Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc.; Engineering Department; North American Division; Phoenix, Arizona; Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration, 29210-29211 [2014-11640]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
29210
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 98 / Wednesday, May 21, 2014 / Notices
The transactions described in section
408(b)(14) are: The provision of
investment advice to the participant or
beneficiary with respect to a security or
other property available as an
investment under the plan; the
acquisition, holding or sale of a security
or other property available as an
investment under the plan pursuant to
the investment advice; and the direct or
indirect receipt of compensation by a
fiduciary adviser or affiliate in
connection with the provision of
investment advice or the acquisition,
holding or sale of a security or other
property available as an investment
under the plan pursuant to the
investment advice. The requirements in
section 408(g) are met only if advice is
provided by a fiduciary adviser under
an ‘‘eligible investment advice
arrangement.’’ Section 408(g) provides
for two general types of eligible
arrangements: One based on compliance
with a ‘‘fee-leveling’’ requirement
(imposing limitation on fees and
compensation of the fiduciary adviser);
the other, based on compliance with a
‘‘computer model’’ requirement
(requiring use of a certified computer
model).
The regulation contains the following
collections of information: (1) A
fiduciary adviser must furnish an initial
disclosure that provides detailed
information to participants about an
advice arrangement before initially
providing investment advice; (2) a
fiduciary adviser must engage, at least
annually, an independent auditor to
conduct an audit of the investment
advice arrangement for compliance with
the regulation; (3) if the fiduciary
adviser provides the investment advice
through the use of a computer model,
then before providing the advice, the
fiduciary adviser must obtain the
written certification of an eligible
investment expert as to the computer
model’s compliance with certain
standards (e.g., applies generally
accepted investment theories, unbiased
operation, objective criteria) set forth in
the regulation; and (4) fiduciary advisers
must maintain records with respect to
the investment advice provided in
reliance on the regulation necessary to
determine whether the applicable
requirements of the regulation have
been satisfied.
The ICR was approved by OMB under
OMB Control Number 1210–0134 and is
scheduled to expire on October 31,
2014.
Agency: Employee Benefits Security
Administration, Department of Labor.
Title: Alternative Method of
Compliance for Certain Simplified
Employee Pensions.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:42 May 20, 2014
Jkt 232001
Type of Review: Extension of a
currently approved collection of
information.
OMB Number: 1210–0034.
Affected Public: Businesses or other
for-profits.
Respondents: 36,000.
Responses: 68,000.
Estimated Total Burden Hours:
21,000.
Estimated Total Burden Cost
(Operating and Maintenance): $23,000.
Description: Section 110 of ERISA
authorizes the Secretary to prescribe
alternative methods of compliance with
the reporting and disclosure
requirements of Title I of ERISA for
pension plans. Simplified employee
pensions (SEPs) are established in
section 408(k) of the Internal Revenue
Code (Code). Although SEPs are
primarily a development of the Code
and subject to its requirements, SEPs are
also pension plans subject to the
reporting and disclosure requirements
of Title I of ERISA.
The Department previously issued a
regulation under the authority of section
110 of ERISA (29 CFR 2520.104–49) that
intended to relieve sponsors of certain
SEPs from ERISA’s Title I reporting and
disclosure requirements by prescribing
an alternative method of compliance.
These SEPs are, for purposes of this
Notice, referred to as ‘‘non-model’’ SEPs
because they exclude (1) those SEPs
which are created through use of
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form
5305–SEP, and (2) those SEPs in which
the employer limits or influences the
employees’ choice to IRAs into which
employers’ contributions will be made
and on which participant withdrawals
are prohibited. The disclosure
requirements in this regulation were
developed in conjunction with the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS Notice
81–1). Accordingly, sponsors of
‘‘nonmodel’’ SEPs that satisfy the
limited disclosure requirements of the
regulation are relieved from otherwise
applicable reporting and disclosure
requirements under Title I of ERISA,
including the requirements to file
annual reports (Form 5500 Series) with
the Department, and to furnish
summary plan descriptions and
summary annual reports to participants
and beneficiaries.
This ICR includes four separate
disclosure requirements. First, at the
time an employee becomes eligible to
participate in the SEP, the administrator
of the SEP must furnish the employee in
writing specific and general information
concerning the SEP; a statement on
rates, transfers and withdrawals; and a
statement on tax treatment. Second, the
administrator of the SEP must furnish
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
participants with information
concerning any amendments. Third, the
administrator must notify participants
of any employer contributions made to
the IRA. Fourth, in the case of a SEP
that provides integration with Social
Security, the administrator shall provide
participants with statement on Social
Security taxes and the integration
formula used by the employer. The ICR
was approved by OMB under OMB
Control Number 1210–0034 and is
scheduled to expire on December 31,
2014.
II. Focus of Comments
The Department is particularly
interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collections of
information are 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 collections 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., by permitting electronic
submissions of responses.
Comments submitted in response to this
notice will be summarized and/or
included in the ICRs for OMB approval
of the extension of the information
collection; they will also become a
matter of public record.
Dated: April 29, 2014.
Joseph S. Piacentini,
Director, Office of Policy and Research,
Employee Benefits Security Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014–11749 Filed 5–20–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–29–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–83,184]
Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc.;
Engineering Department; North
American Division; Phoenix, Arizona;
Notice of Revised Determination on
Reconsideration
The initial investigation resulted in a
negative determination was based on
the Department’s findings that the
E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM
21MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 98 / Wednesday, May 21, 2014 / Notices
petitioning worker group at Redflex
Traffic Systems, Inc., North American
Division, Phoenix, Arizona (subject
firm) did not meet the eligibility criteria
of the Trade Act, as amended. The
Department’s Notice of determination
was published in the Federal Register
on February 13, 2014 (79 FR 8736).
The request for reconsideration
asserts that the petition for Trade
Adjustment Assistance was filed on
behalf of the Engineering Department
and that the scope of the initial
investigation was too broad and,
therefore, detrimental to the petitioning
workers.
Based on information collected from
the subject firm during the
reconsideration investigation, the
Department determines that the subject
firm shifted to a foreign country the
supply of services like or directly
competitive with those provided by the
workers of Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc.,
North American Division, Engineering
Department, Phoenix, Arizona.
Conclusion
After careful review of the additional
facts obtained on reconsideration, I
determine that workers of Redflex
Traffic Systems, Inc., North American
Division, Engineering Department,
Phoenix, Arizona, meet the worker
group certification criteria under
Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
2272(a). In accordance with Section 223
of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2273, I make the
following certification:
All workers of Redflex Traffic Systems,
Inc., North American Division, Engineering
Department, Phoenix, Arizona, who became
totally or partially separated from
employment on or after October 29, 2012,
through two years from the date of this
certification, and all workers in the group
threatened with total or partial separation
from employment on 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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Signed in Washington, DC, this 29th day of
April, 2014.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2014–11640 Filed 5–20–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:42 May 20, 2014
Jkt 232001
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–82,697]
AT&T Corporation; a Subsidiary of
AT&T Inc.; Business Billing Customer
Care; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Notice
of Negative Determination on
Reconsideration
On October 23, 2013, the Department
of Labor (Department) issued an
Affirmative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration for the
workers and former workers of AT&T
Corporation, a subsidiary of AT&T Inc.,
Business Billing Customer Care,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (hereafter
referred to as ‘‘the subject firm’’).
Workers at the subject firm were
engaged in activities related to the
supply of billing inquiry and billing
dispute resolution services.
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 was based
on the Department’s findings that there
no increased imports, during the
relevant period, of services like or
directly competitive with the billing
inquiry and billing dispute resolution
services supplied by the subject
workers; the subject firm has not shifted
the supply of services like or directly
competitive with the billing inquiry and
billing dispute resolution services
supplied by the subject workers to a
foreign country or acquired the supply
of billing inquiry and billing dispute
resolution services from a foreign
country; the worker separations are
attributable to a shift of billing inquiry
and billing dispute resolution services
to other locations within the United
States; the subject firm is not a Supplier
to, or 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); and 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
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29211
an affirmative finding of serious injury,
market disruption, or material injury, or
threat thereof.
The request for reconsideration
alleges that the subject firm has shifted
billing services, ordering services, and/
or customer support services to
Slovakia, Mexico, India, and/or the
Philippines. The worker requesting
reconsideration also supplied additional
information in regard to employment
figures at the aforementioned locations
and subsequently submitted multiple
documents and attachments related to
the afore-mentioned allegations.
During the course of the
reconsideration investigation, the
subject firm addressed the aforementioned allegations and confirmed
the meaning of multiple documents and
attachments provided by the worker
requesting reconsideration.
During the reconsideration
investigation, the Department received
information which confirmed that the
subject firm has not imported, during
the relevant period, any services like or
directly competitive with billing inquiry
and billing dispute resolution services
supplied by workers of the subject firm;
the subject firm did not shift the supply
of services like or directly competitive
with the billing inquiry and billing
dispute resolution services supplied by
workers of the subject firm, and; the
subject firm did not acquire from a
foreign country the supply of services
like or directly competitive with the
billing inquiry and billing dispute
resolution services supplied by workers
of the subject firm.
Additional information obtained from
the subject firm during the
reconsideration investigation revealed
that the subject firm does not import
any finished products that incorporate
services like or directly competitive
with the services supplied by the
subject firm.
Therefore, after careful review of the
request for reconsideration, 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 AT&T Corporation, a
subsidiary of AT&T Inc., Business
Billing Customer Care, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, to apply for adjustment
assistance, in accordance with Section
223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2273.
E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM
21MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 98 (Wednesday, May 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29210-29211]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11640]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-83,184]
Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc.; Engineering Department; North
American Division; Phoenix, Arizona; Notice of Revised Determination on
Reconsideration
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination was
based on the Department's findings that the
[[Page 29211]]
petitioning worker group at Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., North
American Division, Phoenix, Arizona (subject firm) did not meet the
eligibility criteria of the Trade Act, as amended. The Department's
Notice of determination was published in the Federal Register on
February 13, 2014 (79 FR 8736).
The request for reconsideration asserts that the petition for Trade
Adjustment Assistance was filed on behalf of the Engineering Department
and that the scope of the initial investigation was too broad and,
therefore, detrimental to the petitioning workers.
Based on information collected from the subject firm during the
reconsideration investigation, the Department determines that the
subject firm shifted to a foreign country the supply of services like
or directly competitive with those provided by the workers of Redflex
Traffic Systems, Inc., North American Division, Engineering Department,
Phoenix, Arizona.
Conclusion
After careful review of the additional facts obtained on
reconsideration, I determine that workers of Redflex Traffic Systems,
Inc., North American Division, Engineering Department, Phoenix,
Arizona, meet the worker group certification criteria under Section
222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a). In accordance with Section 223 of
the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2273, I make the following certification:
All workers of Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., North American
Division, Engineering Department, Phoenix, Arizona, who became
totally or partially separated from employment on or after October
29, 2012, through two years from the date of this certification, and
all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation
from employment on 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, DC, this 29th day of April, 2014.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2014-11640 Filed 5-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
