[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