Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 57 / Wednesday, March 25, 2015 / Notices 15823 

(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 

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 

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 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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] 

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 

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 

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 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES