Corning Glass Works

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

IN THE MATTER OF CORNING GLASS WORKS Docket 8874. Interlocutory Order, July 24, 1973. Order denying respondent’s motion for reconsideration of final order, or in the alternative, for reopening of proceeding. Appearances For the Commission: R. A. Bloch, S. B. Gold. For the respondent: Sherman & Sterling, New York, New York, William C. Ughetta, secretary and general counsel, Corning Glass Works, Corning, New York.

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL ORDER OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR REOPENING OF PROCEEDING On June 5, 1973 [82 F.T.C. 1675], the Commission issued its decision sustaining Counts I, IJ, and IV of the complaint and dismissing Counts III and V. Accompanying the Commission’s Opinion was an order to cease and desist which was virtually identical to the proposed order which accompanied service of the complaint (the “notice order”), except for deletion of language which pertained to the two counts that were dismissed. Respondent has now filed a motion pursuant to Section 3.55 of * 82 Final Order of respondent’s notification, a written agreement to be bound by the terms of this order; Provided, That if respondent wishes to present to the Commission any reasons why said order should not apply in its present form to said successor or transferee, respondent shall submit to the Commission a written statement setting forth said reasons at least sixty (60) days prior to the consumation of said succession or transfer. It is further ordered, That respondent herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon it of this order, file with the Commission a report, in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has complied with this order. The matter was argued before Commissioner Thompson was sworn in. Therefore, he elected not to participate.