The Nielsen Company (US), LLC, Fond Du Lac, WI; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 8118-8119 [E9-3730]

Download as PDF 8118 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 34 / Monday, February 23, 2009 / Notices [FR Doc. E9–3724 Filed 2–20–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–64,693] jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Avid Industries, Inc. Argyle, MI; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application dated January 23, 2009, a company official 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 denial notice was signed on January 6, 2009 and published in the Federal Register on February 2, 2009 (74 FR 5871). 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 TAA determination issued by the Department for workers of Avid Industries, Inc., Argyle, Michigan was based on the finding that the subject firm did not separate or threaten to separate a significant number or proportion of workers as required by Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner stated that the subject firm contracted a worker in December 2006 and December 2007 to perform unidentified tasks for the company. The petitioner seems to allege that because this ‘‘Contract Worker’’ performed some tasks for the subject firm, he should be considered as employees of the subject firm and, therefore, eligible for Trade Adjustment Assistance. To determine whether the contracting worker was an employee of the subject firm, on-site leased worker, or a worker under the control of the subject firm and whether there was a significant proportion of workers separated or threatened with separations at the subject company during the relevant period, the Department contacted the subject firm’s company official and VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:31 Feb 20, 2009 Jkt 217001 requested employment figures for the relevant employment data (for one year prior to the date of the petition and any imminent layoffs). The company official stated that this independent contractor was not an employee of Avid Industries, Inc., Argyle, Michigan, he was not a leased worker employed on-site of the subject firm, and there was no written contract between this worker and the subject firm. 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 4th day of February 2009. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E9–3733 Filed 2–20–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–64,272] The Nielsen Company (US), LLC, Fond Du Lac, WI; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application dated January 3, 2009, the petitioners requested administrative reconsideration of the Department’s negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The denial notice was signed on November 21, 2008 and published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75136). 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 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 the law justified reconsideration of the decision. The negative TAA determination issued by the Department for workers of the Nielsen Company (US), LLC, Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin was based on the finding that the worker group does not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. The investigation revealed that workers of the subject firm compile databases derived from marketing surveys. The investigation further revealed that no production of article(s) occurred within the firm or appropriate subdivision during the relevant period. The petitioner in the request for reconsideration contends that the Department erred in its interpretation of the work performed by the workers of the subject firm. The petitioner states that the workers of the subject firm ‘‘produce databases that are bought and paid for on a weekly basis’’. The petitioner also indicates that even though they performed ‘‘computer jobs’’, these ‘‘technical jobs’’ should be considered as production jobs. The investigation revealed that the Nielsen Company is the marketing research organization that provides marketing research services to various manufacturers of consumer products or large retailers. No articles are produced within Nielsen Company. The workers of the Nielsen Company (US), LLC, Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin receive raw scanner data from the retailers, analyze the data and compile the information into the databases, which are used by clients on a syndicated basis so they can monitor how their products are being purchased in comparison to competing products in the marketplace. The workers of the subject firm support marketing research service functions of the Nielsen Company. These functions, as described above, are not considered production of an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act. While the provision of services may result in printed material or can be stored electronically, it is incidental to the provision of these services. Databases created by workers of the subject firm are used by the Nielsen Company as incidental to marketing research services provided by the subject firm. No production took place at the subject facility nor did the workers support production of an article at any domestic affiliated location during the relevant period. The petitioner also alleges that job functions have been shifted from the subject firm overseas. The company official confirmed that Product Reference coding functions E:\FR\FM\23FEN1.SGM 23FEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 34 / Monday, February 23, 2009 / Notices were shifted to India. The allegation of a shift to another country might be relevant if it was determined that workers of the subject firm produced an article. However, the investigation determined that workers of Nielsen Company (US), LLC, Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin do not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. Therefore, there are no imports of articles which negatively impacted workers of the subject firm. 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 4th day of February 2009. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E9–3730 Filed 2–20–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–64,466] jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Mt. Pleasant Hosiery Mills, Inc. Mt. Pleasant, NC; Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration of Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance By letter dated January 28, 2009, a company official requested administrative reconsideration regarding Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) applicable to workers of the subject firm. The negative determination was signed on December 16, 2008, and published in the Federal Register on January 14, 2009 (74 FR 2137). The workers of Mt. Pleasant Hosiery Mills, Inc., Mt. Pleasant, North Carolina were certified eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) on December 16, 2008. The initial ATAA investigation determined that there was not a significant number of workers in the workers’ firm that are 50 years of age or older. In the request for reconsideration, the company official submitted revised employment numbers which show that a significant number or proportion of 16:31 Feb 20, 2009 Jkt 217001 Signed at Washington, DC this 9th day of February 2009. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E9–3734 Filed 2–20–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Conclusion After careful review of the additional facts obtained on reconsideration, I conclude that the requirements of Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, have been met for workers at the subject firm. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification: All workers of Mt. Pleasant Hosiery Mills, Inc., Mt. Pleasant, North Carolina, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after November 12, 2007 through December 16, 2010, are eligible to apply for trade adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed in Washington, DC this 11th day of February, 2009. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E9–3732 Filed 2–20–09; 8:45 am] DEPARTMENT OF LABOR VerDate Nov<24>2008 the worker group of the subject firm are fifty years of age or older. Additional investigation has determined that the workers possess skills that are not easily transferable. A significant number or proportion of the worker group are age fifty years or over. Competitive conditions within the industry are adverse. 8119 BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–64,891] American Pacific, Grove City, OH; Notice of Termination of Investigation In accordance with Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on January 14, 2009 in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers of American Pacific, Grove City, Ohio. The petitioning group of workers is covered by an active certification (TA– W–64,093, as amended) which expires on October 20, 2010. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated. Signed in Washington, DC, this 13th day of February, 2009. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E9–3735 Filed 2–20–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–64,869] [TA–W–65,166] Alexvale Furniture/Kincaid Furniture Company, Taylorsville, NC; Notice of Termination of Investigation Bradington-Young of Hickory, Hickory, NC; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on January 13, 2009, in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Alexvale Furniture/Kincaid Furniture Company, Taylorsville, North Carolina. The petitioning group of workers is covered by an active certification (TA– W–63,744) which expires on September 5, 2010. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated. Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 9, 2009 in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Bradington-Young of Hickory, Hickory, North Carolina. The petition is a photocopy of an earlier petition (TA–W–65,147), filed on February 6, 2009, that is the subject of an ongoing investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued. Further investigation in this case would duplicate efforts and serve no purpose. Therefore, the investigation under this petition has been terminated. PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23FEN1.SGM 23FEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 34 (Monday, February 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8118-8119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-3730]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-64,272]


The Nielsen Company (US), LLC, Fond Du Lac, WI; Notice of 
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated January 3, 2009, the petitioners requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment 
Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA), 
applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The 
denial notice was signed on November 21, 2008 and published in the 
Federal Register on December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75136).
    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 negative TAA determination issued by the Department for workers 
of the Nielsen Company (US), LLC, Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin was based on 
the finding that the worker group does not produce an article within 
the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. The investigation 
revealed that workers of the subject firm compile databases derived 
from marketing surveys. The investigation further revealed that no 
production of article(s) occurred within the firm or appropriate 
subdivision during the relevant period.
    The petitioner in the request for reconsideration contends that the 
Department erred in its interpretation of the work performed by the 
workers of the subject firm. The petitioner states that the workers of 
the subject firm ``produce databases that are bought and paid for on a 
weekly basis''. The petitioner also indicates that even though they 
performed ``computer jobs'', these ``technical jobs'' should be 
considered as production jobs.
    The investigation revealed that the Nielsen Company is the 
marketing research organization that provides marketing research 
services to various manufacturers of consumer products or large 
retailers. No articles are produced within Nielsen Company. The workers 
of the Nielsen Company (US), LLC, Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin receive raw 
scanner data from the retailers, analyze the data and compile the 
information into the databases, which are used by clients on a 
syndicated basis so they can monitor how their products are being 
purchased in comparison to competing products in the marketplace. The 
workers of the subject firm support marketing research service 
functions of the Nielsen Company.
    These functions, as described above, are not considered production 
of an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act. While 
the provision of services may result in printed material or can be 
stored electronically, it is incidental to the provision of these 
services. Databases created by workers of the subject firm are used by 
the Nielsen Company as incidental to marketing research services 
provided by the subject firm. No production took place at the subject 
facility nor did the workers support production of an article at any 
domestic affiliated location during the relevant period.
    The petitioner also alleges that job functions have been shifted 
from the subject firm overseas.
    The company official confirmed that Product Reference coding 
functions

[[Page 8119]]

were shifted to India. The allegation of a shift to another country 
might be relevant if it was determined that workers of the subject firm 
produced an article. However, the investigation determined that workers 
of Nielsen Company (US), LLC, Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin do not produce an 
article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. 
Therefore, there are no imports of articles which negatively impacted 
workers of the subject firm.

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 4th day of February 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-3730 Filed 2-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.