Midas International Corporation, Muffler Corporation of America Division, Hartford Manufacturing Facility, Hartford, WI; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 76890-76891 [E5-7957]
Download as PDF
76890
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 28, 2005 / Notices
Assistance, at the address shown below,
not later than January 9, 2006.
Interested persons are invited to
submit written comments regarding the
subject matter of the investigations to
the Director, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance, at the address
shown below, not later than January 9,
2006.
The petitions filed in this case are
available for inspection at the Office of
the Director, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance, Employment
and Training Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, Room C–5311, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of
December 2005.
Erica R. Cantor,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
APPENDIX.—TAA PETITIONS INSTITUTED BETWEEN 12/5/05 AND 12/9/05
TA–W
Subject firm
(Petitioners)
Location
58453 ..........
58454 ..........
58455 ..........
58456 ..........
58457 ..........
58458 ..........
58459 ..........
58460 ..........
58461 ..........
58462 ..........
58463 ..........
58464 ..........
58465 ..........
58466 ..........
58467 ..........
58468 ..........
58469 ..........
58470 ..........
58471 ..........
58472 ..........
58473 ..........
58474 ..........
58475 ..........
58475A ........
58475C ........
58475D ........
58475B ........
58476 ..........
58477 ..........
58478 ..........
58479 ..........
58480 ..........
58481 ..........
58482 ..........
58483 ..........
58484 ..........
58485 ..........
58486 ..........
58487 ..........
58488 ..........
58489 ..........
58490 ..........
Leggett and Platt (Wkrs) ...................................................................
Metso Automation (State) .................................................................
Sturgis Foundry Corp. (Wkrs) ...........................................................
WestPoint Home (Comp) ..................................................................
Sonoco Products Company (Comp) .................................................
Hitchcock Chair Company (Comp) ...................................................
SJP Corp. (Comp) .............................................................................
Glenoit Fabrics (Comp) .....................................................................
Jaderloon Co., Inc. (Comp) ...............................................................
Key Plastics (Wkrs) ...........................................................................
Nexus Custom Electronics Corp. (Comp) .........................................
South-Eastern Fabrics Corp. (Comp) ...............................................
JB Woven Labels (USA), Inc. (Comp) ..............................................
Royal Indemnity Co. (Wkrs) ..............................................................
Scottsburg Plastics, Inc. (Comp) ......................................................
Candor Hosiery Mills, Inc. (Comp) ....................................................
Rockford Corporation (Wkrs) ............................................................
Great Lakes Industry, Inc. (Comp) ...................................................
Columbia Gas of Ohio (Comp) .........................................................
Visteon Systems, LLC (Comp) .........................................................
National Textiles (Wkrs) ....................................................................
IBM Global Services (Wkrs) ..............................................................
Pendleton Woolen Mills, Inc. (Comp) ...............................................
Pendleton Woolen Mills, Inc. (Comp) ...............................................
Pendleton Woolen Mills, Inc. (Comp) ...............................................
Pendleton Woolen Mills, Inc. (Comp) ...............................................
Pendleton Woolen Mills, Inc. (Comp) ...............................................
Orban CRL (State) ............................................................................
Dolce, Inc. (State) .............................................................................
Rich Products Manufacturing Corp. (BCU) .......................................
FYC Apparel Donna Ricco (Wkrs) ....................................................
LeSportsac, Inc. (Comp) ...................................................................
Collins and Aikman (Comp) ..............................................................
Dan River Inc. (Comp) ......................................................................
Reed and Barton Silversmiths (RWDSU) .........................................
Big River Zinc Corporation (USW) ....................................................
Rawlings Sporting Goods (Wkrs) ......................................................
Hewlett Packard () ............................................................................
US Airways (CWA) ............................................................................
River City Metal Products (Comp) ....................................................
Tricon Industries, Inc. (Wkrs) ............................................................
Greeneville Casting, Inc. (Comp) ......................................................
Cedar City, UT ...................
Shrewsbury, MA .................
Sturgis, MI ..........................
Valley, AL ...........................
Charlotte, NC .....................
New Hartford, CT ...............
Rutherford, NJ ....................
Tarboro, NC .......................
Burleson, TX ......................
Hartford City, IN .................
Woburn, MA .......................
Conover, NC ......................
San Francisco, CA .............
Charlotte, NC .....................
Scottsburg, IN ....................
Robbins, NC .......................
Walker, MI ..........................
Jackson, MI ........................
Lorain, OH ..........................
Bedford, IN .........................
China Grove, NC ................
Oakbrook, IL .......................
Portland, OR ......................
Milwaukie, OR ....................
Washougal, WA .................
Pendleton, OR ....................
Bellevue, NE ......................
San Leandro, CA ...............
Los Angeles, CA ................
Winchester, VA ..................
East Haven, CT ..................
Stearns, KY ........................
El Paso, TX ........................
Morven, NC ........................
Taunton, MA .......................
Sauget, IL ...........................
Licking, MO ........................
Omaha, NE ........................
Pittsburgh, PA ....................
Keokuk, IA ..........................
Downers Grove, IL .............
Greeneville, TN ..................
[FR Doc. E5–7956 Filed 12–27–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
wwhite on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
[TA–W–58,360]
Magna International, Red Oak, IA;
Notice of Termination of Investigation
Pursuant to section 221 of the
November 17, 2005 in response to a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:37 Dec 27, 2005
Jkt 208001
worker petition filed by a company
official on behalf of workers at Magna
International, Red Oak, Iowa.
The petitioner has requested that the
petition be withdrawn. Consequently,
the investigation has been terminated.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 8th day of
December 2005.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–7959 Filed 12–27–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
PO 00000
Frm 00156
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Date of
institution
12/05/05
12/05/05
12/05/05
12/05/05
12/05/05
12/05/05
12/05/05
12/05/05
12/06/05
12/06/05
12/06/05
12/06/05
12/06/05
12/06/05
12/06/05
12/06/05
12/06/05
12/06/05
12/07/05
12/07/05
12/07/05
12/07/05
12/07/05
12/07/05
12/07/05
12/07/05
12/07/05
12/07/05
12/07/05
12/07/05
12/07/05
12/07/05
12/07/05
12/08/05
12/08/05
12/08/05
12/08/05
12/08/05
12/09/05
12/09/05
12/09/05
12/09/05
Date of
petition
11/30/05
12/02/05
11/22/05
12/02/05
12/02/05
12/02/05
11/17/05
12/05/05
11/28/05
12/02/05
11/30/05
11/30/05
12/04/05
11/21/05
12/06/05
12/05/05
11/29/05
11/28/05
12/05/05
11/30/05
11/28/05
11/28/05
11/16/05
11/16/05
11/16/05
11/16/05
11/16/05
11/18/05
11/29/05
12/01/05
12/01/05
11/30/05
12/07/05
12/08/05
12/07/05
12/07/05
12/05/05
12/06/05
12/05/05
12/05/05
09/13/05
12/08/05
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
E:\FR\FM\28DEN1.SGM
28DEN1
wwhite on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 28, 2005 / Notices
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’
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:37 Dec 27, 2005
Jkt 208001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00157
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
76891
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
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA-W–58,475, TA-W–58,475A, and TA-W–
58,475B]
Pendleton Woolen Mills, Inc.,
Corporate Headquarters, Portland, OR;
Menswear Distribution Center,
Milwaukie, OR; Bellevue Plant,
Bellevue, NE; Washougal Mill,
Washougal, WA; and Pendelton Mill,
Pendelton, OR; Notice of Termination
of Investigation
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on December
7, 2005 in response to a worker petition
filed by a company official on behalf of
workers at Pendleton Woolen Mills,
Inc., Corporate headquarters, Portland
Oregon; Menswear Distribution Center,
Milwaukie, Oregon; Bellevue Plant,
Bellevue, Nebraska; Washougal Mill,
Washougal, Washington and Pendleton
Mill, Pendleton, Oregon.
The petitioner has requested that the
petition be withdrawn. Consequently,
the investigation has been terminated.
Signed at Washington, DC this 14th day of
December 2005.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–7961 Filed 12–27–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–58,356]
The Rug Barn, Abbeville, SC; Notice of
Termination of Investigation
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on November
15, 2005 in response to a worker
petition filed by a company official on
behalf of workers at The Rug Barn,
Abbeville, South Carolina.
E:\FR\FM\28DEN1.SGM
28DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 248 (Wednesday, December 28, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76890-76891]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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