[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 71463]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29432]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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