DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-57,657

MIDAS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
MUFFLER CORPORATION OF AMERICA DIVISION
HARTFORD MANUFACTURING FACILITY
HARTFORD, WISCONSIN

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application of November 4, 2005, United Steelworkers of
America, Local 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 US 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, D.C., day 13th of December, 2005.

/s/ Elliott S. Kushner


ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-57,657

MIDAS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
MUFFLER CORPORATION OF AMERICA DIVISION
HARTFORD MANUFACTURING FACILITY
HARTFORD, WISCONSIN

Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended (19 USC 2273), the Department of Labor herein presents the
results of an investigation regarding certification of eligibility
to apply for worker adjustment assistance. In accordance with
Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 USC 2273), the
Department of Labor herein presents the results of an investigation
regarding certification of eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance. The group eligibility requirements for
directly-impacted (primary) workers under Section 222(a) the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, can be satisfied in either of two ways:
I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied:
A. a significant number or proportion of the workers in such
workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm,
have become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated;
B. the sales or production, or both, of such firm or
subdivision have decreased absolutely; and
C. increased imports of articles like or directly competitive
with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have
contributed importantly to such workers’ separation or
threat of separation and to the decline in sales or
production of such firm or subdivision; or

II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied:

A. a significant number or proportion of the workers in such
workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm,
have become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated;
B. 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

C. One of the following must be satisfied:
1. 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;
2. the country to which the workers’ firm has shifted
production of the articles is a beneficiary country
under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth
and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic
Recovery Act; or
3. 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.


The investigation was initiated on August 1, 2005 in response
to a petition filed by the United Steelworkers of America, Local 2-
152, on behalf of workers of Midas International Corporation,
Muffler Corporation of America, Hartford Manufacturing Facility,
Hartford, Wisconsin. The workers at the subject facility produce
automotive muffler and exhaust products for the aftermarket.
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C) and
(a)(2)(B)(II.B) were not met.
The investigation revealed that the subject firm did not
increase imports of automotive muffler and exhaust (aftermarket)
products during 2003, 2004, or January through July of 2005.
Furthermore, the investigation revealed that the subject firm
did not shift production of automotive muffler and exhaust
(aftermarket) products abroad during the relevant period.
The investigation revealed that the subject firm will source
all its automotive mufflers and exhaust product needs from an
unaffiliated domestic producer and supplier. Imports of automotive
mufflers and exhaust products by this supplier were negligible
during the relevant period of this investigation.
In addition, in accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of
1974 (26 USC 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor herein
presents the results of its investigation regarding certification
of eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance
(ATAA) for older workers.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for ATAA, the worker group must be certified
eligible to apply for trade adjustment assistance (TAA). Since the
workers are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot
be certified eligible for ATAA.



Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in this
investigation, I determine that all workers of Midas International
Corporation, Muffler Corporation of America, Hartford Manufacturing
Facility, Hartford, Wisconsin, are denied eligibility to apply for
adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974,
and are also denied eligibility to apply for alternative trade
adjustment assistance under section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974,
as amended.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 12th day of September, 2005

/s/ Linda G. Poole

______________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance