isolation Team, Engineering
Division, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, in
accordance with Section 223 of the Act,
19 U.S.C. 2273.
Signed in Washington, DC on this 12th day
of March, 2014.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2014–06678 Filed 3–25–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–83,184]
Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., North
American Division, A Wholly Owned
Subsidiary of Redflex Holdings, Ltd.,
Including On-Site Leased Workers
From Iconma, BPS Staffing, AZ Tech
Finder, and Volt Workforce Solutions,
Phoenix, Arizona; Notice of Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration
By application dated February 18,
2014, a former worker requested
administrative reconsideration of the
negative determination regarding
workers’ eligibility to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA)
applicable to workers and former
workers of the subject firm. The
determination was issued on November
25, 2013 and the Department’s Notice of
determination was published in the
Federal Register on February 13, 2014
(79 FR 8736). Workers at the subject
firm are engaged in employment related
to the installation, maintenance, and
operation services of traffic enforcement
systems.
The initial investigation resulted in a
negative determination based on the
findings that the subject firm did not
shift to, or acquire from, a foreign
country the services provided by the
workers of the subject firm; further,
neither the subject firm nor its
customers imported services like or
E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM
26MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16821-16822]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06679]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-82,998]
Innovative Dental, Inc., Reno, Nevada; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated September 27, 2013, a separated worker
requested administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor's
negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers
of the subject firm (issued September 12, 2013). The Department's
Notice of determination was published in the Federal Register on
October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61394).
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 of the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA)
petition filed on behalf of workers at Innovative Dental, Inc., Reno,
Nevada was based on the Department's findings that a significant number
or proportion of workers at the subject firm has not been totally or
partially separated, or threatened with such separation. In a worker
group of fewer than fifty workers, a significant number or proportion
of workers is three workers. 29 CFR 90.2
The request for reconsideration stated that ``over 60% of the
dental laboratory restorations in this country are manufactured
overseas . . . or across our Southern border'' and did not provide any
information regarding the
[[Page 16822]]
number or proportion of workers separated at the subject firm. The
request for reconsideration did not include any supporting documents.
The Department contacted the worker for information regarding the
number or proportion of workers separated from the subject firm, but
did not receive any additional information.
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. Based on these findings, the Department
determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.
Conclusion
After careful 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 13th day of March, 2014.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2014-06679 Filed 3-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
