Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 23, 2010 / Notices 71463 

APPENDIX—Continued 

[TAA petitions instituted between 11/1/10 and 11/5/10] 

TA–W Subject firm (petitioners) Location Date of 

institution 

Date of 

petition 

74831 ................................ CompuCom Systems (Workers) ................................ Menlo Park, CA ............... 11/05/10 11/02/10 

74832 ................................ SK Hand Tools Corporation (Union) ......................... Defiance, OH ................... 11/05/10 11/02/10 

74833 ................................ Franklin Electric Company, Inc. (Company) .............. Oklahoma City, OK .......... 11/05/10 11/03/10 

74834 ................................ Fleck (State/One-Stop) .............................................. Brookfield, WI .................. 11/05/10 11/02/10 

74835 ................................ Euchre Mountain Logging, Inc. (Company) ............... Condon, MT ..................... 11/05/10 10/17/10 

74836 ................................ Journal Community Publishing (Workers) ................. Waupaca, WI ................... 11/05/10 10/30/10 

[FR Doc. 2010–29425 Filed 11–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–73,963] 

Dentek.Com, Inc. D/B/A Nsequence 

Center for Advanced Dentistry Reno, 

NV; Notice of Negative Determination 

on Reconsideration 

By application dated July 16, 2010, 

the petitioner requested administrative 

reconsideration of the Department’s 

negative determination regarding 

eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers 

and former workers of the subject firm. 

The determination was signed on 

August 13, 2010. The Department’s 

Notice will soon be published in the 

Federal Register. Workers at the subject 

firm are engaged in employment related 

to the production of dental prosthetics 

(such as crowns and the bridges). 

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 

applicable to workers and former 

workers at Dentek.com, Inc., d/b/a 

nSequence Center for Advanced 

Dentistry, Reno, Nevada (the subject 

firm) was based on the findings that the 

subject firm did not, during the period 

under investigation, shift to a foreign 

country production of dental 

prosthetics, or articles like or directly 

competitive with those produced by the 

workers, or acquire these articles from a 

foreign country; that the workers’ 

separation, or threat of separation, was 

not related to any increase in imports of 

dental prosthetics, or like or directly 

competitive articles; and that the 

workers did not produce an article or 

supply a service that was directly used 

in the production of an article or the 

supply of service by a firm that 

employed a worker group that is eligible 

to apply for TAA based on the 

aforementioned article or service. 

During the reconsideration 

investigation, the Department obtained 

new information from the subject firm 

regarding imports and its operations and 

reviewed publically available 

information regarding the subject firm 

and its operations, as well as additional 

information provided by the petitioner. 

In a subsequent letter to the 

Department, the petitioner states that, in 

2008, ‘‘the decision was made to begin 

in earnest to out-source all of the crown 

and the bridge except for the extreme 

rush cases’’ and, as a result of the action, 

‘‘all of the staff was released.’’ The 

petitioner also alleges that vendors such 

as the subject firm send orders ‘‘directly 

to China.’’ 

Information obtained during the 

reconsideration investigation confirmed 

that the subject firm did not shift 

production of dental prosthetics, or like 

or directly competitive articles, to a 

foreign country, and that, during the 

relevant period, the subject firm did not 

increase its imports of dental 

prosthetics, or like or directly 

competitive articles. 

A customer survey was not conducted 

during the reconsideration investigation 

because the customers of the subject 

firm are individual dental health care 

professionals and not firms. Further, the 

prosthetics are custom-made for the 

patients of the customers. 

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. 

After careful review of the request for 

reconsideration, the Department 

determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not 

been met. 

Conclusion 

After 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 10th day of 

November, 2010. 

Del Min Amy Chen, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29432 Filed 11–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–73,695] 

Woodland Mills Corporation Mill 

Spring, NC; Notice of Revised 

Determination on Reconsideration 

By application dated July 22, 2010 

petitioners requested administrative 

reconsideration of the Department’s 

negative determination regarding the 

eligibility of workers and former 

workers of Woodland Mills Corporation, 

Mill Spring, North Carolina, to apply for 

Trade Adjustment Assistance. On 

August 4, 2010, the Department issued 

a Notice of Affirmative Determination 

Regarding Application for 

Reconsideration. The Department’s 

Notice was published in the Federal 

Register on August 13, 2010 (75 FR 

49524). Workers at the subject firm are 

engaged in employment related to the 

production of cotton yarn. 

The information collected during the 

reconsideration investigation revealed 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

71464 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 23, 2010 / Notices 

that, during the period of investigation, 

imports of articles directly incorporating 

cotton yarn produced outside the 

United States that are like or directly 

competitive with imports of articles 

incorporating cotton yarn produced by 

Woodland Mills Corporation, Mill 

Spring, North Carolina Woodland Mills 

Corporation, Mill Spring, North 

Carolina had increased, and the 

increased imports contributed 

importantly to worker separations and 

declines in sales and production at the 

afore-mentioned firm. 

Conclusion 

After careful review of the additional 

facts obtained during the 

reconsideration investigation, I 

determine that workers of Woodland 

Mills Corporation, Mill Spring, North 

Carolina, who are engaged in 

employment related to the production of 

cotton yarn, 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 Woodland Mills 

Corporation, Mill Spring, North Carolina, 

who became totally or partially separated 

from employment on or after March 10, 2009, 

through two years from the date of this 

revised 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 10th day of 

November, 2010. 

Del Min Amy Chen, 

Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29430 Filed 11–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–73,281] 

Shorewood Packaging, a Subsidiary of 

International Paper Company, 

Including On-Site Leased Workers 

From Ameristaff Staffing, Danville, VA; 

Notice of Revised Determination on 

Reconsideration 

By application dated September 7, 

2010 the petitioner 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 August 19, 

2010 and the Notice of Determination 

was published in the Federal Register 

on September 3, 2010 (75 FR 54187). 

The workers produce cigarette cartons. 

The initial investigation resulted in a 

negative determination based on the 

findings that the subject firm did not 

shift to/acquire from a foreign country 

the production of articles like or directly 

competitive with cigarette cartons; that 

neither the subject firm nor its major 

declining customers increased imports 

of articles like or directly competitive 

with cigarette cartons; that the subject 

workers are not adversely affected 

secondary workers; and the 

International Trade Commission did not 

identify the subject firm by name as an 

injured member of a domestic industry 

in an investigation pursuant to the Tariff 

Act of 1930. 

During the reconsideration 

investigation, the Department reviewed 

additional information provided by the 

petitioner and previously-submitted 

information, as well as additional 

information obtained from other 

sources. 

During the reconsideration 

investigation, the Department confirmed 

that the subject firm supplied folding 

cartons used primarily in the tobacco 

market and confirmed the subject firm’s 

customer base. During the 

reconsideration investigation, the 

Department received new information 

regarding the relationship between the 

subject firm and a major declining 

customer and the operations of the 

customer, with regards to cigarette 

cartons. 

Based on the new information, the 

Department determines that the subject 

firm is a supplier to a firm that employs 

a worker group currently eligible to 

apply for TAA; the supply of the 

component part is related to the 

finished article that is the basis for the 

TAA certification; and the firm accounts 

for at least twenty percent of the 

production or sales of the subject firm. 

Conclusion 

After careful review of the additional 

facts obtained during the 

reconsideration investigation, I 

determine that workers of Shorewood 

Packaging, a subsidiary of International 

Paper Company, Danville, Virginia, 

meet the worker group certification 

criteria under Section 222(c) of the Act, 

19 U.S.C. 2272(c). In accordance with 

Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2273, 

I make the following certification: 

‘‘All workers of Shorewood Packaging, a 

subsidiary of International Paper Company, 

including on-site leased workers from 

Ameristaff Staffing, Danville, Virginia, who 

became totally or partially separated from 

employment on or after January 12, 2009, 

through two years from the date of this 

revised 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 10th day of 

November, 2010. 

Del Min Amy Chen, 

Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29435 Filed 11–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–73,210; TA–W–73,210A] 

Metlife Technology, Operations, and 

Information Technology Groups 

Including On-Site Leased Workers 

From Adecco, Cognizant, IBM, Infosys, 

Kana, Patni, Siemens, Tapfin, Veritas 

Moosic, PA, Metlife Technology, 

Operations, and Information 

Technology Groups Including On-Site 

Leased Workers From At&T Solutions, 

Chimes, Cognizant, Patni, Siemens, 

Xerox Clarks Summit, PA; Notice of 

Revised Determination on 

Reconsideration 

By application dated August 2, 2010 

petitioners requested administrative 

reconsideration of the Department’s 

negative determination regarding the 

eligibility of workers and former 

workers of MetLife, Technology, 

Operations, and Information 

Technology Groups, Moosic, 

Pennsylvania (TA–W–73,210) and 

MetLife, Technology, Operations, and 

Information Technology Groups, Clarks 

Summit, Pennsylvania (TA–W– 

73,210A), to apply for Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (TAA). On August 13, 2010, 

the Department issued a Notice of 

Affirmative Determination Regarding 

Application for Reconsideration. The 

Department’s Notice will soon be 

published in the Federal Register. 

Workers at the subject facilities are 

engaged in employment related to the 

supply of software testing and quality 

assurance services, and are not 

separately identifiable by service 

supplied. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES