[Federal Register: December 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 248)]
[Notices]
[Page 76890-76891]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28de05-154]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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