[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6658-6659]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2732]


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

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 Revised Determination on Remand

    On January 22, 2009, the U.S. Court of International Trade (USCIT) 
remanded to the U.S. Department of Labor (Department) for further 
review Former Employees of Joy Technologies, Inc. v. U.S Secretary of 
Labor, Court No. 06-00088.
    On August 2, 2005, the International Brotherhood of Boiler-makers, 
Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local 483, filed 
a petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade 
Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) on behalf of workers and former workers of 
Joy Mining Machinery, Mt. Vernon, Illinois (subject facility) producing 
underground mining equipment. The petition alleged that the subject 
facility would close September 23, 2005, due to a shift of production 
to Canada, China, Mexico and Russia.
    During the initial TAA investigation, the Department determined 
that the subject workers produced mining machinery and mining machinery 
components, and that the workers were not separately identifiable by 
product line.
    The group eligibility requirements for directly impacted (primary) 
workers under Section 222(a) the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, can be 
satisfied in either of two ways:
    I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied:
    A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such 
workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become 
totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or 
partially separated;
    B. The sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision 
have decreased absolutely; and
    C. Increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with 
articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed 
importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to 
the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or
    II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied:
    A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such 
workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become 
totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or 
partially separated;
    B. 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
    C. One of the following must be satisfied:
    1. 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;
    2. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of 
the articles is a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference 
Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin 
Economic Recovery Act; or
    3. 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.
    The initial negative determination regarding eligibility to apply 
for TAA, issued on September 25, 2005, was based on the Department's 
findings that employment at the subject facility increased during the 
relevant period, that subject facility sales did not decrease during 
the relevant period, that Joy corporate sales increased during the 
relevant period, and that there was no shift of production to a foreign 
country.
    By application letter application dated November 3, 2005, the 
former workers requested administrative reconsideration, alleging that 
the workers' separations were due to a shift of production to Mexico.
    On January 19, 2006, the Department issued a negative determination 
on reconsideration. The denial was based on the Department's findings 
that there was no shift of production to Mexico and that the workers 
were not eligible to apply for TAA as workers of a secondarily affected 
company.
    By letter dated March 15, 2006, Plaintiffs sought judicial review. 
Plaintiffs asserted that the petitioning workers are eligible to apply 
for TAA due to either increased imports of articles like or directly 
competitive with crawler track frames (a type of mining machinery 
component) produced by the subject facility or a shift of production 
crawler track frames to Mexico.
    During the first remand investigation, the Department determined 
that there was no shift of production to a foreign country and that 
increased imports could not have contributed importantly to the 
workers' separations because subject firm sales increased during the 
relevant period. On January 8, 2007, the Department issued a negative 
determination on remand.
    During the second remand investigation, the Department determined 
that crawler track frame production at the subject facility increased 
during the relevant period and that imports of articles like or 
directly competitive with these articles ceased before the subject 
facility closed, and concluded that imports of crawler track frames did 
not contribute

[[Page 6659]]

importantly to subject facility sales and/or production declines and 
worker separations. A second negative determination on remand was 
issued on June 12, 2008.
    During the third remand investigation, the Department carefully 
reviewed the language of the statute, the applicable regulation, and 
the administrative record.
    As a result of the review, the Department determined that, during 
the relevant period, a significant portion or number of workers at the 
subject facility was separated and there was a shift of production of 
mining machinery components to Mexico. Therefore, the Department 
determines that the group eligibility requirements under Section 
222(a)(2)(B) the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, has been met.
    In accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 
2813), as amended, the Department herein presents the results of its 
investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA.
    The Department has determined in this case that the group 
eligibility requirements of Section 246 have been met.
    A significant number of workers at the firm are age 50 or over and 
possess skills that are not easily transferable. Competitive conditions 
within the industry are adverse.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the facts generated through the first and 
second remand investigations, I determine that a shift of production to 
Mexico of articles like or directly competitive to mining machinery 
components produced at the subject facility contributed to the total or 
partial separation of a significant number or proportion of workers at 
the subject facility.
    In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following 
certification:

    ``All workers of Joy Technologies, Inc., DBA Joy Mining 
Machinery, Mt. Vernon Plant, Mt. Vernon, Illinois (TA-W-57,700), who 
became totally or partially separated from employment on or after 
August 2, 2004, through two years from the issuance of this revised 
determination, are eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance 
under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are eligible to 
apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 
of the Trade Act of 1974.''

    Signed at Washington, DC this 26th day of January 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-2732 Filed 2-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P