Joy Technologies, Inc.; DBA Joy Mining Machinery; Mt. Vernon Plant; Mt. Vernon, IL; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration, 4937-4938 [E6-1134]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 19 / Monday, January 30, 2006 / Notices
activities for an affiliated plant engaged
in the production of flexible
intermediate bulk containers (bulk
bags).
New information shows that the
B.A.G. Corporation, Winzen Film, Inc.
and Better Agriculture Goals are
divisions of Super Sack Bag, Inc.
Workers separated from employment at
the subject firm had their wages
reported under two separate
unemployment insurance (UI) tax
accounts for Winzen Film, Inc. and
Better Agriculture Goals.
Accordingly, the Department is
amending the certification to properly
reflect this matter.
The intent of the Department’s
certification is to include all workers of
B.A.G. Corporation, Savoy, Texas who
were adversely affected by a shift of
production to Mexico.
The amended notice applicable to
TA–W–57,978 is hereby issued as
follows:
‘‘All workers of B.A.G. Corporation,
Winzen Film, Inc. and Better Agriculture,
Goals, A Division of Super Sack Bag, Inc.,
Savoy, Texas who became totally or partially
separated from employment on or after
September 15, 2004, through October 18,
2007, are eligible to apply for 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 at Washington, DC, this 18th day of
January 2006.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6–1137 Filed 1–27–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–58,576]
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Chemical Products Corporation,
Cartersville, GA; Notice of Termination
of Investigation
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on January 4,
2006 in response to a worker petition
filed by a company official on behalf of
workers at Chemical Products
Corporation, Cartersville, Georgia.
The petitioner has requested that the
petition be withdrawn. Consequently,
the investigation has been terminated.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:07 Jan 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
Signed at Washington, DC, this 17th day of
January 2006
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6–1143 Filed 1–27–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–57,700]
Joy Technologies, Inc.; DBA Joy
Mining Machinery; Mt. Vernon Plant;
Mt. Vernon, IL; Notice of Negative
Determination on Reconsideration
On November 16, 2005, the
Department issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration for the workers and
former workers of the subject firm. The
Notice of determination regarding Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and
Alternative Trade Adjustment
Assistance (ATAA) was published in
the Federal Register on December 15,
2005 (70 FR 74373).
The International Brotherhood of
Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders,
Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local
483, (‘‘Union’’) filed a petition on behalf
of workers producing underground
mining machinery (i.e. shuttle cars,
electrical motors, gearboxes, and
armored face conveyors) at the subject
facility. Workers are not separately
identifiable by product line.
The initial investigation revealed that
sales and employment at the subject
facility increased in 2004 from 2003
levels, that sales remained stable in
January through July 2005 over the
corresponding 2004 period, and that
employment increased during January
through July 2005 over the
corresponding 2004 period. Companywide sales increased during January
through July 2005 from January through
July 2005 levels.
The investigation also revealed that
the subject firm did not import articles
like or directly competitive with those
produced at the subject firm or shift
production abroad. The Department
determined that the worker separations
at the subject firm are attributable to the
firm’s shift in production from the
subject facility to another domestic
production facility.
In a letter dated November 3, 2005,
two workers and the Union requested
administrative reconsideration. The
request stated that the subject facility is
‘‘an upstream supplier to the Joy Mining
Machinery facility’’ located in Franklin,
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4937
Pennsylvania and alleged that
component production is being shifted
to Mexico.
While the Union had filed the petition
as primarily-affected (affected by
imports or production shift of articles
produced at the subject facility), the
request for reconsideration is based on
a secondarily-affected position (affected
by loss of business as a supplier/
assembler/finisher of products or
components for a TAA certified firm).
Although the request for reconsideration
is beyond the scope of the petition, the
Department conducted an investigation
to address the workers’ and Union’s
allegations.
As part of the reconsideration
investigation, the Department contacted
the petitioning workers, Union
representatives, and the subject
company for additional information and
clarification of previously-submitted
information.
Joy Mining Machinery, Franklin,
Pennsylvania, was certified for TAA on
January 19, 2000 (expired January 19,
2002). Because the investigation
revealed that employment, sales and
production levels at the Franklin,
Pennsylvania facility increased during
relevant period and TAA certification
for Joy Mining Machinery, Franklin,
Pennsylvania had expired prior to the
relevant period, the workers cannot be
certified for TAA as secondarilyaffected.
The reconsideration investigation also
revealed that the subject company does
not have a Mexico facility which
produces articles which are like or
directly competitive with those
produced at the subject facility, that the
work at issue is temporary work which
was assigned to several subject company
facilities (including the Mt. Vernon,
Illinois facility) to help meet peak
demand, and that the ‘‘overflow’’ work
was for the production of articles not
normally produced at the subject
facility. The Department also confirmed
that work shifted from the subject
facility to an affiliated production
facility in Kentucky.
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.
E:\FR\FM\30JAN1.SGM
30JAN1
4938
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 19 / Monday, January 30, 2006 / Notices
Signed at Washington, DC, this 19th day of
January 2006.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6–1134 Filed 1–27–06; 8:45 am]
Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of
January 2006.
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
Employment and Training
Administration
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6–1138 Filed 1–27–06; 8:45 am]
[TA–W–58,562]
[TA–W–58,177]
Rexnord Disc Coupling Operation,
Coupling Division Warren, PA; Notice
of Affirmative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration
By application dated December 30,
2005, the International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
Lodge No. 2304, (‘‘the Union’’)
requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department of
Labor’s Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Eligibility to
Apply for Worker Adjustment
Assistance, applicable to workers of the
subject firm. The Department’s
determination was issued on December
16, 2005. The Department’s Notice was
published in the Federal Register on
January 5, 2006 (71 FR 620).
The negative determination was based
on the findings that company sales and
production did not decline from 2003
through 2004, and January through
October 2005 over the corresponding
2004 period. The determination also
stated that the subject firm shifted plant
production to Auburn, Alabama.
In the request for reconsideration, the
Union alleges that the subject firm
increased imports, is shifting
production to China and bringing back
the finished product.
The Department carefully reviewed
the Union’s request for reconsideration
and has determined that the Department
will conduct further investigation based
on new information provided by the
Union and a more careful analysis of the
record.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Conclusion
After careful review of the
application, I conclude that the claim is
of sufficient weight to justify
reconsideration of the Department of
Labor’s prior decision. The application
is, therefore, granted.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:07 Jan 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
Scholle Packaging, Rancho
Dominguez, CA; Notice of Termination
of Investigation
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on December
30, 2005 in response to a worker
petition filed by a company official on
behalf of workers at Scholle Packaging,
Rancho Dominguez, California.
The petitioner has requested that the
petition be withdrawn. Consequently,
the investigation has been terminated.
Signed at Washington, DC this 17th day of
January 2006.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6–1141 Filed 1–27–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
In accordance with Section 223 of the
Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and
Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26
U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the
Department of Labor issued a
Certification of Eligibility to Apply for
Worker Adjustment Assistance and
Alternative Trade Adjustment
Assistance on September 14, 2005
applicable to workers of Slater Screen
Print Corporation, Pawtucket, Rhode
Island and Slater Dye Works, Inc.,
Pawtucket, Rhode Island. The notice
was published in the Federal Register
on October 6, 2005 (70 FR 58477).
The Department voluntarily reviewed
the certification for workers of the
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of
January 2006.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6–1135 Filed 1–27–06; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Slater Screen Print Corporation;
Pawtucket, RI; Slater Dye Works, Inc.;
Pawtucket, RI; Amended Certification
Regarding Eligibility To Apply for
Worker Adjustment Assistance and
Alternative Trade Adjustment
Assistance
Frm 00049
‘‘All workers of Slater Screen Print
Corporation, Pawtucket, Rhode Island (TA–
W–57,749) and Slater Dye Works, Inc.,
Pawtucket, Rhode Island (TA–W–57,749A),
who became totally or partially separated
from employment on or after September 3,
2005, through September 14, 2007, are
eligible to apply for adjustment assistance
under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974,
are also eligible to apply for alternative trade
adjustment assistance under Section 246 of
the Trade Act of 1974.’’
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
[TA–W–57,749; TA–W–57,749A]
PO 00000
subject firm. The workers were engaged
in the production of printed fabric; they
are not separately identifiable by
product line.
New findings show that there was a
previous certification, TA–W–52,384,
issued on September 2, 2003, for
workers of Slater Screen Print
Corporation, Pawtucket, Rhode Island
and Slater Dye Works, Inc., Pawtucket,
Rhode Island who were engaged in
employment related to the production of
printed fabric. That certification expired
September 2, 2005. To avoid an overlap
in worker group coverage, this
certification is being amended to change
the impact date for workers of the
subject firm from August 15, 2004 to
September 3, 2005.
The amended notice applicable to
TA–W–57,749 and TA–W–57,749A are
hereby issued as follows:
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–57,838]
Texstyle, Inc.; Manchester, KY; Notice
of Revised Determination on
Reconsideration
On December 22, 2005, the
Department of Labor issued a Notice of
Affirmative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration
applicable to the subject firm. The
Notice will soon be published in the
Federal Register.
During the initial investigation, the
Department found that workers did not
produce an article or support an
affiliated domestic production facility
during the relevant period.
During the reconsideration
investigation, it was found that
production of home furnishings
occurred at the subject facility during
E:\FR\FM\30JAN1.SGM
30JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 19 (Monday, January 30, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4937-4938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-1134]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-57,700]
Joy Technologies, Inc.; DBA Joy Mining Machinery; Mt. Vernon
Plant; Mt. Vernon, IL; Notice of Negative Determination on
Reconsideration
On November 16, 2005, the Department issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers
and former workers of the subject firm. The Notice of determination
regarding Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade
Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) was published in the Federal Register on
December 15, 2005 (70 FR 74373).
The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders,
Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local 483, (``Union'') filed a
petition on behalf of workers producing underground mining machinery
(i.e. shuttle cars, electrical motors, gearboxes, and armored face
conveyors) at the subject facility. Workers are not separately
identifiable by product line.
The initial investigation revealed that sales and employment at the
subject facility increased in 2004 from 2003 levels, that sales
remained stable in January through July 2005 over the corresponding
2004 period, and that employment increased during January through July
2005 over the corresponding 2004 period. Company-wide sales increased
during January through July 2005 from January through July 2005 levels.
The investigation also revealed that the subject firm did not
import articles like or directly competitive with those produced at the
subject firm or shift production abroad. The Department determined that
the worker separations at the subject firm are attributable to the
firm's shift in production from the subject facility to another
domestic production facility.
In a letter dated November 3, 2005, two workers and the Union
requested administrative reconsideration. The request stated that the
subject facility is ``an upstream supplier to the Joy Mining Machinery
facility'' located in Franklin, Pennsylvania and alleged that component
production is being shifted to Mexico.
While the Union had filed the petition as primarily-affected
(affected by imports or production shift of articles produced at the
subject facility), the request for reconsideration is based on a
secondarily-affected position (affected by loss of business as a
supplier/assembler/finisher of products or components for a TAA
certified firm). Although the request for reconsideration is beyond the
scope of the petition, the Department conducted an investigation to
address the workers' and Union's allegations.
As part of the reconsideration investigation, the Department
contacted the petitioning workers, Union representatives, and the
subject company for additional information and clarification of
previously-submitted information.
Joy Mining Machinery, Franklin, Pennsylvania, was certified for TAA
on January 19, 2000 (expired January 19, 2002). Because the
investigation revealed that employment, sales and production levels at
the Franklin, Pennsylvania facility increased during relevant period
and TAA certification for Joy Mining Machinery, Franklin, Pennsylvania
had expired prior to the relevant period, the workers cannot be
certified for TAA as secondarily-affected.
The reconsideration investigation also revealed that the subject
company does not have a Mexico facility which produces articles which
are like or directly competitive with those produced at the subject
facility, that the work at issue is temporary work which was assigned
to several subject company facilities (including the Mt. Vernon,
Illinois facility) to help meet peak demand, and that the ``overflow''
work was for the production of articles not normally produced at the
subject facility. The Department also confirmed that work shifted from
the subject facility to an affiliated production facility in Kentucky.
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.
[[Page 4938]]
Signed at Washington, DC, this 19th day of January 2006.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6-1134 Filed 1-27-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
