Polaroid Corporation Film Manufacturing Division (Integral), R1, R2, and R3 Plants Waltham Massachusetts; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 26, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Page 57656]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-27917]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-36,160 AND NAFTA-3127]


Polaroid Corporation Film Manufacturing Division (Integral), R1, 
R2, and R3 Plants Waltham Massachusetts; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated July 18, 1999, a petitioner requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment 
Assistance (TAA) and North American Free Trade Agreement-Transitional 
Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-TAA), applicable to workers and former 
workers of the subject firm. The denial notices were signed June 21, 
1999, and published in the Federal Register on July 20, 1999; the TAA 
at (64 FR 38920) and the NAFTA-TAA at (64 FR 38922).
    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 denial of TAA for workers engaged in activities related to the 
production of integral film at Polaroid Corporation, Film Manufacturing 
Division (Integral), R1, R2 and R3 Plants Waltham, Massachusetts, was 
based on the finding that the ``contributed importantly'' criterion of 
the group eligibility requirements of section 222 of the Trade Act of 
1974 was not met. The subject firm did not import products similar to 
that which was produced at the plants during the relevant time period.
    The Department's denial of NAFTA-TAA for the same worker group was 
based on the finding that criteria (3) and (4) of the group eligibility 
requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of Section 250 of the Trade Act of 
1974, as amended, were not met. There was no shift in production of 
integral film from the subject firm to Mexico or Canada, nor were there 
company imports of like or directly competitive products from Mexico or 
Canada.
    The petitioner asserts that machinery was shifted from the R2 plant 
production floor in Waltham to Mexico, and adds that the company has 
ordered semi-automatic assembly machines to be shipped to Mexico. The 
petitioner acknowledges that the machinery shipped to Mexico will be 
used to produce a new form of instant film called ``Deli Strip.'' The 
initial investigation revealed that Deli Strip was being developed in 
the Waltham plant by temporary workers, not employees of Polaroid 
Corporation. The decision to produce Deli Strip in Mexico as opposed to 
Waltham was a corporate decision, and therefore, did not adversely 
affect workers of the subject firm producing integral film.
    The petitioner's second point focuses on their contention that the 
Department was incorrect in the statement contained in the decision 
document that there is no competition for the integral film format 
produced at the subject firm plants. The petitioner asserts that over 
the years 35mm film has become competitive with integral film. The 
petitioner states that this being true, a great deal of 35mm film sold 
in the U.S. is being manufactured overseas by competitors, and that 
Polaroid is searching for a new plant in China. There was no evidence 
that the subject firm is importing products like or directly 
competitive with integral film produced at the Film manufacturing 
Division (Integral), R1, R2, and R3 plants in Waltham, Massachusetts.

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 decisions. Accordingly, the application is denied.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 8th day of October 1999.
Grant D. Beale,
Program Manager, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 99-27917 Filed 10-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M