[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 248 (Wednesday, December 28, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76890-76891]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-7957]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-57,657]


Midas International Corporation, Muffler Corporation of America 
Division, Hartford Manufacturing Facility, Hartford, WI; Notice of 
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of November 4, 2005, United Steelworkers of America, 
Local

[[Page 76891]]

2-152 requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's 
negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade 
Adjustment Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers 
of the subject firm. The denial notice was signed on September 12, 
2005, and published in the Federal Register on October 6, 2005 (70 FR 
58476).
    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 petition for the workers of Midas International Corporation, 
Muffler Corporation of America Division, Hartford Manufacturing 
Facility, Hartford, Wisconsin engaged in production of automotive 
muffler and exhaust products for the aftermarket was denied because the 
``contributed importantly'' group eligibility requirement of Section 
222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met, nor was there a 
shift in production from that firm to a foreign country. The 
``contributed importantly'' test is generally demonstrated through a 
survey of the workers' firm's customers. The survey revealed no imports 
of automotive muffler and exhaust products during the relevant period. 
The subject firm did not import automotive muffler and exhaust products 
nor did it shift production to a foreign country during the relevant 
period.
    The petitioner states that the affected workers lost their jobs as 
a result of the subject firm ``exiting the manufacturing portion of the 
business'' and its consequent decision to purchase automotive muffler 
and exhaust products from a different vendor. The petitioner alleges 
that because this vendor has ``120 manufacturing facilities in 25 
countries'', there naturally should be imported automotive muffler and 
exhaust products sold to the subject firm. The petitioner states that 
because the new vendor is a global producer of automotive muffler and 
exhaust products, the workers of the subject firm should be eligible 
for TAA. To support the above allegations, the petitioner attached news 
articles from companies' websites which contain information on Midas 
International's new supplier of automotive muffler and exhaust 
products.
    A company official was contacted regarding the above allegations. 
The company official confirmed what was revealed during the initial 
investigation. In particular, the official stated that Midas 
International Corporation's actions in ceasing its production of 
automotive muffler and exhaust products was a reflection of company's 
strategic desire to be a retailer, combined with the reduction in the 
size of the overall market for exhaust systems. The official provided 
the name of the vendor which supplies automotive muffler and exhaust 
products to Midas International. This is the same vendor indicated by 
the petitioner in the request for reconsideration.
    The Department conducted a survey of the vendor regarding its 
manufacturing of automotive muffler and exhaust products. The survey 
revealed that the majority of automotive mufflers and exhaust products 
sold to Midas International is manufactured in the United States and 
only a small fraction of automotive mufflers and exhaust products is 
imported. Moreover, the survey revealed an insignificant amount of 
vendor's overall imports of automotive muffler and exhaust products 
during the relevant time period.
    The petitioner also attached abstracts from the publication by the 
United States International Trade Commission (USITC) which contain 
information on imports of mufflers and exhaust pipes from 1999 to 2003 
and a printout from the USITC website which shows an eight percent 
increase in U.S. aggregate imports of motor vehicle parts from January 
through August of 2005 when compared with the same period in 2004.
    In order to establish import impact, the Department must consider 
imports that are like or directly competitive with those produced at 
the subject firm within a year prior to the date of the petition. Thus 
the period ending in 2003 is outside of the relevant period as 
established by the current petition date of July 30, 2005. Information 
on imports of motor vehicle parts does not provide import information 
on specific types of motor parts, such as automotive mufflers and 
exhaust products and thus is also irrelevant in this investigation.

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, day 13th of December, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5-7957 Filed 12-27-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P