DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-82,998

INNOVATIVE DENTAL, INC.
RENO, NEVADA

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated September 27, 2013, a separated worker
requested administrative reconsideration of the Department of
Labor's negative determination regarding eligibility to apply
for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and
former workers of the subject firm (issued September 12, 2013).
The Department’s Notice of determination was published in the
Federal Register on October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61394).
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 of the Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) petition filed on behalf of workers at
Innovative Dental, Inc., Reno, Nevada was based on the
Department’s findings that a significant number or proportion of
workers at the subject firm has not been totally or partially
separated, or threatened with such separation. In a worker group
of fewer than fifty workers, a significant number or proportion
of workers is three workers. 29 CFR 90.2
The request for reconsideration stated that “over 60% of
the dental laboratory restorations in this country are
manufactured overseas . . . or across our Southern border” and
did not provide any information regarding the number or
proportion of workers separated at the subject firm. The
request for reconsideration did not include any supporting
documents. The Department contacted the worker for information
regarding the number or proportion of workers separated from the
subject firm, but did not receive any additional information.
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, D.C., this 13th day of March, 2014

/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-FN-P





DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-82,998

INNOVATIVE DENTAL, INC.
RENO, NEVADA

Negative Determination 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
herein presents the results of an investigation regarding
certification of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment
assistance.
Workers of a firm may be eligible for worker adjustment
assistance if they satisfy the criteria of subsection (a), (b)
or (e) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (b) and
(e). For the Department of Labor to issue a certification for
workers under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a),
the following three criteria must be met:
(1) The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2282(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.

(2) The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied in one of two
ways:
(A) Increased Imports Path:
(i) sales or production, or both, at the workers’ firm
must have decreased absolutely, AND
(ii) (I) imports of articles or services like or directly
competitive with articles or services produced or
supplied by the workers’ firm have increased, OR
(II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles into which the
component part produced by the workers’ firm was
directly incorporated have increased; OR
(II)(bb) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles which are produced
directly using the services supplied by the
workers’ firm have increased; OR
(III) imports of articles directly incorporating
component parts not produced in the U.S. that are
like or directly competitive with the article
into which the component part produced by the
workers’ firm was directly incorporated have
increased.
(iii) the increase in imports described in clause (ii)
contributed importantly to such workers’ separation
or threat of separation and to the decline in the
sales or production of such firm.

(B) Shift in Production or Supply Path:
(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
(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; and
(ii) the shift described in clause (i)(I) or the
acquisition of articles or services described in
clause (i)(II) contributed importantly to such
workers’ separation or threat of separation.

Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), defines the
terms “Supplier” and “Downstream Producer.” For the Department
to issue a secondary worker certification under Section 222(b)
of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(b), to workers of a Supplier or a
Downstream Producer, the following criteria must be met:
(1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in
the workers’ firm or an appropriate subdivision of the
firm have become totally or partially separated, or
are threatened to become totally or partially
separated;

(2) the workers’ firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer
to a firm that employed a group of workers who
received a certification of eligibility under Section
222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), and such
supply or production is related to the article or
service that was the basis for such certification; and

(3) either
(A) the workers’ firm is a supplier and the component
parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph
(2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the
production or sales of the workers’ firm;
or
(B) a loss of business by the workers’ firm with the
firm described in paragraph (2) contributed
importantly to the workers’ separation or threat of
separation.

Workers of a firm may also be considered eligible if they
are publicly identified by name by the International Trade
Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an
investigation resulting in a category of determination that is
listed in Section 222(e) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(e).
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm
under Section 222(e) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(e), can be
satisfied if the following criteria are met:
(1) the workers’ firm is publicly identified by name by
the International Trade Commission as a member of a
domestic industry in an investigation resulting in--
(A) an affirmative determination of serious injury or
threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) an affirmative determination of market disruption
or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) an affirmative final determination of material
injury or threat thereof under section
705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and
1673d(b)(1)(A));

(2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period
beginning on the date on which--
(A) a summary of the report submitted to the
President by the International Trade Commission
under section 202(f)(1) with respect to the
affirmative determination described in paragraph
(1)(A) is published in the Federal Register under
section 202(f)(3); or
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described
in subparagraph (1) is published in the Federal
Register; and

(3) the workers have become totally or partially
separated from the workers’ firm within--
(A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year
period preceding the 1-year period described in
paragraph (2).

The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on August 16, 2013 by a state workforce office on behalf
of workers of Innovative Dental, Inc., Reno, Nevada. The
workers’ firm is engaged in activities related to the production
of dental crowns, bridges and veneers.
The petitioner alleged the worker separations were caused
by former clients sending their work overseas which resulted
in lack of business. The petitioner also alleged that at one
time, the subject firm employed as many as twelve employees.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers’ firm.
With respect to Section 222(a) and Section 222(b) of the
Act, the investigation revealed that Criterion (1) has not been
met because a significant number or proportion of the workers in
such workers’ firm have not become totally or partially
separated, nor are they threatened to become totally or
partially separated. The program regulations at 29 CFR 90.2
define a “significant number or proportion” to mean, “in a
workforce of at least fifty workers, five percent of the workers
or fifty workers, whichever is less, or, in a workforce of fewer
than fifty workers, at least three workers.” The investigation
confirmed that fewer than three workers were separated from
Innovative Dental, Inc. during the one year period before the
petition date.
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act have not been satisfied because the workers’
firm has not been publicly identified by name by the
International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic
industry in an investigation resulting in an affirmative finding
of serious injury, market disruption, or material injury, or
threat thereof.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that the requirements of Section 222
of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272, have not been met and, therefore,
deny the petition for group eligibility of Innovative Dental,
Inc., Reno, Nevada engaged in activities related to the
production of dental crowns, bridges and veneers to apply for
adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 12th day of September, 2013.

/s/ Michael W. Jaffe
______________________________
MICHAEL W. JAFFE
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance



- 2 -