Navistar Truck Development and Technology Center, a Subsidiary of Navistar International Corporation Truck Division, Fort Wayne, IN; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 59166 [2011-24478]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
59166
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Notices
0352. The OMB 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 submission of
responses.
Agency: Employment and Training
Administration.
Title of Collection: Attestation by
Employers Using Crewmembers for
Longshore Activities at Locations in the
State of Alaska.
OMB Control Number: 1205–0352.
Affected Public: Private Sector—
Businesses or other for-profits.
Total Estimated Number of
Respondents: 20.
Total Estimated Number of
Responses: 20.
Total Estimated Annual Burden
Hours: 60.
Total Estimated Annual Other Costs
Burden: $0.
Dated: September 19, 2011.
Michel Smyth,
Departmental Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011–24481 Filed 9–22–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FP–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
[TA–W–75,151]
Navistar Truck Development and
Technology Center, a Subsidiary of
Navistar International Corporation
Truck Division, Fort Wayne, IN; Notice
of Affirmative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration
By application dated May 31, 2011, a
petitioner requested administrative
reconsideration of the negative
determination regarding workers’
eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Sep 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
and former workers of Navistar Truck
Development and Technology Center, a
Subsidiary of Navistar International
Corporation, Truck Division, Fort
Wayne, Indiana (subject firm). The
negative determination was issued on
April 13, 2011. The Department’s Notice
of Determination was published in the
Federal Register on May 2, 2011 (76 FR
24536). The workers are engaged in
activities related to the supply of truck
body engineering and design services.
The negative determination was based
on the findings that, with respect to
Section 222(a) of the Act, Criterion II
has not been met because imports of
engineering and design services have
not increased and there has not been a
shift of engineering and design services
by the workers’ firm to a foreign
country. Further, Criterion III has not
been met because the worker
separations are not attributable to
increased imports or a shift of services
to a foreign country. Rather, the
investigation confirmed that the worker
separations are attributable to a
consolidation and shift of engineering
and design services to another facility
located within the United States.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the
Act, the investigation revealed that
Criterion (2) has not been met because
the firm is not a Supplier or
Downstream Producer to a firm with a
TAA-certified worker group.
In the request for reconsideration, the
petitioner stated that ‘‘Navistar has not
only increased the amount of work that
they outsource, they have increased the
number of countries that they outsource
that work to.’’ The petitioner referenced
multiple attachments and stated that the
subject firm has joint ventures with
China, India, Brazil, and Europe. The
petitioner also stated that ‘‘This chart
shows Fort Wayne employees doing
export work under the heading of
Mexico, Brazil, and Export Engineering
* * *. The work is now clearly
outsourced to India, Brazil, and China
according to the organizational chart.’’
The petitioner also referenced an
attachment and stated ‘‘two job postings
for Chief Engineers to work in China to
oversee Engineering and Design work.’’
The petitioner also referenced an
attachment and stated ‘‘shows new work
being sent to a Company in Romania
* * * shows the name of the on-site
coordinator, whose primary
responsibility is to prepare and send
work via the internet for his
counterparts in Romania to perform
* * * shows a listing of work that has
been transferred to Romania for
completion.’’ The petitioner also
referenced an attachment and stated
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
‘‘shows the increasing amount of work
being sent to Brazil.’’
The petitioner also referenced an
attachment and stated ‘‘shows an email
with an employee break down of the
increase in the amount of work being
sent to India from a single department.
This department sent out 4 jobs to India
in 2010, and has already sent nine jobs
to India in the first four months of
2011.’’ The petitioner also referenced an
attachment and stated ‘‘details how IT
Services group was partially replaced by
a call center/support staff in India.’’
The petitioner also referenced an
attachment and stated ‘‘Navistar
answered the Community’s questions
about their intentions for the property
they were acquiring for the move. * * *
This is a headcount reduction across the
nation, made possible by the Global
Outsourcing. * * * ’’ The petitioner also
referenced an attachment and stated
‘‘Earlier Exhibits detailed that these
countries are doing their own
engineering and development work,
they not simply ‘points of sale.’. ’’
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 petitioning 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
reconsideration of the U.S. Department
of Labor’s prior decision. The
application is, therefore, granted.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of
September, 2011.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011–24478 Filed 9–22–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–80,089]
Parkdale America, LLC, a Division of
Parkdale Mills, Inc., Plant #22, Galax,
VA; Notice of Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration
By application dated June 22, 2011, a
petitioner requested administrative
reconsideration of the negative
determination regarding workers’
eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment
E:\FR\FM\23SEN1.SGM
23SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 185 (Friday, September 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 59166]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24478]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-75,151]
Navistar Truck Development and Technology Center, a Subsidiary of
Navistar International Corporation Truck Division, Fort Wayne, IN;
Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for
Reconsideration
By application dated May 31, 2011, a 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 Navistar Truck Development
and Technology Center, a Subsidiary of Navistar International
Corporation, Truck Division, Fort Wayne, Indiana (subject firm). The
negative determination was issued on April 13, 2011. The Department's
Notice of Determination was published in the Federal Register on May 2,
2011 (76 FR 24536). The workers are engaged in activities related to
the supply of truck body engineering and design services.
The negative determination was based on the findings that, with
respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, Criterion II has not been met
because imports of engineering and design services have not increased
and there has not been a shift of engineering and design services by
the workers' firm to a foreign country. Further, Criterion III has not
been met because the worker separations are not attributable to
increased imports or a shift of services to a foreign country. Rather,
the investigation confirmed that the worker separations are
attributable to a consolidation and shift of engineering and design
services to another facility located within the United States.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that Criterion (2) has not been met because the firm is not a
Supplier or Downstream Producer to a firm with a TAA-certified worker
group.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner stated that
``Navistar has not only increased the amount of work that they
outsource, they have increased the number of countries that they
outsource that work to.'' The petitioner referenced multiple
attachments and stated that the subject firm has joint ventures with
China, India, Brazil, and Europe. The petitioner also stated that
``This chart shows Fort Wayne employees doing export work under the
heading of Mexico, Brazil, and Export Engineering * * *. The work is
now clearly outsourced to India, Brazil, and China according to the
organizational chart.''
The petitioner also referenced an attachment and stated ``two job
postings for Chief Engineers to work in China to oversee Engineering
and Design work.'' The petitioner also referenced an attachment and
stated ``shows new work being sent to a Company in Romania * * * shows
the name of the on-site coordinator, whose primary responsibility is to
prepare and send work via the internet for his counterparts in Romania
to perform * * * shows a listing of work that has been transferred to
Romania for completion.'' The petitioner also referenced an attachment
and stated ``shows the increasing amount of work being sent to
Brazil.''
The petitioner also referenced an attachment and stated ``shows an
email with an employee break down of the increase in the amount of work
being sent to India from a single department. This department sent out
4 jobs to India in 2010, and has already sent nine jobs to India in the
first four months of 2011.'' The petitioner also referenced an
attachment and stated ``details how IT Services group was partially
replaced by a call center/support staff in India.''
The petitioner also referenced an attachment and stated ``Navistar
answered the Community's questions about their intentions for the
property they were acquiring for the move. * * * This is a headcount
reduction across the nation, made possible by the Global Outsourcing. *
* * '' The petitioner also referenced an attachment and stated
``Earlier Exhibits detailed that these countries are doing their own
engineering and development work, they not simply `points of sale.'. ''
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
petitioning 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 reconsideration of the U.S.
Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore,
granted.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of September, 2011.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011-24478 Filed 9-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
