[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 36 (Monday, February 24, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Page 8628]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-4288]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-42,234]


Joy Mining Machinery, a Division of Joy Global, Inc., Co., Mt. 
Vernon, IL; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for 
Reconsideration

    By application received on December 4, 2002, a petitioner requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of 
the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). The 
denial notice applicable to workers of Joy Mining Machinery, a Division 
of Joy Global, Inc., Co., Mt. Vernon, Illinois, was signed on August 
26, 2002, and published in the Federal Register on September 10, 2002 
(67 FR 57456).
    Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted under 
the following circumstances:
    (1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered 
that the determination complained of was erroneous;
    (2) If it appears that the determination complained of was based on 
a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or
    (3) If in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a mis-
interpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the 
decision.
    The TAA petition was filed on behalf of workers at Joy Mining 
Machinery, a Division of Joy Global, Inc., Co., Mt. Vernon, Illinois 
engaged in activities related to the repair and rebuilding of 
underground coal mining equipment for unrelated producers. The petition 
was denied because the petitioning workers did not produce an article 
within the meaning of Section 222(3) of the Act.
    The petitioner appears to claim that layoffs at Joy Mining 
Machinery, a Division of Joy Global, Inc., Co., Mt. Vernon, Illinois, 
were the result of mining machine parts arriving from Mexico.
    As the subject firm does not produce original parts, but repairs 
existing ones, the function of subject firm workers is not considered 
production; thus, the workers do not produce an article with the 
meaning of Section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974.

Conclusion

    After review of the application and investigative findings, I 
conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law 
or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department 
of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of February, 2003.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-4288 Filed 2-21-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P