Adjustment assistance: Corning, Inc.,

[Federal Register: August 31, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 168)]

[Notices]

[Page 47522]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr31au99-122]

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-35,981]

Corning Incorporated, Greenville, Ohio; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated July 16, 1999, the American Flint Glass Workers Union Local 1018 and a company official (the petitioners) 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 Corning, Incorporated. The denial notice was signed on June 18, 1999 and published in the Federal Register on June 30, 1999 (64 FR 35183).

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 petitioners basis for the request for reconsideration is that the Department incorrectly stated that the lost business was being transferred to another domestic facility and that the Department's investigation focused on Greenville's lighting business.

The TAA petition, filedon behalf of workers of Corning Incorporated, Greenville, Ohio, producing auto glass components and Pyrex bakeware was denied in part because the ``contributed importantly'' group eligibility requirement of Section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met. The ``contributed importantly'' test is generally demonstrated through a survey of the workers' firm's customers. The investigation revealed that none of the subject firm customers reported increased import purchases of auto glass or bakeware. Furthermore, criterion (2) of Section 222 of the group eligibility requirements was not met for workers producing auto glass components; sales and production did not decline in the relevant time period. The Department also reported that worker separations were attributable to a transfer of production to another company-owned domestic facility.

The Department stands corrected that Corning sold the bakeware business to another company that will continue to produce the product domestically.

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 10th day of August 1999. Grant D. Beale, Program Manager, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 99-22597Filed8-30-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M