Apria Healthcare, LLC, Billing Department, Overland Park, Kansas; Notice of Revised Determination on Remand, 43092-43093 [2014-17433]
Download as PDF
43092
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 142 / Thursday, July 24, 2014 / Notices
requests for a public hearing will be
made a part of the record. Comments
and hearing requests should state the
reasons for the writer’s interest in the
proposed exemption. A request for a
public hearing must also state the issues
to be addressed and include a general
description of the evidence to be
presented at the hearing. Comments and
hearing requests received will also be
available for public inspection with the
referenced application at the address, as
set forth above.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 11th day of
July, 2014.
Lyssa E. Hall,
Director of Exemption Determinations,
Employee Benefits Security Administration,
U.S. Department of Labor.
[FR Doc. 2014–17425 Filed 7–23–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–29–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–85,104]
Fisher and Ludlow, a Nucor Company,
Saegertown, Pennsylvania; Notice of
Revised Determination on
Reconsideration
On May 28, 2014, the Department
issued an Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for
Reconsideration of the negative
determination regarding workers’
eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade
Adjustment Assistance (ATAA)
applicable to workers and former
workers of Fisher and Ludlow, a Nucor
Company, Saegertown, Pennsylvania
(subject firm). The Department’s Notice
was published in the Federal Register
on June 13, 2014 (79 FR 33955).
The group eligibility requirements for
workers of a firm under Section
246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act are
satisfied if the following criteria are met:
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
(I) Whether a significant number of
workers in the workers’ firm are 50 years of
age or older;
(II) Whether the workers in the workers’
firm possess skills that are not easily
transferable; and
(III) The competitive conditions within the
workers’ industry (i.e., conditions within the
industry are adverse).
The negative determination for ATAA
was based on the findings that Section
246(a)(3)(A)(ii)(II) was not met because
the workers in the workers’ firm possess
skills that are easily transferrable and
Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii)(III) was not met
because conditions within the workers’
industry were not found to be adverse.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Jul 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
During the reconsideration
investigation, the Department collected
information from the subject firm which
revealed that the group eligibility
requirements under Section
246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act was
satisfied.
Conclusion
After careful review of the additional
facts obtained on reconsideration, I
determine that workers of the subject
firm 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 Fisher and Ludlow, a Nucor
Company, Saegertown, Pennsylvania, who
became totally or partially separated from
employment on or after February 27, 2013,
through April 8, 2016, are eligible to apply
for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of
Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended,
and are also eligible to apply for alternative
trade adjustment assistance under Section
246 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 7th day of
July, 2014.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2014–17435 Filed 7–23–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–82,838]
Apria Healthcare, LLC, Billing
Department, Overland Park, Kansas;
Notice of Revised Determination on
Remand
On February 28, 2014, the U.S. Court
of International Trade (USCIT) granted
the U.S. Department of Labor’s
(Department’s) motion for voluntary
remand for further investigation in
Former Employees of Apria Healthcare,
LLC, Billing Department, Overland Park,
Kansas v. U.S. Secretary of Labor, Case
No. 13–00409.
On June 24, 2013, the state workforce
office filed a petition for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) on behalf
of workers of Apria Healthcare, LLC
(hereafter referred to as ‘‘the subject
firm’’), Billing Department, Overland
Park Kansas (TA–W–82,838; hereafter
referred to as ‘‘the Billing Department’’),
and Apria Healthcare, LLC, Document
Imaging Department, Overland Park,
Kansas (TA–W–82,838A; hereafter
referred to as ‘‘the Document Imaging
Department’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The initial investigation revealed that
workers within the Billing Department
were engaged in employment related to
the supply of medical billing services;
workers within the Document Imaging
Department were engaged in
employment related to the supply of
patient record management services;
workers within the two different
departments were separately
identifiable by services performed and,
therefore, were treated as separate
subject worker groups; and a significant
number or proportion of workers within
each subject worker group were totally
or partially separated from employment.
Although certification was granted for
the Document Imaging Department
under TA–W–82,838A, a negative
determination was initially made
regarding the Billing Department under
TA–W–82,838. The Department
determined that the subject firm
acquired from a foreign country the
supply of services like or directly
competitive with those services
provided by the workers within the
Document Imaging Department.
Consequently, workers within the
Document Imaging Department were
determined to be a group eligible to
apply for TAA. The workers in the
billing number, however, were not
determined to be an eligible worker
group. The negative determination
issued under TA–W–82,838 was based
on the Department’s findings that the
subject firm did not shift to, or acquire
from, a foreign country the supply of
services like or directly competitive
with those supplied by the workers
within the Billing Department and that
the subject firm did not import services
like or directly competitive services
with those supplied by the workers
within the Billing Department.
The negative determination regarding
workers’ eligibility to apply for TAA
under TA–W–82,838 was issued on
September 5, 2013. The Department’s
Notice of determinations was published
in the Federal Register on October 3,
2013 (78 FR 61392).
By application dated September 19,
2013, a worker in the Billing
Department requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department’s
negative determination regarding TA–
W–82,838. The request for
reconsideration alleged that the
separated worker ‘‘did the N and K
report which was electronic rejections
from India and my job was to tell them
how to get the claim to go through. Lots
of times the claims had to be dropped
onshore (meaning United States) . . . I
do have documentation and emails . . .
to support my facts.’’ Following the
receipt of the request for
E:\FR\FM\24JYN1.SGM
24JYN1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 142 / Thursday, July 24, 2014 / Notices
reconsideration, the Department
received several electronic messages
(emails) from the separated worker,
which included emails from Apria
management to the worker, an
explanation of the worker’s
responsibilities, and the assertion that
separations were due to outsourcing to
‘‘Emdeon and India.’’
The Department carefully reviewed
the information provided by the worker
seeking reconsideration, previouslysubmitted information, and information
regarding Emdeon, and determined that
the request for reconsideration did not
supply facts not previously considered
and did not 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.
The Department issued a Notice of
Negative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration on
November 12, 2013. The Department’s
Notice of determination was published
in the Federal Register on November 26,
2013 (78 FR 70580).
In the complaint filed with the
USCIT, dated December 20, 2013, the
plaintiffs allege that the subject firm has
acquired from a foreign country the
supply of services like or directly
competitive with those supplied by the
workers of the Billing Department and
identified specific functions within the
Billing Department’s scope of work that
had been shifted to a third party firm in
a foreign country. New information was
provided in the Complaint which had
not previously been shared with the
Department during the initial
investigation or in the request for
reconsideration. Based on a
consideration of this new information,
the Department determined that a
voluntary remand should be requested
in order to evaluate this material. The
parties agreed to a voluntary remand for
the Department to ‘‘seek clarification
from plaintiffs regarding the relevance
of the documents to their specific
allegations and request that the subject
firm address the contents of the
documents.’’ Consent Motion at 3.
To apply for worker adjustment
assistance under the requirements of the
Act in effect for a petition filed on the
date this petition was filed, June 24,
2013, Section 222(a), 19 U.S.C.
§ 2272(a), provided that the following
criteria must be met:
I. The first criterion (set forth in section
222(a)(1) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(1))
requires that a significant number or
proportion of the workers in the workers’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 Jul 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
firm must have become totally or partially
separated or be threatened with total or
partial separation.
II. The second criterion (set forth in section
222(a)(2) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(2))
may be satisfied if either:
(i)(I) there has been a shift by the workers’
firm to a foreign country in the production
of articles or supply of services like or
directly competitive with those produced/
supplied by the workers’ firm; OR
(i)(II) there has been an acquisition from a
foreign country by the workers’ firm of
articles/services that are like or directly
competitive with those produced/supplied
by the workers’ firm.
III. The third criterion requires that the
shift/acquisition must have contributed
importantly to the workers’ separation or
threat of separation. See section
222(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
§ 2272(a)(2)(B)(ii).
During the remand investigation, the
Department obtained new information
from the subject firm regarding the
allegations in the Complaint, solicited
input from the Plaintiffs via their
counsel, and addressed the Plaintiffs’
allegations regarding a shift in the
supply of Billing Department services to
a foreign country by the subject firm.
Based on the new and additional
information collected during the
remand investigation from the subject
firm in response to the new information
provided in the Complaint, the
Department determined that an
acquisition by the subject firm from a
foreign country of services like or
directly competitive with the medical
billing and related services supplied by
the Billing Department was an
important cause of the layoffs in the
Billing Department, as described below.
During the remand investigation, the
subject firm provided the Department
with new information which revealed
that, years prior to separations at the
Billing Department, the subject firm had
acquired from a foreign country a
portion of the services like or directly
competitive with those provided by the
Billing Department and had continued
to migrate more than a de minimus
portion of the services following the
initial acquisition of services.
Following a review of previouslysubmitted information and the new
information collected in the remand
investigation, the Department confirms
that a significant number or proportion
of the workers in the Billing Department
was totally or partially separated. A
significant number or proportion of the
workers means at least five percent of
the subject firm, or appropriate
subdivision thereof, of the workers or
fifty workers (whichever is fewer) or at
least three workers in a workforce of
fewer than fifty workers. 29 CFR 90.2
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
43093
In addition, the Department has
determined that the subject firm’s
acquisition from a foreign country of a
portion of services like or directly
competitive with the services provided
by the workers within the Billing
Department contributed importantly to
the afore-mentioned worker group
separations. Contributed importantly
means the cause (action or condition) is
one ‘‘which is important but not
necessarily more important than any
other cause.’’ 29 CFR 90.16(b)(3)
Consequently, the Department
determines that, with regard to workers
within the Billing Department, the
group eligibility requirements under
Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Trade Act of
1974, as amended, that were in effect for
TA–W–82,838, have been met.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts
obtained during the remand
investigations, I determine that the
workers’ firm has acquired from a
foreign country a portion of services like
or directly competitive with those
supplied by the Billing Department, and
the acquisition of such services
contributed importantly to worker group
separations at the Billing Department. In
accordance with section 223 of the Act,
19 U.S.C. § 2273, I make the following
certification:
All workers of Apria Healthcare, Billing
Department, Overland Park, Kansas (TA–W–
82,838), who became totally or partially
separated from employment on or after June
20, 2012, through two years from the date of
certification, and all workers in the group
threatened with total or partial separation
from employment on the 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 at Washington, DC, this 27th day of
June, 2014.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2014–17433 Filed 7–23–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
E:\FR\FM\24JYN1.SGM
24JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 142 (Thursday, July 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43092-43093]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17433]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-82,838]
Apria Healthcare, LLC, Billing Department, Overland Park, Kansas;
Notice of Revised Determination on Remand
On February 28, 2014, the U.S. Court of International Trade (USCIT)
granted the U.S. Department of Labor's (Department's) motion for
voluntary remand for further investigation in Former Employees of Apria
Healthcare, LLC, Billing Department, Overland Park, Kansas v. U.S.
Secretary of Labor, Case No. 13-00409.
On June 24, 2013, the state workforce office filed a petition for
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) on behalf of workers of Apria
Healthcare, LLC (hereafter referred to as ``the subject firm''),
Billing Department, Overland Park Kansas (TA-W-82,838; hereafter
referred to as ``the Billing Department''), and Apria Healthcare, LLC,
Document Imaging Department, Overland Park, Kansas (TA-W-82,838A;
hereafter referred to as ``the Document Imaging Department'').
The initial investigation revealed that workers within the Billing
Department were engaged in employment related to the supply of medical
billing services; workers within the Document Imaging Department were
engaged in employment related to the supply of patient record
management services; workers within the two different departments were
separately identifiable by services performed and, therefore, were
treated as separate subject worker groups; and a significant number or
proportion of workers within each subject worker group were totally or
partially separated from employment.
Although certification was granted for the Document Imaging
Department under TA-W-82,838A, a negative determination was initially
made regarding the Billing Department under TA-W-82,838. The Department
determined that the subject firm acquired from a foreign country the
supply of services like or directly competitive with those services
provided by the workers within the Document Imaging Department.
Consequently, workers within the Document Imaging Department were
determined to be a group eligible to apply for TAA. The workers in the
billing number, however, were not determined to be an eligible worker
group. The negative determination issued under TA-W-82,838 was based on
the Department's findings that the subject firm did not shift to, or
acquire from, a foreign country the supply of services like or directly
competitive with those supplied by the workers within the Billing
Department and that the subject firm did not import services like or
directly competitive services with those supplied by the workers within
the Billing Department.
The negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply
for TAA under TA-W-82,838 was issued on September 5, 2013. The
Department's Notice of determinations was published in the Federal
Register on October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61392).
By application dated September 19, 2013, a worker in the Billing
Department requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's
negative determination regarding TA-W-82,838. The request for
reconsideration alleged that the separated worker ``did the N and K
report which was electronic rejections from India and my job was to
tell them how to get the claim to go through. Lots of times the claims
had to be dropped onshore (meaning United States) . . . I do have
documentation and emails . . . to support my facts.'' Following the
receipt of the request for
[[Page 43093]]
reconsideration, the Department received several electronic messages
(emails) from the separated worker, which included emails from Apria
management to the worker, an explanation of the worker's
responsibilities, and the assertion that separations were due to
outsourcing to ``Emdeon and India.''
The Department carefully reviewed the information provided by the
worker seeking reconsideration, previously-submitted information, and
information regarding Emdeon, and determined that the request for
reconsideration did not supply facts not previously considered and did
not 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.
The Department issued a Notice of Negative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration on November 12, 2013. The Department's
Notice of determination was published in the Federal Register on
November 26, 2013 (78 FR 70580).
In the complaint filed with the USCIT, dated December 20, 2013, the
plaintiffs allege that the subject firm has acquired from a foreign
country the supply of services like or directly competitive with those
supplied by the workers of the Billing Department and identified
specific functions within the Billing Department's scope of work that
had been shifted to a third party firm in a foreign country. New
information was provided in the Complaint which had not previously been
shared with the Department during the initial investigation or in the
request for reconsideration. Based on a consideration of this new
information, the Department determined that a voluntary remand should
be requested in order to evaluate this material. The parties agreed to
a voluntary remand for the Department to ``seek clarification from
plaintiffs regarding the relevance of the documents to their specific
allegations and request that the subject firm address the contents of
the documents.'' Consent Motion at 3.
To apply for worker adjustment assistance under the requirements of
the Act in effect for a petition filed on the date this petition was
filed, June 24, 2013, Section 222(a), 19 U.S.C. Sec. 2272(a), provided
that the following criteria must be met:
I. The first criterion (set forth in section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. Sec. 2272(a)(1)) requires that a significant number
or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm must have become
totally or partially separated or be threatened with total or
partial separation.
II. The second criterion (set forth in section 222(a)(2) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. Sec. 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied if either:
(i)(I) there has been a shift by the workers' firm to a foreign
country in the production of articles or supply of services like or
directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers'
firm; OR
(i)(II) there has been an acquisition from a foreign country by
the workers' firm of articles/services that are like or directly
competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm.
III. The third criterion requires that the shift/acquisition
must have contributed importantly to the workers' separation or
threat of separation. See section 222(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, 19
U.S.C. Sec. 2272(a)(2)(B)(ii).
During the remand investigation, the Department obtained new
information from the subject firm regarding the allegations in the
Complaint, solicited input from the Plaintiffs via their counsel, and
addressed the Plaintiffs' allegations regarding a shift in the supply
of Billing Department services to a foreign country by the subject
firm.
Based on the new and additional information collected during the
remand investigation from the subject firm in response to the new
information provided in the Complaint, the Department determined that
an acquisition by the subject firm from a foreign country of services
like or directly competitive with the medical billing and related
services supplied by the Billing Department was an important cause of
the layoffs in the Billing Department, as described below.
During the remand investigation, the subject firm provided the
Department with new information which revealed that, years prior to
separations at the Billing Department, the subject firm had acquired
from a foreign country a portion of the services like or directly
competitive with those provided by the Billing Department and had
continued to migrate more than a de minimus portion of the services
following the initial acquisition of services.
Following a review of previously-submitted information and the new
information collected in the remand investigation, the Department
confirms that a significant number or proportion of the workers in the
Billing Department was totally or partially separated. A significant
number or proportion of the workers means at least five percent of the
subject firm, or appropriate subdivision thereof, of the workers or
fifty workers (whichever is fewer) or at least three workers in a
workforce of fewer than fifty workers. 29 CFR 90.2
In addition, the Department has determined that the subject firm's
acquisition from a foreign country of a portion of services like or
directly competitive with the services provided by the workers within
the Billing Department contributed importantly to the afore-mentioned
worker group separations. Contributed importantly means the cause
(action or condition) is one ``which is important but not necessarily
more important than any other cause.'' 29 CFR 90.16(b)(3)
Consequently, the Department determines that, with regard to
workers within the Billing Department, the group eligibility
requirements under Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended, that were in effect for TA-W-82,838, have been met.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained during the remand
investigations, I determine that the workers' firm has acquired from a
foreign country a portion of services like or directly competitive with
those supplied by the Billing Department, and the acquisition of such
services contributed importantly to worker group separations at the
Billing Department. In accordance with section 223 of the Act, 19
U.S.C. Sec. 2273, I make the following certification:
All workers of Apria Healthcare, Billing Department, Overland
Park, Kansas (TA-W-82,838), who became totally or partially
separated from employment on or after June 20, 2012, through two
years from the date of certification, and all workers in the group
threatened with total or partial separation from employment on the
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 at Washington, DC, this 27th day of June, 2014.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2014-17433 Filed 7-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P