Covidien LP, North American Shared Services Group, Mansfield, Massachusetts; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 15823-15824 [2015-06833]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 57 / Wednesday, March 25, 2015 / Notices
(WHD) has created Forms WH–514,
WH–514a, and WH–515, which allow
FLC applicants to verify to the WHD
that the vehicles used to transport
migrant/seasonal agricultural workers
meet the MSPA vehicle safety standards
and that anyone who drives such
workers meets the Act’s minimum
physical requirements. The WHD uses
the information in deciding whether to
authorize the FLC/FLCE applicant to
transport/drive any migrant/seasonal
agricultural worker(s) or to cause such
transportation. Form WH–514 is used to
verify that any vehicle used or caused
to be used to transport any migrant/
seasonal agricultural worker(s) meets
the Department of Transportation (DOT)
safety standards. When the adopted
DOT rules do not apply, FLC applicants
seeking authorization to transport any
migrant/seasonal agricultural workers
use Form WH–514a to verify that the
vehicles meet the DOL safety standards
and, upon the vehicle meeting the
required safety standards, the form is
completed. Form WH–515 is a doctor’s
certificate used to document that a
motor vehicle driver or operator meets
the minimum DOT physical
requirements that the DOL has adopted.
This information collection is currently
approved for use through August 31,
2015. As part of this renewal, the
Department proposes to make revisions
to the Forms WH–514, WH–514a, WH–
515, and WH–530.
II. Review Focus: The DOL 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 submissions
of responses.
III. Current Actions: The DOL seeks to
extend the information collection
requests for the Application for a Farm
Labor Contractor or Farm Labor
Contractor Employee Certificate of
Registration; Motor Vehicle Safety for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:26 Mar 24, 2015
Jkt 235001
Transportation of Migrant and Seasonal
Agricultural Workers and the Doctor’s
Certification (minimum physical
requirements to drive a vehicle).
Additionally, DOL seeks the approval of
the revisions of the subject information
collection requirements in the Farm
Labor Contractor/Farm Labor Contractor
Employee Application (WH–530),
revisions to the Vehicle Mechanical
Inspection Reports for Transportation
Subject to Department of Labor Safety
Requirements (WH–514a form),
revisions to the Vehicle Mechanical
Inspection Report for Transportation
Subject to Department of Transportation
Requirements (WH–514 form), and
revisions to the Doctor’s Certificate,
(WH–515 form).
Type of Review: Revision and
Extension.
Agency: Wage and Hour Division.
Titles: Application for a Farm Labor
Contractor or a Farm Labor Contractor
Employee Certificate of Registration;
Vehicle Mechanical Inspection Report
for Transportation Subject to
Department of Transportation
Requirements; Vehicle Mechanical
Inspection Report for Transportation
Subject to Department of Labor Safety
Standards; MSPA Doctor’s Certificate.
OMB Control Number: 1235–0016.
Agency Numbers: Forms WH–514,
WH–514a, WH–515, WH–530.
Affected Public: Businesses or other
for-profits, Farms.
Respondents: 23,196.
Total Annual responses: 23,196.
Estimated Total Burden Hours: 9,334.
Estimated Time per Response: 5
minutes for the vehicle mechanical
inspection reports (WH–514 or WH–
514a) and 20 minutes for the MSPA
Doctor’s Certification (WH–515) and 30
minutes for the Farm Labor Contractor
Application (WH–530).
Frequency: On Occasion, but no more
often than annual.
Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):
$0.
Total Burden Cost (operating/
maintenance): $447,354.
Dated: March 18, 2015.
Mary Ziegler,
Director, Division of Regulations, Legislation
and Interpretation.
[FR Doc. 2015–06758 Filed 3–24–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–27–P
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
15823
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–85,640]
Covidien LP, North American Shared
Services Group, Mansfield,
Massachusetts; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration
By application dated December 11,
2014, a separated worker requested
administrative reconsideration of the
Department of Labor’s negative
determination regarding eligibility to
apply for worker adjustment assistance,
applicable to workers and former
workers of Covidien LP, North
American Shared Services Group,
Mansfield, Massachusetts (Subject
Firm). The denial notice was signed on
November 25, 2014, and the Notice of
Determination was published in the
Federal Register on December 10, 2014
(79 FR 73338).
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 revealed that
the subject firm does not produce an
article within the meaning of Section
222(a) or Section 222(b) of the Act.
Rather, the investigation revealed that
the workers’ firm supplied services
related to administrative support and
customer services. In order to be
considered eligible to apply for
adjustment assistance under Section 223
of the Trade Act of 1974, the worker
group seeking certification (or on whose
behalf certification is being sought)
must work for a ‘‘firm’’ or appropriate
subdivision that produces an article.
The definition of a firm includes an
individual proprietorship, partnership,
joint venture, association, corporation
(including a development corporation),
business trust, cooperative, trustee in
bankruptcy, and receiver under decree
of any court.
In the request for reconsideration, the
petitioner stated that the workers of the
subject firm should be eligible for TAA
because the subject firm shifted to a
foreign country the supply of like or
E:\FR\FM\25MRN1.SGM
25MRN1
15824
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 57 / Wednesday, March 25, 2015 / Notices
directly competitive services with those
provided by the workers of the subject
firm.
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 12th day of
March, 2015.
Michael W. Jaffe,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2015–06833 Filed 3–24–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–82,478]
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Brayton International, a Subsidiary of
Steelcase, Inc., Including On-Site
Leased Workers From Manpower
Group, Experis, Bradley Personnel
Inc., Graham Personnel Services,
Aerotek, Workforce Unlimited, Experis,
and Impact Business Group High
Point, North Carolina; Amended
Certification Regarding Eligibility To
Apply for Worker Adjustment
Assistance
In accordance with Section 223 of the
Trade Act of 1974, as amended (‘‘Act’’),
19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor
issued a Certification of Eligibility to
Apply for Worker Adjustment
Assistance on March 11, 2013,
applicable to workers of Brayton
International, a subsidiary of Steelcase,
Inc., including on-site leased workers
from The Manpower Group/Experis,
High Point, North Carolina. The
Department’s Notice of Determination
was published in the Federal Register
on March 8, 2013 (Volume 78 FR
15051).
At the request of a company official,
the Department reviewed the
certification for workers of the subject
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:26 Mar 24, 2015
Jkt 235001
firm. The workers were engaged in
activities related to the production of
office furniture.
The company reports that workers
leased from Bradley Personnel Inc.,
Graham Personnel Services, Aerotek,
Workforce Unlimited, Experis, and
imPact Business Group were employed
on-site at the High Point, North Carolina
location of Brayton International. The
Department has determined that these
workers were sufficiently under the
control of the subject firm to be
considered leased workers.
Based on these findings, the
Department is amending this
certification to include leased workers
from Bradley Personnel Inc., Graham
Personnel Services, Aerotek, Workforce
Unlimited, Experis, and imPact
Business Group working on-site at the
High Point, North Carolina location of
Brayton International.
The amended notice applicable to
TA–W–82,478 is hereby issued as
follows:
All workers of Brayton International, a
subsidiary of Steelcase, Inc., including onsite leased workers from Manpower Group,
Experis, Bradley Personnel Inc., Graham
Personnel Services, Aerotek, Workforce
Unlimited, Experis, and imPact Business
Group, High Point, North Carolina, who
became totally or partially separated from
employment on or after February 15, 2012
through March 11, 2015, and all workers in
the group threatened with total or partial
separation from employment on the date of
certification through March 11, 2015, 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 10th day of
March, 2015.
Michael W. Jaffe,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2015–06838 Filed 3–24–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–85,556]
Honeywell, Aerospace Division;
Including On-Site Leased Workers
From OptiScan, Tempe, Arizona;
Notice of Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for
Reconsideration
By application dated January 28,
2015, a worker requested administrative
reconsideration of the negative
determination regarding workers’
eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance applicable to
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
workers and former workers of
Honeywell, Aerospace Division,
including on-site leased workers from
OptiScan, Tempe, Arizona (Honeywell).
The determination was issued on
December 9, 2014 and the Department
of Labor’s Notice of Determination was
published in the Federal Register on
December 30, 2014 (79 FR 78496).
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 misinterpretation of facts or of
the law justified reconsideration of the
decision.
The initial investigation resulted in a
negative determination based on the
findings that with respect to Section
222(a) and Section 222(b) of the Act,
Criterion (1) had not been met because
a significant number or proportion of
the workers in such workers’ firm had
not become totally or partially
separated, nor were they threatened to
become totally or partially separated.
The request for reconsideration
asserts that the subject worker group
was defined too broadly and therefore
failed to capture the worker separations
and trade impact experienced by the
specific workers of OptiScan who were
employed on-site at Honeywell,
Aerospace Division, Tempe, Arizona;
that numerous firms which supplied the
subject firm with on-site leased workers
were erroneously combined together for
the purpose of reaching a determination
as a single firm, yet they were not all in
support of the manufacturing process at
the subject firm; that the employment
decline criterion was met for the
OptiScan workers employed on-site at
Honeywell, Aerospace Division, Tempe,
Arizona; and that the data management
services they supplied in support of the
engineering group were shifted to a
foreign country.
The Department has carefully
reviewed the request for reconsideration
and the existing record, and has
determined that the Department will
conduct further investigation to
determine if the workers meet the
eligibility requirements of the Trade Act
of 1974, as amended.
Conclusion
After careful review of the
application, I conclude that the claim is
of sufficient weight to justify
E:\FR\FM\25MRN1.SGM
25MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 57 (Wednesday, March 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15823-15824]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06833]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-85,640]
Covidien LP, North American Shared Services Group, Mansfield,
Massachusetts; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration
By application dated December 11, 2014, a separated worker
requested administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor's
negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance, applicable to workers and former workers of
Covidien LP, North American Shared Services Group, Mansfield,
Massachusetts (Subject Firm). The denial notice was signed on November
25, 2014, and the Notice of Determination was published in the Federal
Register on December 10, 2014 (79 FR 73338).
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 revealed that the subject firm does not
produce an article within the meaning of Section 222(a) or Section
222(b) of the Act. Rather, the investigation revealed that the workers'
firm supplied services related to administrative support and customer
services. In order to be considered eligible to apply for adjustment
assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, the worker group
seeking certification (or on whose behalf certification is being
sought) must work for a ``firm'' or appropriate subdivision that
produces an article. The definition of a firm includes an individual
proprietorship, partnership, joint venture, association, corporation
(including a development corporation), business trust, cooperative,
trustee in bankruptcy, and receiver under decree of any court.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner stated that the
workers of the subject firm should be eligible for TAA because the
subject firm shifted to a foreign country the supply of like or
[[Page 15824]]
directly competitive services with those provided by the workers of the
subject firm.
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 12th day of March, 2015.
Michael W. Jaffe,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2015-06833 Filed 3-24-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
