Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 16, 2007 / Notices 1771 

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. 

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 

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 


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. 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 16, 2007 / Notices 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
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: 

(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 

‘‘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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES