DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-50,489

CORNING, INC.
PHOTONIC TECHNOLOGIES DIVISION
PAINTED POST, NEW YORK

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application of March 13, 2003, a petitioner 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 the
subject firm. The denial notice was signed on February 25, 2003,
and published in the Federal Register on March 10, 2003 (68 FR
11408).
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 mis-
interpretation of facts or of the law justified
reconsideration of the decision.


The petition for the workers of Corning, Inc., Photonic
Technologies Division, Painted Post, New York was denied 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 customers of the workers’ firm. The survey
revealed that none of the respondents increased their purchases of
imported amplifiers, dispersion compensation modules, and fiber-
based components. The investigation revealed that the subject firm
did not import products like or directly competitive with
amplifiers, dispersion compensation modules, and fiber-based
components during the relevant period of 2001 to 2002, nor did it
transfer production abroad.
The petitioner states layoffs are attributable to imports by
the company and its customers of VOAs (variable optical
attenuators), a type of fiber-based component, and couplers, both
of which are components of optical amplifiers. In regard to the
company specifically, the petitioner alleges that specific VOA
and coupler imports came from Canada.
A company official was contacted regarding company import
allegations. The official stated that in fact the company did
import VOAs from Canada, but while the subject firm produced VOAs
using mechanical technology, the imported VOAs incorporated MEMS
technology, or Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems, which is the
integration of mechanical elements, sensors, actuators and
electronics on a common substrate. As a result of this
distinction, the MEMS VOAs are smaller and much more efficient;
further, the imported VOAs are not interchangeable with the VOAs
produced at Painted Post in that they cannot be inserted in the
same optical amplifiers. In regard to imports of couplers, the
company official confirmed that competitive imports did occur in
the relevant period; however, couplers comprised of a very small
portion of subject plant production.
The petitioner also alleges that customers of the subject
firm imported competitive products in the relevant period.
A review of the initial investigation revealed that
customers of the subject firm all reported competitive imports in
the relevant period, however their trends of import purchases
declined more sharply than their purchases from the Painted Post
facility, thus they did not increase reliance on imports.
The petitioners also attached a copy of a “Certification
Regarding Eligibility To Apply fo NAFTA-Transitional Adjustment
Assistance” for the workers at Corning, Inc., Photonics
Technologies/Monroe Photonic, West Henrietta, New York (NAFTA-
6130).
A review of that decision shows the workers produced
different products than the subject plant products and thus that
decision is not relevant to the work performed at the subject
plant.


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, D.C. this 13th day of June 2003.

/s/ Elliott S. Kushner

ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance