Joy Global, Inc., Also Known as Joy Technologies, Inc., Including On-Site Leased Workers From All Seasons Temporaries and Manpower Franklin, Pennsylvania; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration, 31591-31592 [2013-12383]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
petitioner worked in the analytics
segment of the information and
technology unit, and the third petitioner
worked in the space management
segment of the supply chain unit. The
Department also received information
from the subject firm that the services
supplied by each of the petitioners did
not shift to a foreign country as alleged
in the petition.
In the request for reconsideration, one
of the initial petitioners stated that the
worker group was incorrect in the initial
investigation (‘‘My position at Sears had
nothing to do with Analytics or space
Management. I worked in Marketing’’),
that the correct worker group consist of
workers supplying ‘‘Accounting,
Marketing, and inventory services’’ and
that worker separations was due to
Sear’s shift the supply of services to a
foreign country (‘‘The IMPACT program
supported by (Sears Holding) India will
be taking over’’).
During the reconsideration
investigation, the Department reviewed
the petition; information supplied by
the petitioners; information supplied by
Sears’ representative during the initial
investigation; and information supplied
in the request for reconsideration. The
Department also requested that the
subject firm confirm previouslysubmitted information and address the
allegations in the request for
reconsideration.
The subject firm clarified that one
petitioner supplied print marketing
management services, another petitioner
supplied project coordinator analytics
services, and the third petitioner
supplied merchandise planning analysis
services. The subject firm also
confirmed that the services previously
supplied by the petitioners were not
being performed by Sears Holding India
and that services supplied by Sears
Holding India were not increasing while
services decreased at Hoffman Estates,
Illinois. The subject firm also provided
information that the services supplied
by the petitioning workers remain at
Hoffman Estates, Illinois.
While there is a certification
applicable to TA–W–73,244, each
petition is determined based on facts
specific to the petition. Therefore, facts
relevant to one petition cannot be the
basis for certification of another
petition.
Conclusion
After careful review, I determine that
the requirements of Section 222 of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272, have not been met
and, therefore, deny the petition for
group eligibility of Workers of Sears
Holdings Management Corporation,
Hoffman Estates, Illinois, to apply for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:14 May 23, 2013
Jkt 229001
adjustment assistance, in accordance
with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
2273.
Signed in Washington, DC, on this 8th day
of May, 2013.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2013–12386 Filed 5–23–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–81,929]
Joy Global, Inc., Also Known as Joy
Technologies, Inc., Including On-Site
Leased Workers From All Seasons
Temporaries and Manpower Franklin,
Pennsylvania; Notice of Negative
Determination on Reconsideration
On December 6, 2012, the Department
of Labor (Department) issued a Notice of
Affirmative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration
applicable to workers and former
workers of Joy Global, Inc., also known
as Joy Technologies, Inc., (subject firm),
including on-site leased workers from
All Seasons Temporaries and
Manpower, Franklin, Pennsylvania
(subject facility).
The group eligibility requirements for
workers of a Firm under Section 222(a)
of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a), can be
satisfied if the following criteria are met:
(1) A significant number or proportion
of the workers in such workers’ firm
have become totally or partially
separated, or are threatened to become
totally or partially separated; and
(2)(A)(i) the sales or production, or
both, of such firm have decreased
absolutely;
(ii)(I) imports of articles or services
like or directly competitive with articles
produced or services supplied by such
firm have increased;
(II) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles—
(aa) into which one or more
component parts produced by such firm
are directly incorporated, or
(bb) which are produced directly
using services supplied by such firm,
have increased; or
(III) imports of articles directly
incorporating one or more component
parts produced outside the United
States that are like or directly
competitive with imports of articles
incorporating one or more component
parts produced by such firm have
increased; and
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31591
(iii) the increase in imports described
in clause (ii) contributed importantly to
such workers’ separation or threat of
separation and to the decline in the
sales or production of such firm; or
(B)(i)(I) there has been a shift by such
workers’ firm to a foreign country in the
production of articles or the supply of
services like or directly competitive
with articles which are produced or
services which are supplied by such
firm; or
(II) such workers’ firm has acquired
from a foreign country articles or
services that are like or directly
competitive with articles which are
produced or services which are
supplied by such firm; and
(ii) the shift described in clause (i)(I)
or the acquisition of articles or services
described in clause (i)(II) contributed
importantly to such workers’ separation
or threat of separation.
Initial Investigation
On August 29, 2012, a representative
from International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
District Lodge 98, filed a petition for
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA),
dated August 25, 2012, on behalf of
workers and former workers of the
subject facility. Workers are engaged in
the production of underground mining
machines and component parts. The
workers are not separately identifiable
by product line.
The negative determination was based
on the findings that the subject firm had
not experienced a decline in the sales or
production of mobile underground
mining machines and repair
components during the period under
investigation (the representative base
period is August through December
2010, full year 2011, and January
through August 2012; hereafter referred
to as ‘‘period under investigation’’ or
‘‘relevant time period’’); that the subject
firm did not shift the production of
these articles, or like or directly
competitive articles, to a foreign country
or acquire the production of these
articles, or like or directly competitive
articles, from a foreign country; that the
subject firm is not a Supplier to a firm
that employed a group of workers who
received a certification of eligibility
under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19
U.S.C. 2272(a); that the subject firm
does not act as a Downstream Producer
to a firm (or subdivision, whichever is
applicable) that employed a group of
workers who received a certification of
eligibility under Section 222(a) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a); and that the
workers’ firm has not been publically
identified by name by the International
Trade Commission as a member of a
E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM
24MYN1
31592
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Notices
domestic industry in an investigation
resulting in an affirmative finding of
serious injury, market disruption, or
material injury, or threat thereof. As
such, the Department issued a Negative
Determination Regarding Eligibility to
Apply for Worker Adjustment
Assistance on October 16, 2012.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Reconsideration investigation
By application dated November 8,
2012, the petitioner requested
administrative reconsideration of the
Department’s negative determination
regarding the eligibility of the subject
worker group to apply for adjustment
assistance.
In the application, the petitioner
stated that foreign competition had an
impact on the subject firm, as well as its
suppliers and downstream vendors, and
that the subject firm outsourced
components and manufacturing mining
equipment that were previously made in
the United States. The petitioner also
alleged that TA–W–81,929 is similar to
TA–W–57,700 and TA–W–71,174.
Additionally, the petitioner stated that
the shift in manufacturing of parts to
Mexico and China caused the cessation
of manufacturing of these parts at the
subject facility and referred to a vendor
in Mexico that supplies the subject firm
with component parts.
On December 6, 2012, the Department
issued a Notice of Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration in order to conduct
further investigation to determine
worker eligibility. The Department’s
Notice was published in the Federal
Register on January 4, 2013 (78 FR 774).
In the course of the reconsideration
investigation, the Department confirmed
previously-collected information,
sought clarification of previouslysubmitted information, and obtained
additional facts and data from the
subject firm.
The Department confirmed that
Section 222(a)(1) has been met because
a significant number or proportion of
the workers at the subject facility have
become totally separated.
The Department confirmed that
Section 222(a)(2)(A)(i) was not met
because sales and production at the
subject facility did not decline during
the period under investigation. Rather,
sales and production either increased or
remained stable in 2011 from 2010
levels and during January through
August 2012 when compared to the
corresponding period in 2011. As such,
any increase in imports is irrelevant.
Consequently, the Department did not
conduct a survey of the subject firm’s
major customers and did not contact the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:14 May 23, 2013
Jkt 229001
vendor in Mexico identified in the
request for reconsideration.
Further, the Department confirmed
that Section 222(a)(2)(B) was not met
because the subject firm did not shift
the production of mining equipment or
components, or like or directly
competitive articles, to a foreign country
or acquire the production of such
articles, or like or directly competitive
articles, from a foreign country.
Although the subject firm confirmed the
existence of affiliated production
facilities in foreign countries, some
foreign facilities did not produce like or
directly competitive articles during the
relevant period and others produced
articles that are like or directly
competitive with articles produced at
the subject facility prior to the start of
the period under investigation.
The petitioner alleges that the case at
hand is similar to TA–W–57,700 (Joy
Technologies, Inc., DBA Joy Mining
Machinery, Mt. Vernon Plant, Mt.
Vernon, Illinois; certification issued on
January 26, 2009). The certification of
TA–W–57,700 was based on a shift in
production of mining machinery
components (crawler track frames) to
Mexico which contributed importantly
to subject worker group separations.
During the reconsideration
investigation, the Department confirmed
that no shift in production of mobile
underground mining machines or
component parts (or the repair of
component parts) to a foreign country
contributed importantly to worker
separations at the subject facility.
Production at affiliated foreign facilities
is either of neither like nor directly
competitive articles, or exclusively for
specific foreign markets. Additionally,
the articles that shifted to Mexico in
TA–W–57,700 (crawler track frames) are
not like or directly competitive with
those produced at the subject facility.
The petitioner also alleged that the
case at hand is similar to TA–W–71,174
(General Electric Company,
Transportation Division, Erie,
Pennsylvania; certification issued on
July 23, 2010). The certification of TA–
W–71,174 was based on a relative shift
in production of like or directly
competitive articles to a foreign country
which contributed importantly to
subject worker group separations.
In TA–W–71,174, General Electric
Company operated foreign facilities that
produced articles like or directly
competitive with those produced by the
subject worker group and production at
the foreign facilities increased during
the same period that domestic
production of these articles declined.
During the reconsideration
investigation, the Department requested
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
that the subject firm provides
information regarding its foreign
facilities that produce articles like or
directly competitive with those
manufactured by the workers of the
subject facility during the relevant
period.
The subject firm produced
information that revealed that
continuous miners are also produced at
a facility of the subject firm in South
Africa. Production at the South African
facility, however, increased only
marginally. As such, the Department
determined that the production at the
foreign facility did not contribute
importantly to subject worker group
separations at the subject facility.
During the reconsideration
investigation, the Department did not
receive information that either Joy
Global, Inc. or Joy Technologies, Inc.
was publically identified by name by
the International Trade Commission as
a member of a domestic industry in an
investigation resulting in an affirmative
finding of serious injury, market
disruption, or material injury, or threat
thereof.
Conclusion
After careful review of the Trade Act
of 1974, as amended, applicable
regulation, and information obtained
during the initial and reconsideration
investigations, I determine that workers
and former workers of Joy Global, Inc.,
also known as Joy Technologies, Inc.,
including on-site leased workers from
All Seasons Temporaries and
Manpower, Franklin, Pennsylvania, are
ineligible to apply for adjustment
assistance.
Signed in Washington, DC, on this 8th day
of May, 2013.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2013–12383 Filed 5–23–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–82,371]
T-Mobile Usa, Inc., Core Fault Isolation
Team, Engineering Division,
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania; Notice of
Affirmative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration
By application received on May 1,
2013, three workers requested
administrative reconsideration of the
negative determination regarding
workers’ eligibility to apply for Trade
E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM
24MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 101 (Friday, May 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31591-31592]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12383]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-81,929]
Joy Global, Inc., Also Known as Joy Technologies, Inc., Including
On-Site Leased Workers From All Seasons Temporaries and Manpower
Franklin, Pennsylvania; Notice of Negative Determination on
Reconsideration
On December 6, 2012, the Department of Labor (Department) issued a
Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for
Reconsideration applicable to workers and former workers of Joy Global,
Inc., also known as Joy Technologies, Inc., (subject firm), including
on-site leased workers from All Seasons Temporaries and Manpower,
Franklin, Pennsylvania (subject facility).
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a Firm under
Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a), can be satisfied if the
following criteria are met:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such
workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated; and
(2)(A)(i) the sales or production, or both, of such firm have
decreased absolutely;
(ii)(I) imports of articles or services like or directly
competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm
have increased;
(II) imports of articles like or directly competitive with
articles--
(aa) into which one or more component parts produced by such firm
are directly incorporated, or
(bb) which are produced directly using services supplied by such
firm, have increased; or
(III) imports of articles directly incorporating one or more
component parts produced outside the United States that are like or
directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or more
component parts produced by such firm have increased; and
(iii) the increase in imports described in clause (ii) contributed
importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to
the decline in the sales or production of such firm; or
(B)(i)(I) there has been a shift by such workers' firm to a foreign
country in the production of articles or the supply of services like or
directly competitive with articles which are produced or services which
are supplied by such firm; or
(II) such workers' firm has acquired from a foreign country
articles or services that are like or directly competitive with
articles which are produced or services which are supplied by such
firm; and
(ii) the shift described in clause (i)(I) or the acquisition of
articles or services described in clause (i)(II) contributed
importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation.
Initial Investigation
On August 29, 2012, a representative from International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 98, filed a
petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), dated August 25, 2012,
on behalf of workers and former workers of the subject facility.
Workers are engaged in the production of underground mining machines
and component parts. The workers are not separately identifiable by
product line.
The negative determination was based on the findings that the
subject firm had not experienced a decline in the sales or production
of mobile underground mining machines and repair components during the
period under investigation (the representative base period is August
through December 2010, full year 2011, and January through August 2012;
hereafter referred to as ``period under investigation'' or ``relevant
time period''); that the subject firm did not shift the production of
these articles, or like or directly competitive articles, to a foreign
country or acquire the production of these articles, or like or
directly competitive articles, from a foreign country; that the subject
firm is not a Supplier to a firm that employed a group of workers who
received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a); that the subject firm does not act as a
Downstream Producer to a firm (or subdivision, whichever is applicable)
that employed a group of workers who received a certification of
eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a); and
that the workers' firm has not been publically identified by name by
the International Trade Commission as a member of a
[[Page 31592]]
domestic industry in an investigation resulting in an affirmative
finding of serious injury, market disruption, or material injury, or
threat thereof. As such, the Department issued a Negative Determination
Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on
October 16, 2012.
Reconsideration investigation
By application dated November 8, 2012, the petitioner requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative
determination regarding the eligibility of the subject worker group to
apply for adjustment assistance.
In the application, the petitioner stated that foreign competition
had an impact on the subject firm, as well as its suppliers and
downstream vendors, and that the subject firm outsourced components and
manufacturing mining equipment that were previously made in the United
States. The petitioner also alleged that TA-W-81,929 is similar to TA-
W-57,700 and TA-W-71,174. Additionally, the petitioner stated that the
shift in manufacturing of parts to Mexico and China caused the
cessation of manufacturing of these parts at the subject facility and
referred to a vendor in Mexico that supplies the subject firm with
component parts.
On December 6, 2012, the Department issued a Notice of Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration in order to
conduct further investigation to determine worker eligibility. The
Department's Notice was published in the Federal Register on January 4,
2013 (78 FR 774).
In the course of the reconsideration investigation, the Department
confirmed previously-collected information, sought clarification of
previously-submitted information, and obtained additional facts and
data from the subject firm.
The Department confirmed that Section 222(a)(1) has been met
because a significant number or proportion of the workers at the
subject facility have become totally separated.
The Department confirmed that Section 222(a)(2)(A)(i) was not met
because sales and production at the subject facility did not decline
during the period under investigation. Rather, sales and production
either increased or remained stable in 2011 from 2010 levels and during
January through August 2012 when compared to the corresponding period
in 2011. As such, any increase in imports is irrelevant. Consequently,
the Department did not conduct a survey of the subject firm's major
customers and did not contact the vendor in Mexico identified in the
request for reconsideration.
Further, the Department confirmed that Section 222(a)(2)(B) was not
met because the subject firm did not shift the production of mining
equipment or components, or like or directly competitive articles, to a
foreign country or acquire the production of such articles, or like or
directly competitive articles, from a foreign country. Although the
subject firm confirmed the existence of affiliated production
facilities in foreign countries, some foreign facilities did not
produce like or directly competitive articles during the relevant
period and others produced articles that are like or directly
competitive with articles produced at the subject facility prior to the
start of the period under investigation.
The petitioner alleges that the case at hand is similar to TA-W-
57,700 (Joy Technologies, Inc., DBA Joy Mining Machinery, Mt. Vernon
Plant, Mt. Vernon, Illinois; certification issued on January 26, 2009).
The certification of TA-W-57,700 was based on a shift in production of
mining machinery components (crawler track frames) to Mexico which
contributed importantly to subject worker group separations.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department confirmed
that no shift in production of mobile underground mining machines or
component parts (or the repair of component parts) to a foreign country
contributed importantly to worker separations at the subject facility.
Production at affiliated foreign facilities is either of neither like
nor directly competitive articles, or exclusively for specific foreign
markets. Additionally, the articles that shifted to Mexico in TA-W-
57,700 (crawler track frames) are not like or directly competitive with
those produced at the subject facility.
The petitioner also alleged that the case at hand is similar to TA-
W-71,174 (General Electric Company, Transportation Division, Erie,
Pennsylvania; certification issued on July 23, 2010). The certification
of TA-W-71,174 was based on a relative shift in production of like or
directly competitive articles to a foreign country which contributed
importantly to subject worker group separations.
In TA-W-71,174, General Electric Company operated foreign
facilities that produced articles like or directly competitive with
those produced by the subject worker group and production at the
foreign facilities increased during the same period that domestic
production of these articles declined.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department requested
that the subject firm provides information regarding its foreign
facilities that produce articles like or directly competitive with
those manufactured by the workers of the subject facility during the
relevant period.
The subject firm produced information that revealed that continuous
miners are also produced at a facility of the subject firm in South
Africa. Production at the South African facility, however, increased
only marginally. As such, the Department determined that the production
at the foreign facility did not contribute importantly to subject
worker group separations at the subject facility.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department did not
receive information that either Joy Global, Inc. or Joy Technologies,
Inc. was publically identified by name by the International Trade
Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation
resulting in an affirmative finding of serious injury, market
disruption, or material injury, or threat thereof.
Conclusion
After careful review of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended,
applicable regulation, and information obtained during the initial and
reconsideration investigations, I determine that workers and former
workers of Joy Global, Inc., also known as Joy Technologies, Inc.,
including on-site leased workers from All Seasons Temporaries and
Manpower, Franklin, Pennsylvania, are ineligible to apply for
adjustment assistance.
Signed in Washington, DC, on this 8th day of May, 2013.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2013-12383 Filed 5-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
