[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