94-166. PPG Industries, Inc., Ford City, Pennsylvania; Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 598-599]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-166]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-29,008]
PPG Industries, Inc., Ford City, Pennsylvania; Negative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By an application dated December 13, 1993, the Aluminum Brick and
Glass Workers Union requested administrative reconsideration of the
Department's denial of trade adjustment assistance (TAA) benefits for
workers of the subject firm. The Department's notice of negative
determination was issued on November 29, 1993 and will be published in
the Federal Register soon.
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
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of
the decision.
The union claims that a French Canadian firm is selling glass at
prices lower than domestic producers' costs. The union also states that
the Department's survey of customers did not take into account the
lowered demand for glass in the industry and PPG plans for expansion in
Mexico.
The Department's denial was based on the fact that the
``contributed importantly'' test of the Group Eligibility Requirements
of the Trade Act was not met. The Department's survey of PPG's major
customers shows that most respondents did not import and those that did
had very minor import purchases in the period relevant to the petition.
The investigation file shows that the workers at Ford City purchase
glass and fabricate it into commercial windows unlike the French
Canadian firm cited by the union which is a primary glass producer.
With respect to the union's example of sheet glass and fabricated
commercial glass windows, the Department does not see any relevance.
One is a raw material used in making a different product while the
other is a finished article. Sheet glass and fabricated commercial
glass windows are not interchangeable, nor are they like or directly
competitive within the meaning of section 222(3) of the Trade Act.
Further, company officials indicated that there is a downswing in
the production of commercial glass windows because the commercial
market currently is overbuilt. The construction boom during the 1980s
resulted in record vacancy rates for office buildings, stores and
hotels--all users of fabricated glass windows.
Other findings show that the PPG does not import commercial glass
windows.
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 22nd day of December, 1993.
Mary Ann Wyrsch,
Director, Unemployment Insurance Service.
[FR Doc. 94-166 Filed 1-4-94 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
Document Information
- Published:
- 01/05/1994
- Department:
- Employment and Training Administration
- Entry Type:
- Notice
- Document Number:
- 94-166
- Pages:
- 598-599 (2 pages)
- Docket Numbers:
- Federal Register: January 5, 1994, TA-W-29,008