Joy Technologies, Inc.; DBA Joy Mining Machinery; MT. Vernon Plant, MT. Vernon, IL; Notice of Negative Determination on Remand, 1771-1774 [E7-463]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 16, 2007 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
The investigation revealed that
criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.B.) (Sales or
production, or both, did not decline)
and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production
to a foreign country) have not been met.
TA–W–60,542; GreatBatch Hittman,
Inc., Columbia, MD.
The investigation revealed that
criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased
imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in
production to a foreign country) have
not been met.
TA–W–59,863; Delphi Corporation,
Automotive Holdings Group,
Moraine, OH.
TA–W–60,399; Customized
Manufacturing, Inc., McKenzie, TN.
TA–W–60,454; Forest City Technologies,
Wixom Division, Wixom, MI.
TA–W–60,508; Enhanced Presentations,
Inc., Wilmington, NC.
TA–W–60,464; Key Technology, Inc.,
Medford Office Division, Medford,
OR.
TA–W–60,480; Emcor Facilities
Services, Inc., On-Site Contracted
Workers at Hewlett-Packard Co.,
Corvallis, OR.
The investigation revealed that the
predominate cause of worker
separations is unrelated to criteria
(a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased imports) and
(a)(2)(B)(II.C) (shift in production to a
foreign country under a free trade
agreement or a beneficiary country
under a preferential trade agreement, or
there has been or is likely to be an
increase in imports).
None.
The workers’ firm does not produce
an article as required for certification
under Section 222 of the Trade Act of
1974.
TA–W–60,507; Washington Mutual
Bank, Florence, SC.
TA–W–60,517; CDI Corporation, IT
Solutions Division, Lexington, KY.
TA–W–60,567; Accordis, Inc., Chicago
Service Center, A Subsidiary of
Zavata, Chicago, IL.
The investigation revealed that
criteria of Section 222(b)(2) has not been
met. The workers’ firm (or subdivision)
is not a supplier to or a downstream
producer for a firm whose workers were
certified eligible to apply for TAA.
None.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned
determinations were issued during the period
of December 18 through December 29, 2006.
Copies of these determinations are available
for inspection in Room C–5311, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 during
normal business hours or will be mailed to
persons who write to the above address.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:23 Jan 12, 2007
Jkt 211001
Dated: January 8, 2007.
Ralph DiBattista,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7–462 Filed 1–12–07; 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 Remand
On September 25, 2006, the U.S.
Court of International Trade (USCIT)
granted the U.S. Department of Labor’s
motion for a voluntary remand in
Former Employees of Joy Technologies,
Inc. v. U.S. Secretary of Labor, Court No.
06–00088. SAR 240.
Case History
On August 9, 2005, the International
Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship
Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and
Helpers, Local 483, (‘‘Union’’) filed a
petition for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade
Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) on
behalf of workers and former workers of
Joy Technologies, Inc., DBA Joy Mining
Machinery, Mt. Vernon Plant, Mt.
Vernon, Illinois (the subject facility)
producing underground mining
machinery (the subject worker group).
AR 2.
The Department’s negative
determination, issued on September 15,
2005, was based on findings 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. The
denial was also based on the findings of
no shift of underground mining
machinery production abroad and no
increased imports of underground
mining machinery during the relevant
period. AR 130–135. The Notice of the
Department’s determination was
published in the Federal Register on
October 31, 2005 (70 FR 62345). AR 142.
On November 3, 2005, workers
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. In the request for
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1771
reconsideration, the workers asserted
that the Department’s interpretation of
the reasons for the plant closure and the
activities of the subject workers was
erroneous. According to the workers,
production and employment increased
at the subject facility from 2003 to 2004
due to a ‘‘Contract Agreement’’ between
the subject firm and the Union and that
‘‘the worker group at Joy, Mt. Vernon, IL
has been an upstream supplier to the Joy
Mining Machinery facility located in
Franklin, PA. [p]roducing various
components used in the final assembly
of the firms products’’ and that in
‘‘2004, the worker group * * * resumed
being an upstream supplier of
component parts * * * to be used in
final production or to be sold as new
replacement components to Joy Mining
Machinery customers.’’ The workers
allege that ‘‘[t]hese components are
being produced in a foreign country
(Mexico).’’ AR 145–147.
In support of the allegation, the
workers provided the Department with
a copy of a November 17, 2005
electronic message from a Joy official to
the Union which confirmed that the Joy,
Mt. Vernon, Illinois facility supplied
components for Joy, Franklin,
Pennsylvania, AR 159, and stated that
‘‘three sets of track frames that were
fabricated in Mexico were finished in
the Mt. Vernon machine and weld
shops.’’ AR 160.
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 affirmative determination was
published in the Federal Register on
December 15, 2005 (70 FR 74373).
During the reconsideration
investigation, the Union informed the
Department that it is not involved with
the request for reconsideration and
directed the Department to speak with
the workers. AR 149.
According to workers Jerome Tobin
and John Moore, the subject facility is
an upstream supplier to the Joy plant in
Franklin, Pennsylvania; the Franklin,
Pennsylvania facility outsourced
production to Mexico; the component
parts made at the subject facility were
outsourced to Mexico, and the
components were sent to Joy, Eagle
Pass, Texas. Id. During a conference
call, the workers also stated that they
would file a new petition as
secondarily-affected workers. Id. In a
later conference call, Jerome Tobin, John
Moore, and Steve Lisenbey, stated that
Joy had outsourced production to
Extreme Machine. Id.
During the reconsideration
investigation, the Department found that
E:\FR\FM\16JAN1.SGM
16JAN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
1772
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 16, 2007 / Notices
during the relevant period, the subject
facility produced shuttle cars, rebuilt
electrical motors and armored face
conveyors (AFC), assembled gearboxes,
and produced components used in the
final assembly of mining machinery
produced at other Joy facility, including
the Franklin, Pennsylvania facility. AR
146. According to the Joy Mining
Machinery ‘‘Global Caplight’’ article,
dated July 29, 2005, the subject firm
opened a new, larger production facility
in Lebanon, Kentucky that is
‘‘scheduled to open in the fall of 2005’’
and will ‘‘manufacture shuttle cars,
rebuild motors and rebuild AFC
gearcases.’’ AR 126.
The reconsideration investigation also
found that from May 2004 through
September 2005, when the subject
facility closed, the subject worker group
produced ‘‘69 conveyors, 72 conveyor
supports and 86 crawler track frames
(43 sets).’’ AR 148. The Department also
found that ‘‘three sets of track frames
that were fabricated in Mexico’’ were
sent to the subject facility for finishing.
AR 160.
A careful review of the administrative
record revealed that the subject firm had
cooperated with the investigation in
good faith and had no incentive to
prevent the subject workers from
receiving TAA benefits, AR 29–30.
Further, the subject firm decided ‘‘to
bring products * * * into Mount
Vernon for a period of time to maintain
work for employees who would
ultimately lose their jobs with the plant
closure.’’ AR 160. Indeed, the subject
firm stated that it wants employees ‘‘to
receive all of the benefits to which they
are legally entitled.’’ Id.
On January 19, 2006, the Department
issued a Negative Determination on
Reconsideration. AR 180. The
Department found that there was no
shift of production to Mexico, that the
work at issue was ‘‘temporary work’’
which was assigned to several Joy
Mining Machinery (Joy) facilities
(including the Mt. Vernon, Illinois
facility), that the workers’ separations
were due to a shift of operations to an
affiliated, domestic facility in Kentucky,
and that the subject workers are not
eligible to apply for TAA as workers of
a secondarily-affected company. AR
180.
The Department’s Notice of
determination on reconsideration was
published in the Federal Register on
January 20, 2006 (71 FR 4937). AR 185–
186. A corrected Notice of
determination was issued on February
6, 2006, AR 187, and was published in
the Federal Register on February 22,
2006 (71 FR 9162). AR 191.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:23 Jan 12, 2007
Jkt 211001
On March 15, 2006, the Plaintiffs
appealed the negative reconsideration
determination to the USCIT.
In an August 24, 2006 letter,
Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that a
voluntary remand is appropriate
because the Department failed to (1)
Identify the manufacturing functions at
the subject facility; (2) investigate the
allegation of imports, particularly from
Mexico; (3) investigate about the shift of
production to Kentucky; and (4)
investigate imports by Joy’s customers,
and because the administrative record is
incomplete. SAR 193–198.
In order to address the issues raised
above, the Department sought, and was
granted, a voluntary remand. SAR 240.
Plaintiffs’ Allegations
In the complaint, Plaintiffs asserted
‘‘we were an upstream supplier to the
Joy Mining Machinery facility at
Franklin, PA. * * * Joy Mining
Machinery outsources the components
to * * * Mexico * * * these Mexican
facilities * * * produce the component
work that was formerly done * * * at
Joy Mining Machinery Mt. Vernon,
Illinois’’ and the work done by Plaintiffs
‘‘is not being done at the new Joy
Mining Machinery facility in Lebanon,
Kentucky.’’ SAR 238–239. In subsequent
submissions, Plaintiffs asserted that
they manufactured components for Joy’s
Franklin, Pennsylvania facility, SAR
194, 204–205, and may have produced
components for other Joy domestic
facilities. SAR 205. Plaintiffs also
asserted that component production
shifted to Mexico, that Joy increased
imports of components. SAR 204–205,
and that components were stamped
‘‘hecho en Mexico.’’ SAR 260.
Remand Investigation
While conducting the remand
investigation, the Department contacted
Plaintiffs’ counsel, SAR 200–201, 202–
234, 242–392, 409–411, Joy corporate
counsel, SAR 200–201, 235, 412–415,
420–421, and individuals identified by
the Plaintiffs as having relevant
information, SAR 200–201, 407–408,
416–419, 422–423.
During the remand investigation, the
Department received several affidavits
from Plaintiffs. A summary of relevant
facts of each affidavit follows:
Robin Buckingham states that the
subject facility always manufactured
both finished products and components
of mining machinery; Joy’s main
production facility is in Franklin,
Pennsylvania but there are facilities
throughout the United States, including
Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia; a
‘‘substantial part’’ of the subject
facility’s work is performed as ‘‘an
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
upstream supplier’’ for the Franklin,
Pennsylvania; between 2002 and 2004,
the subject facility imported mining
machinery components from Mexico;
and that a former Joy supervisor had
spoken to him about the parts stamped
‘‘hecho en Mexico.’’ SAR 257–262.
Gary Coles states that the subject
facility always manufactured both
finished products and components of
mining machinery; Joy’s main
production facility is in Franklin,
Pennsylvania but there are facilities
throughout the United States, including
Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia; a
‘‘substantial part’’ of the subject
facility’s work is performed as ‘‘an
upstream supplier’’ for the Franklin,
Pennsylvania; the subject facility had
sold completed components ‘‘directly to
customers’’; from 2002 and through
2004, the subject facility imported
mining machinery components from
Mexico; and that a Joy sales manager
had spoken to him about the parts
stamped ‘‘hecho en Mexico.’’ SAR 268–
273.
Steve Lisenbey states that the subject
facility always manufactured both
finished products and components of
mining machinery; Joy’s main
production facility is in Franklin,
Pennsylvania but there are facilities
throughout the United States, including
Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia; a
‘‘substantial part’’ of the subject
facility’s work is performed as ‘‘an
upstream supplier’’ for the Franklin,
Pennsylvania; in January 2002, a subject
facility manager stated that ‘‘Joy had
formed a partnership with a Mexican
supplier to outsource the fabrication of
continuous miner components’’ and
‘‘components fabricated in Mexico did
not meet the International Organization
for Standardization (‘‘ISO’’) standards,’’
so ‘‘the completed components Joy
outsourced to Mexico had to be brought
to Mt. Vernon for the final machining’’;
in 2004, the subject facility imported
crawler track frames from Mexico; and
the Joy, Lebanon, Kentucky facility
‘‘does not have the same manufacturing
functions and duties’’ as the subject
facility because it does not fabricate
components. SAR 280–283.
John Moore states that the subject
facility always manufactured both
finished products and components of
mining machinery; Joy’s main
production facility is in Franklin,
Pennsylvania but there are facilities
throughout the United States, including
Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia; a
‘‘substantial part’’ of the subject
facility’s work is performed as ‘‘an
upstream supplier’’ for the Franklin,
Pennsylvania; that the subject facility
‘‘took sales orders directly from
E:\FR\FM\16JAN1.SGM
16JAN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 16, 2007 / Notices
customers’’; in 2003 and 2004, the
subject facility ‘‘did the final machining
on completed crawler track frames that
originated in Mexico’’; the subject
facility ‘‘retrofitted gathering pans’’
were marked ‘‘hecho en Mexico’’; and in
‘‘approximately October or November
2005, a sales manager for Joy ‘‘told me
that Joy was outsourcing manufacture
and assembly of mining equipment to
Mexico.’’ SAR 292–296.
Robert Patterson stated that the
subject facility manufactured finished
products and components of mining
machinery; Joy’s main production
facility is in Franklin, Pennsylvania but
there are facilities throughout the
United States, including Utah, Virginia,
and West Virginia; a ‘‘substantial part’’
of the subject facility’s work is
performed as ‘‘an upstream supplier’’
for the Franklin, Pennsylvania facility;
in 2003 and 2004, the subject facility
‘‘machined completed crawler track
frames that originated in Mexico’’; and
the subject facility received components
stamped ‘‘hecho en Mexico.’’ SAR 304–
307.
Jerome Tobin stated that the subject
facility always manufactured both
finished products and components of
mining machinery; Joy’s main
production facility is in Franklin,
Pennsylvania but there are facilities
throughout the United States, including
Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia; a
‘‘substantial part’’ of the subject
facility’s work is performed as ‘‘an
upstream supplier’’ for the Franklin,
Pennsylvania facility; in 2004, the
subject facility ‘‘machined completed
crawler track frames that originated in
Mexico’’; the subject facility received
track frames and components stamped
‘‘hecho en Mexico’’; and on ‘‘October
17, 2006,’’ Merlin Orser, the President of
the Union’s local at Franklin,
Pennsylvania, ‘‘confirmed for me that
the Lebanon facility does only assembly
work * * * does not perform the
manufacturing functions that the Mt.
Vernon facility performed when it was
open.’’ SAR 316–320.
David Vaughn states that the subject
facility manufactured finished products
and components of mining machinery;
Joy’s main production facility is in
Franklin, Pennsylvania but there are
facilities throughout the United States,
including Utah, Virginia, and West
Virginia; a ‘‘substantial part’’ of the
subject facility’s work is performed as
‘‘an upstream supplier’’ for the Franklin,
Pennsylvania facility; in 2004, the
subject facility ‘‘did the final machining
on completed crawler track frames
originated in Mexico’’; the subject
facility received components stamped
‘‘hecho en Mexico’’; and a former Joy
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:23 Jan 12, 2007
Jkt 211001
supervisor ‘‘told me that at Coal Age he
is outsourcing the manufacture of
continuous miner frames to a company
in Mexico * * * the same Mexican
company for outsourcing that Joy used
to fabricate the continuous miner
components.’’ SAR 328–332.
Ronald Wilkey states that the subject
facility always manufactured both
finished products and components of
mining machinery; Joy’s main
production facility is in Franklin,
Pennsylvania but there are facilities
throughout the United States, including
Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia; a
‘‘substantial part’’ of the subject
facility’s work is performed as ‘‘an
upstream supplier’’ for the Franklin,
Pennsylvania facility; in 2004, the
subject facility ‘‘did the final machining
on completed crawler track frames
originated in Mexico’’; the subject
facility received components stamped
‘‘hecho en Mexico’’; that ‘‘in
approximately August 2005, I was one
of the laborers who helped to unload a
truck full of crawler track frames that
had originated in Mexico’’; and that the
subject facility had received component
parts stamped ‘‘hecho en Mexico.’’ SAR
340–343.
Jesse Russell Hamilton states that
subject facility always manufactured
both finished products and components
of mining machinery; Joy’s main
production facility is in Franklin,
Pennsylvania but there are facilities
throughout the United States, including
Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia; a
‘‘substantial part’’ of the subject
facility’s work is performed as ‘‘an
upstream supplier’’ for the Franklin,
Pennsylvania facility; in 2004, the
subject facility ‘‘machined crawler track
frames that originated in Mexico’’; and
the subject facility received components
stamped ‘‘hecho en Mexico.’’ SAR 356–
359.
Steven Kirkpatrick states that the
subject facility always manufactured
both finished products and components
of mining machinery; Joy’s main
production facility is in Franklin,
Pennsylvania but there are facilities
throughout the United States, including
Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia; a
‘‘substantial part’’ of the subject
facility’s work is performed as ‘‘an
upstream supplier’’ for the Franklin,
Pennsylvania facility; in 2004, the
subject facility ‘‘machined crawler track
frames that originated in Mexico’’; the
subject facility received mining
machinery component parts marked
‘‘hecho en Mexico’’; and in 2003,
‘‘DMUs came into the Mt. Vernon plant
from Mexico.’’ SAR 366–370.
Robert Baxley stated that the subject
facility always manufactured both
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1773
finished products and components of
mining machinery; Joy’s main
production facility is in Franklin,
Pennsylvania but there are facilities
throughout the United States, including
Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia; a
‘‘substantial part’’ of the subject
facility’s work is performed as ‘‘an
upstream supplier’’ for the Franklin,
Pennsylvania facility; in 2004, the
subject facility ‘‘did the final machining
on completed crawler track frames that
originated in Mexico’’; the subject
facility received crawler track frames
and other component parts stamped
‘‘hecho en Mexico’’; and ‘‘in November
2005, I took pictures of the Mexican
crawler track frames that had been
brought into the Joy Mt. Vernon facility
earlier in the year.’’ SAR 378–381.
Darrell Cockrum states that in August
2005, Mr. Peircey from Engles Trucking
told him that he had picked up a
shipment of crawler track frames at
Extreme Machine, Youngstown, Ohio;
that the shipment had originated in
Mexico; that Extreme Machine ‘‘had a
large number of crawler track frames
that Joy had fabricated in Mexico’’; Joy
had shipped the frames from Mexico to
Extreme Machine for final machining;
and that the frames in the August 2005
shipments were from Mexico and sent
to the subject facility for final
machining. SAR 394–395.
William Perkins states that in 2004
and 2005, he photographed and
inspected conveyor supports, discharge
tails, and crawler track frames that had
originated in Mexico and were stamped
‘‘hecho en Mexico.’’ SAR 410–411.
While the Department has carefully
reviewed the Plaintiffs’ submissions, the
Department has not received any
information to support the allegation of
a shift of production abroad. Further, on
December 28, 2006, the Department
contacted Plaintiffs’ counsel to request
any information not already in the
record. SAR 201. No additional
information was received.
According to current and former Joy
officials, the subject facility produced
finished mining machinery and finished
components. AR 146, SAR 247–250,
414. Joy confirmed that the subject
facility closed in September 2005, that
production of finished mining
machinery shifted to a Joy facility in
Lebanon, Kentucky, and that the subject
firm does not have an affiliated
production facility in Mexico. SAR 248.
Because the workers who produce
finished mining machinery and mining
components at the subject facility are
not separately identifiable by product
line, the Department determines that the
subject workers were engaged in the
E:\FR\FM\16JAN1.SGM
16JAN1
1774
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 16, 2007 / Notices
production of finished mining
machinery and components.
To be certified as eligible to apply for
TAA, the following criteria must be met:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
(1) A significant number or proportion of
the workers in such workers’ firm (or
appropriate subdivision of the firm) have
become, or are threatened to become, totally
or partially separated;
(2) Sales or production, or both, of such
firm or subdivision have decreased
absolutely; and
(3) Increases (absolute or relative) of
imports of articles produced by such
workers’ firm or an appropriate subdivision
thereof contributed importantly to such total
or partial separation, or threat thereof, and to
such decline in sales or production, or
(4) There has been a shift in production by
such workers’ firm or subdivision to a foreign
country of articles like or directly
competitive with articles which are produced
by such firm or subdivision; and the country
to which the workers’ firm has shifted
production of the articles is a party to a free
trade agreement with the United States, is a
beneficiary country under the Andean Trade
Preference Act, African Growth and
Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin
Economic Recovery Act or there has been or
is likely to be an increase in imports of
articles that are like or directly competitive
with articles which are or were produced by
such firm or subdivision.
Because the subject facility closed on
September 23, 2005, the Department
determines that criteria (1) and (2) have
been met.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.2, ‘‘increased
imports’’ means that imports have
increased, absolutely or relative to
domestic production, compared to a
representative base period. The
regulation also establishes the
representative base period as the oneyear period preceding the relevant
period (the twelve-month period prior
to the date of the petition).
Because the petition date is August 9,
2005, the relevant period for the case at
hand is July 2004 through August 2005
and the representative base period is
July 2003 through August 2004.
Because Plaintiffs allege increased
imports of mining machinery
components and it is undisputed that
Joy did not import finished mining
machinery, AR 13–14, 170, and that Joy
shifted finished mining machinery
production to an affiliated facility in
Lebanon, Kentucky, SAR 280–283, 316–
320, the scope of the Department’s
remand investigation is limited to
mining machinery components like or
directly competitive with those
produced at the subject facility during
the relevant period.
In order for TAA criteria (3) to be
satisfied, it must be shown that
increased imports of mining machinery
components during the relevant period
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:23 Jan 12, 2007
Jkt 211001
‘‘contributed importantly’’ to workers’
separations and the decline in sales or
production. Therefore, the presence of
increased imports is established if the
import level during July 2004 through
August 2005 is greater than the import
level during July 2003 through August
2004.
Per the Plaintiffs’ request, the
Department contacted two individuals
who were identified as having
information relevant to increased
imports of mining machinery
components by the subject firm. SAR
407, 416–417, 419, 422.
One of the individuals, a former Joy
manager, who was identified by several
Plaintiffs, had left Joy prior to the
relevant period and was therefore
unable to speak about events during July
2004 through September 2005. SAR 407,
419. The other individual, a vendor
with whom Joy currently conducts
business, stated that the mining
machinery components did not come
from Mexico but were shipped from,
and back to, the subject firm’s Franklin,
Pennsylvania facility. SAR 416–417.
Data previously provided by the
subject firm reflect that there were no
imports during the relevant period. AR
13–14. Rather, the subject firm has
indicated that it had brought in extra
work from Mexico in order to create
work for the workers. AR 160. Because
the subject firm has repeatedly
expressed its concern for the subject
worker group, AR 29–30, 160 and SAR
428, the Department has no reason to
believe that the subject firm is being less
than forthcoming during the remand
investigation.
Even if there were increased subject
firm imports during the relevant period,
the increased imports could not have
‘‘contributed importantly to such total
or partial separation, or threat thereof,
and to such decline in sales or
production’’ (emphasis added) because
sales for Joy increased during the
relevant period. AR 29–30. In the event
that there were company-wide sale
declines, the Department may interpret
a closure of an affiliated plant as an
effort by the company to adjust to
increased foreign competition. However,
this is not the case at hand.
Plaintiffs also allege that the
Department failed to inquire into Joy’s
customers’ import activities. SAR 193–
198. Again, because sales for Joy
increased during the relevant period,
there were no declining customers for
the Department to survey about their
decreased purchases. AR 29–30.
As such, having given full
consideration to all information
submitted by the Plaintiffs, the
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Department determines that TAA
criterion (3) has not been met.
Plaintiffs allege that the subject firm
shifted mining machinery component
production to Mexico. SAR 204. As
stated before, Joy does not have an
affiliated production facility in Mexico.
AR 170, SAR 204, 251. Therefore, there
is no facility to which Joy can shift
production. Further, the record further
substantiates that the subject firm had
shifted production to other Joy domestic
facilities, rather than to a foreign
supplier. AR 9, 20, 29–30, 130–131,
159–160, 169–170, SAR 248, 251, 415,
425. While several Plaintiffs have
asserted that all activities did not shift
to Joy’s Lebanon, Kentucky facility, the
evidence supports the conclusion that
any shift of production was to other Joy
domestic facilities, and not to a foreign
production facility. As such, having
given full consideration to all
information submitted by the Plaintiffs,
the Department determines that TAA
criterion (4) has not been met.
After careful review of the
administrative record and the
submissions of the remand
investigation, the Department has
inquired into the various allegations of
the Plaintiffs and has determined that
they are without merit.
In addition, in accordance with
Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended, the Department herein
presents the results of its investigation
regarding certification of eligibility to
apply for ATAA.
In order to apply the Department to
issue a certification of eligibility to
apply for ATAA, the subject worker
group must be certified eligible to apply
for TAA. Since the workers are denied
eligibility to apply for TAA, they cannot
be certified eligible to apply for ATAA.
Conclusion
After careful review of the findings of
the remand investigation, I affirm the
notice of negative determination of
eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance for workers and
former workers of Joy Technologies,
Inc., DBA Joy Mining Machinery, Mt.
Vernon Plant, Mt. Vernon, Illinois.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 8th day of
January 2007.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7–463 Filed 1–12–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
E:\FR\FM\16JAN1.SGM
16JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1771-1774]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-463]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Remand
On September 25, 2006, the U.S. Court of International Trade
(USCIT) granted the U.S. Department of Labor's motion for a voluntary
remand in Former Employees of Joy Technologies, Inc. v. U.S. Secretary
of Labor, Court No. 06-00088. SAR 240.
Case History
On August 9, 2005, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers,
Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local 483,
(``Union'') filed a petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) on behalf of workers and
former workers of Joy Technologies, Inc., DBA Joy Mining Machinery, Mt.
Vernon Plant, Mt. Vernon, Illinois (the subject facility) producing
underground mining machinery (the subject worker group). AR 2.
The Department's negative determination, issued on September 15,
2005, was based on findings 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. The denial was also based on the findings of
no shift of underground mining machinery production abroad and no
increased imports of underground mining machinery during the relevant
period. AR 130-135. The Notice of the Department's determination was
published in the Federal Register on October 31, 2005 (70 FR 62345). AR
142.
On November 3, 2005, workers 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. In the request
for reconsideration, the workers asserted that the Department's
interpretation of the reasons for the plant closure and the activities
of the subject workers was erroneous. According to the workers,
production and employment increased at the subject facility from 2003
to 2004 due to a ``Contract Agreement'' between the subject firm and
the Union and that ``the worker group at Joy, Mt. Vernon, IL has been
an upstream supplier to the Joy Mining Machinery facility located in
Franklin, PA. [p]roducing various components used in the final assembly
of the firms products'' and that in ``2004, the worker group * * *
resumed being an upstream supplier of component parts * * * to be used
in final production or to be sold as new replacement components to Joy
Mining Machinery customers.'' The workers allege that ``[t]hese
components are being produced in a foreign country (Mexico).'' AR 145-
147.
In support of the allegation, the workers provided the Department
with a copy of a November 17, 2005 electronic message from a Joy
official to the Union which confirmed that the Joy, Mt. Vernon,
Illinois facility supplied components for Joy, Franklin, Pennsylvania,
AR 159, and stated that ``three sets of track frames that were
fabricated in Mexico were finished in the Mt. Vernon machine and weld
shops.'' AR 160.
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 affirmative
determination was published in the Federal Register on December 15,
2005 (70 FR 74373).
During the reconsideration investigation, the Union informed the
Department that it is not involved with the request for reconsideration
and directed the Department to speak with the workers. AR 149.
According to workers Jerome Tobin and John Moore, the subject
facility is an upstream supplier to the Joy plant in Franklin,
Pennsylvania; the Franklin, Pennsylvania facility outsourced production
to Mexico; the component parts made at the subject facility were
outsourced to Mexico, and the components were sent to Joy, Eagle Pass,
Texas. Id. During a conference call, the workers also stated that they
would file a new petition as secondarily-affected workers. Id. In a
later conference call, Jerome Tobin, John Moore, and Steve Lisenbey,
stated that Joy had outsourced production to Extreme Machine. Id.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department found that
[[Page 1772]]
during the relevant period, the subject facility produced shuttle cars,
rebuilt electrical motors and armored face conveyors (AFC), assembled
gearboxes, and produced components used in the final assembly of mining
machinery produced at other Joy facility, including the Franklin,
Pennsylvania facility. AR 146. According to the Joy Mining Machinery
``Global Caplight'' article, dated July 29, 2005, the subject firm
opened a new, larger production facility in Lebanon, Kentucky that is
``scheduled to open in the fall of 2005'' and will ``manufacture
shuttle cars, rebuild motors and rebuild AFC gearcases.'' AR 126.
The reconsideration investigation also found that from May 2004
through September 2005, when the subject facility closed, the subject
worker group produced ``69 conveyors, 72 conveyor supports and 86
crawler track frames (43 sets).'' AR 148. The Department also found
that ``three sets of track frames that were fabricated in Mexico'' were
sent to the subject facility for finishing. AR 160.
A careful review of the administrative record revealed that the
subject firm had cooperated with the investigation in good faith and
had no incentive to prevent the subject workers from receiving TAA
benefits, AR 29-30. Further, the subject firm decided ``to bring
products * * * into Mount Vernon for a period of time to maintain work
for employees who would ultimately lose their jobs with the plant
closure.'' AR 160. Indeed, the subject firm stated that it wants
employees ``to receive all of the benefits to which they are legally
entitled.'' Id.
On January 19, 2006, the Department issued a Negative Determination
on Reconsideration. AR 180. The Department found that there was no
shift of production to Mexico, that the work at issue was ``temporary
work'' which was assigned to several Joy Mining Machinery (Joy)
facilities (including the Mt. Vernon, Illinois facility), that the
workers' separations were due to a shift of operations to an
affiliated, domestic facility in Kentucky, and that the subject workers
are not eligible to apply for TAA as workers of a secondarily-affected
company. AR 180.
The Department's Notice of determination on reconsideration was
published in the Federal Register on January 20, 2006 (71 FR 4937). AR
185-186. A corrected Notice of determination was issued on February 6,
2006, AR 187, and was published in the Federal Register on February 22,
2006 (71 FR 9162). AR 191.
On March 15, 2006, the Plaintiffs appealed the negative
reconsideration determination to the USCIT.
In an August 24, 2006 letter, Plaintiffs' counsel stated that a
voluntary remand is appropriate because the Department failed to (1)
Identify the manufacturing functions at the subject facility; (2)
investigate the allegation of imports, particularly from Mexico; (3)
investigate about the shift of production to Kentucky; and (4)
investigate imports by Joy's customers, and because the administrative
record is incomplete. SAR 193-198.
In order to address the issues raised above, the Department sought,
and was granted, a voluntary remand. SAR 240.
Plaintiffs' Allegations
In the complaint, Plaintiffs asserted ``we were an upstream
supplier to the Joy Mining Machinery facility at Franklin, PA. * * *
Joy Mining Machinery outsources the components to * * * Mexico * * *
these Mexican facilities * * * produce the component work that was
formerly done * * * at Joy Mining Machinery Mt. Vernon, Illinois'' and
the work done by Plaintiffs ``is not being done at the new Joy Mining
Machinery facility in Lebanon, Kentucky.'' SAR 238-239. In subsequent
submissions, Plaintiffs asserted that they manufactured components for
Joy's Franklin, Pennsylvania facility, SAR 194, 204-205, and may have
produced components for other Joy domestic facilities. SAR 205.
Plaintiffs also asserted that component production shifted to Mexico,
that Joy increased imports of components. SAR 204-205, and that
components were stamped ``hecho en Mexico.'' SAR 260.
Remand Investigation
While conducting the remand investigation, the Department contacted
Plaintiffs' counsel, SAR 200-201, 202-234, 242-392, 409-411, Joy
corporate counsel, SAR 200-201, 235, 412-415, 420-421, and individuals
identified by the Plaintiffs as having relevant information, SAR 200-
201, 407-408, 416-419, 422-423.
During the remand investigation, the Department received several
affidavits from Plaintiffs. A summary of relevant facts of each
affidavit follows:
Robin Buckingham states that the subject facility always
manufactured both finished products and components of mining machinery;
Joy's main production facility is in Franklin, Pennsylvania but there
are facilities throughout the United States, including Utah, Virginia,
and West Virginia; a ``substantial part'' of the subject facility's
work is performed as ``an upstream supplier'' for the Franklin,
Pennsylvania; between 2002 and 2004, the subject facility imported
mining machinery components from Mexico; and that a former Joy
supervisor had spoken to him about the parts stamped ``hecho en
Mexico.'' SAR 257-262.
Gary Coles states that the subject facility always manufactured
both finished products and components of mining machinery; Joy's main
production facility is in Franklin, Pennsylvania but there are
facilities throughout the United States, including Utah, Virginia, and
West Virginia; a ``substantial part'' of the subject facility's work is
performed as ``an upstream supplier'' for the Franklin, Pennsylvania;
the subject facility had sold completed components ``directly to
customers''; from 2002 and through 2004, the subject facility imported
mining machinery components from Mexico; and that a Joy sales manager
had spoken to him about the parts stamped ``hecho en Mexico.'' SAR 268-
273.
Steve Lisenbey states that the subject facility always manufactured
both finished products and components of mining machinery; Joy's main
production facility is in Franklin, Pennsylvania but there are
facilities throughout the United States, including Utah, Virginia, and
West Virginia; a ``substantial part'' of the subject facility's work is
performed as ``an upstream supplier'' for the Franklin, Pennsylvania;
in January 2002, a subject facility manager stated that ``Joy had
formed a partnership with a Mexican supplier to outsource the
fabrication of continuous miner components'' and ``components
fabricated in Mexico did not meet the International Organization for
Standardization (``ISO'') standards,'' so ``the completed components
Joy outsourced to Mexico had to be brought to Mt. Vernon for the final
machining''; in 2004, the subject facility imported crawler track
frames from Mexico; and the Joy, Lebanon, Kentucky facility ``does not
have the same manufacturing functions and duties'' as the subject
facility because it does not fabricate components. SAR 280-283.
John Moore states that the subject facility always manufactured
both finished products and components of mining machinery; Joy's main
production facility is in Franklin, Pennsylvania but there are
facilities throughout the United States, including Utah, Virginia, and
West Virginia; a ``substantial part'' of the subject facility's work is
performed as ``an upstream supplier'' for the Franklin, Pennsylvania;
that the subject facility ``took sales orders directly from
[[Page 1773]]
customers''; in 2003 and 2004, the subject facility ``did the final
machining on completed crawler track frames that originated in
Mexico''; the subject facility ``retrofitted gathering pans'' were
marked ``hecho en Mexico''; and in ``approximately October or November
2005, a sales manager for Joy ``told me that Joy was outsourcing
manufacture and assembly of mining equipment to Mexico.'' SAR 292-296.
Robert Patterson stated that the subject facility manufactured
finished products and components of mining machinery; Joy's main
production facility is in Franklin, Pennsylvania but there are
facilities throughout the United States, including Utah, Virginia, and
West Virginia; a ``substantial part'' of the subject facility's work is
performed as ``an upstream supplier'' for the Franklin, Pennsylvania
facility; in 2003 and 2004, the subject facility ``machined completed
crawler track frames that originated in Mexico''; and the subject
facility received components stamped ``hecho en Mexico.'' SAR 304-307.
Jerome Tobin stated that the subject facility always manufactured
both finished products and components of mining machinery; Joy's main
production facility is in Franklin, Pennsylvania but there are
facilities throughout the United States, including Utah, Virginia, and
West Virginia; a ``substantial part'' of the subject facility's work is
performed as ``an upstream supplier'' for the Franklin, Pennsylvania
facility; in 2004, the subject facility ``machined completed crawler
track frames that originated in Mexico''; the subject facility received
track frames and components stamped ``hecho en Mexico''; and on
``October 17, 2006,'' Merlin Orser, the President of the Union's local
at Franklin, Pennsylvania, ``confirmed for me that the Lebanon facility
does only assembly work * * * does not perform the manufacturing
functions that the Mt. Vernon facility performed when it was open.''
SAR 316-320.
David Vaughn states that the subject facility manufactured finished
products and components of mining machinery; Joy's main production
facility is in Franklin, Pennsylvania but there are facilities
throughout the United States, including Utah, Virginia, and West
Virginia; a ``substantial part'' of the subject facility's work is
performed as ``an upstream supplier'' for the Franklin, Pennsylvania
facility; in 2004, the subject facility ``did the final machining on
completed crawler track frames originated in Mexico''; the subject
facility received components stamped ``hecho en Mexico''; and a former
Joy supervisor ``told me that at Coal Age he is outsourcing the
manufacture of continuous miner frames to a company in Mexico * * * the
same Mexican company for outsourcing that Joy used to fabricate the
continuous miner components.'' SAR 328-332.
Ronald Wilkey states that the subject facility always manufactured
both finished products and components of mining machinery; Joy's main
production facility is in Franklin, Pennsylvania but there are
facilities throughout the United States, including Utah, Virginia, and
West Virginia; a ``substantial part'' of the subject facility's work is
performed as ``an upstream supplier'' for the Franklin, Pennsylvania
facility; in 2004, the subject facility ``did the final machining on
completed crawler track frames originated in Mexico''; the subject
facility received components stamped ``hecho en Mexico''; that ``in
approximately August 2005, I was one of the laborers who helped to
unload a truck full of crawler track frames that had originated in
Mexico''; and that the subject facility had received component parts
stamped ``hecho en Mexico.'' SAR 340-343.
Jesse Russell Hamilton states that subject facility always
manufactured both finished products and components of mining machinery;
Joy's main production facility is in Franklin, Pennsylvania but there
are facilities throughout the United States, including Utah, Virginia,
and West Virginia; a ``substantial part'' of the subject facility's
work is performed as ``an upstream supplier'' for the Franklin,
Pennsylvania facility; in 2004, the subject facility ``machined crawler
track frames that originated in Mexico''; and the subject facility
received components stamped ``hecho en Mexico.'' SAR 356-359.
Steven Kirkpatrick states that the subject facility always
manufactured both finished products and components of mining machinery;
Joy's main production facility is in Franklin, Pennsylvania but there
are facilities throughout the United States, including Utah, Virginia,
and West Virginia; a ``substantial part'' of the subject facility's
work is performed as ``an upstream supplier'' for the Franklin,
Pennsylvania facility; in 2004, the subject facility ``machined crawler
track frames that originated in Mexico''; the subject facility received
mining machinery component parts marked ``hecho en Mexico''; and in
2003, ``DMUs came into the Mt. Vernon plant from Mexico.'' SAR 366-370.
Robert Baxley stated that the subject facility always manufactured
both finished products and components of mining machinery; Joy's main
production facility is in Franklin, Pennsylvania but there are
facilities throughout the United States, including Utah, Virginia, and
West Virginia; a ``substantial part'' of the subject facility's work is
performed as ``an upstream supplier'' for the Franklin, Pennsylvania
facility; in 2004, the subject facility ``did the final machining on
completed crawler track frames that originated in Mexico''; the subject
facility received crawler track frames and other component parts
stamped ``hecho en Mexico''; and ``in November 2005, I took pictures of
the Mexican crawler track frames that had been brought into the Joy Mt.
Vernon facility earlier in the year.'' SAR 378-381.
Darrell Cockrum states that in August 2005, Mr. Peircey from Engles
Trucking told him that he had picked up a shipment of crawler track
frames at Extreme Machine, Youngstown, Ohio; that the shipment had
originated in Mexico; that Extreme Machine ``had a large number of
crawler track frames that Joy had fabricated in Mexico''; Joy had
shipped the frames from Mexico to Extreme Machine for final machining;
and that the frames in the August 2005 shipments were from Mexico and
sent to the subject facility for final machining. SAR 394-395.
William Perkins states that in 2004 and 2005, he photographed and
inspected conveyor supports, discharge tails, and crawler track frames
that had originated in Mexico and were stamped ``hecho en Mexico.'' SAR
410-411.
While the Department has carefully reviewed the Plaintiffs'
submissions, the Department has not received any information to support
the allegation of a shift of production abroad. Further, on December
28, 2006, the Department contacted Plaintiffs' counsel to request any
information not already in the record. SAR 201. No additional
information was received.
According to current and former Joy officials, the subject facility
produced finished mining machinery and finished components. AR 146, SAR
247-250, 414. Joy confirmed that the subject facility closed in
September 2005, that production of finished mining machinery shifted to
a Joy facility in Lebanon, Kentucky, and that the subject firm does not
have an affiliated production facility in Mexico. SAR 248.
Because the workers who produce finished mining machinery and
mining components at the subject facility are not separately
identifiable by product line, the Department determines that the
subject workers were engaged in the
[[Page 1774]]
production of finished mining machinery and components.
To be certified as eligible to apply for TAA, the following
criteria must be met:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such
workers' firm (or appropriate subdivision of the firm) have become,
or are threatened to become, totally or partially separated;
(2) Sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision
have decreased absolutely; and
(3) Increases (absolute or relative) of imports of articles
produced by such workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision thereof
contributed importantly to such total or partial separation, or
threat thereof, and to such decline in sales or production, or
(4) There has been a shift in production by such workers' firm
or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly
competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or
subdivision; and the country to which the workers' firm has shifted
production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with
the United States, is a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade
Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean
Basin Economic Recovery Act or there has been or is likely to be an
increase in imports of articles that are like or directly
competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or
subdivision.
Because the subject facility closed on September 23, 2005, the
Department determines that criteria (1) and (2) have been met.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.2, ``increased imports'' means that imports
have increased, absolutely or relative to domestic production, compared
to a representative base period. The regulation also establishes the
representative base period as the one-year period preceding the
relevant period (the twelve-month period prior to the date of the
petition).
Because the petition date is August 9, 2005, the relevant period
for the case at hand is July 2004 through August 2005 and the
representative base period is July 2003 through August 2004.
Because Plaintiffs allege increased imports of mining machinery
components and it is undisputed that Joy did not import finished mining
machinery, AR 13-14, 170, and that Joy shifted finished mining
machinery production to an affiliated facility in Lebanon, Kentucky,
SAR 280-283, 316-320, the scope of the Department's remand
investigation is limited to mining machinery components like or
directly competitive with those produced at the subject facility during
the relevant period.
In order for TAA criteria (3) to be satisfied, it must be shown
that increased imports of mining machinery components during the
relevant period ``contributed importantly'' to workers' separations and
the decline in sales or production. Therefore, the presence of
increased imports is established if the import level during July 2004
through August 2005 is greater than the import level during July 2003
through August 2004.
Per the Plaintiffs' request, the Department contacted two
individuals who were identified as having information relevant to
increased imports of mining machinery components by the subject firm.
SAR 407, 416-417, 419, 422.
One of the individuals, a former Joy manager, who was identified by
several Plaintiffs, had left Joy prior to the relevant period and was
therefore unable to speak about events during July 2004 through
September 2005. SAR 407, 419. The other individual, a vendor with whom
Joy currently conducts business, stated that the mining machinery
components did not come from Mexico but were shipped from, and back to,
the subject firm's Franklin, Pennsylvania facility. SAR 416-417.
Data previously provided by the subject firm reflect that there
were no imports during the relevant period. AR 13-14. Rather, the
subject firm has indicated that it had brought in extra work from
Mexico in order to create work for the workers. AR 160. Because the
subject firm has repeatedly expressed its concern for the subject
worker group, AR 29-30, 160 and SAR 428, the Department has no reason
to believe that the subject firm is being less than forthcoming during
the remand investigation.
Even if there were increased subject firm imports during the
relevant period, the increased imports could not have ``contributed
importantly to such total or partial separation, or threat thereof, and
to such decline in sales or production'' (emphasis added) because sales
for Joy increased during the relevant period. AR 29-30. In the event
that there were company-wide sale declines, the Department may
interpret a closure of an affiliated plant as an effort by the company
to adjust to increased foreign competition. However, this is not the
case at hand.
Plaintiffs also allege that the Department failed to inquire into
Joy's customers' import activities. SAR 193-198. Again, because sales
for Joy increased during the relevant period, there were no declining
customers for the Department to survey about their decreased purchases.
AR 29-30.
As such, having given full consideration to all information
submitted by the Plaintiffs, the Department determines that TAA
criterion (3) has not been met.
Plaintiffs allege that the subject firm shifted mining machinery
component production to Mexico. SAR 204. As stated before, Joy does not
have an affiliated production facility in Mexico. AR 170, SAR 204, 251.
Therefore, there is no facility to which Joy can shift production.
Further, the record further substantiates that the subject firm had
shifted production to other Joy domestic facilities, rather than to a
foreign supplier. AR 9, 20, 29-30, 130-131, 159-160, 169-170, SAR 248,
251, 415, 425. While several Plaintiffs have asserted that all
activities did not shift to Joy's Lebanon, Kentucky facility, the
evidence supports the conclusion that any shift of production was to
other Joy domestic facilities, and not to a foreign production
facility. As such, having given full consideration to all information
submitted by the Plaintiffs, the Department determines that TAA
criterion (4) has not been met.
After careful review of the administrative record and the
submissions of the remand investigation, the Department has inquired
into the various allegations of the Plaintiffs and has determined that
they are without merit.
In addition, in accordance with Section 246 of the Trade Act of
1974, as amended, the Department herein presents the results of its
investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA.
In order to apply the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for ATAA, the subject worker group must be
certified eligible to apply for TAA. Since the workers are denied
eligibility to apply for TAA, they cannot be certified eligible to
apply for ATAA.
Conclusion
After careful review of the findings of the remand investigation, I
affirm the notice of negative determination of eligibility to apply for
worker adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Joy
Technologies, Inc., DBA Joy Mining Machinery, Mt. Vernon Plant, Mt.
Vernon, Illinois.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 8th day of January 2007.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-463 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
