[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 18, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Page 12936]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-6409]



[[Page 12936]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-42,136]


The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Stow Mold Facility, Akron/Stow 
Complex, Akron, OH; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding 
Application for Reconsideration

    By application of November 29, 2002, the United Steelworkers of 
America, Local 2, requested administrative reconsideration of the 
Department's negative determination regarding eligibility for workers 
and former workers of the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment 
Assistance (TAA). The denial notice was signed on October 21, 2002 and 
published in the Federal Register on November 5, 2002 (67 FR 67419).
    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 TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at Goodyear Tire & 
Rubber Co., Stow Mold Facility, Akron/Stow Complex, Akron, Ohio engaged 
in the production of tire molds and associated components, was denied 
because the ``contributed importantly'' group eligibility requirement 
of section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met.
    The union alleges that the Departmental finding that subject firm 
production was shifted domestically was ``erroneous.'' The union 
official further states that the North Carolina facility, which was 
purported to have taken on subject firm production, was ``not capable 
of doing the work which was performed at the Stow Mold Plant prior to 
its closure.''
    Upon further review and contact with the company, it was revealed 
that virtually all of the subject firm production did indeed shift to 
the North Carolina facility, and that it produced competitive products 
prior to the closure of the Stow facility. The only component that was 
not shifted to this facility, a tread mold that was inserted into the 
larger mold, was outsourced by the company to another domestic 
supplier.
    The union also asserts that the company indicated plans to shift 
production to affiliated company facilities in Luxembourg and Sao 
Paulo, Brazil. To support this allegation, the request for 
reconsideration was accompanied by what appears to be a company-
produced chart titled ``Reallocation Study''. This chart indicates that 
subject firm production would shift predominantly to Luxembourg and Sao 
Paulo, with the North Carolina facility receiving a very small part of 
the production shifted from the subject firm.
    This chart was faxed to the company for their review and comment. 
Upon review, they stated that it was indeed a reflection of a company 
document, and that it was put together by the company's Facilities 
Planning Department. However, the study was based on tire mold 
production scheduled for 2002, with the premise that the Stow plant 
would be closed in the beginning of 2002. In fact, the Stow plant did 
not close until October of 2002, thus the shift did not occur in line 
with the study that was conducted. As a result, excess capacity existed 
at the North Carolina facility and was able to absorb all of the 
subject facility's production.
    Finally, the company did affirm that competitive imports were 
occasionally shipped from their foreign affiliates, but clarified that, 
in 2002, imports constituted a very small amount of subject plant 
production.

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, this 26th day of February, 2003.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-6409 Filed 3-17-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P