[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 101 (Friday, May 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31591-31592]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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