DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-81,047

ERA SYSTEMS, LLC
FORMERLY ERA SYSTEMS CORPORATION
A SUBSIDIARY OF SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS CORPORATION
6647 OLD THOMPSON ROAD
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK

TA-W-81,047A

ERA SYSTEMS, LLC
FORMERLY ERA SYSTEMS CORPORATION
A SUBSIDIARY OF SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS CORPORATION
6712 BROOKLAWN PARKWAY, SUITE 106
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK

Notice of Revised Determination
on Reconsideration

The initial investigation, initiated on November 2, 2011,
resulted in a negative determination, issued on January 13, 2012.
The determination was applicable to workers and former workers of
Era Systems, LLC, formerly Era Systems Corporation, a subsidiary
of Systems Research and Applications Corporation, Syracuse, New
York. The notice of the Affirmative Determination Regarding the
Application for Reconsideration was published in the Federal
Register on February 28, 2012 (77 FR 12080).
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
clarified the worker group. Specifically, the Department
determined that the subject worker group consists of workers and
former workers of Era Systems, LLC, formerly Era Systems
Corporation, a subsidiary of Systems Research and Applications
Corporation, 6647 Old Thompson Road, Syracuse, New York (TA-W-
81,047) and Era Systems, LLC, formerly Era Systems Corporation, a
subsidiary of Systems Research and Applications Corporation, 6712
Brooklawn Parkway, Suite 106, Syracuse, New York (TA-W-81,047A).
Both locations are engaged in activities related to the supply of
research and development services for air traffic components and
software used for tracking and transmitting flight-related data.
To support the request for reconsideration, the petitioner
supplied additional information regarding a possible shift
to/acquisition from a foreign country by the subject firm in the
supply of like or directly competitive services.
Based on information provided during the reconsideration
investigation, the Department determines that worker separations
at the subject firm are related to a shift in the supply of
research and development services (or like or directly
competitive services) to a foreign country and that the shift in
the supply of research and development services (or like or
directly competitive services) contributed importantly to the
worker separations at both 6647 Old Thompson Road, Syracuse, New
York and 6712 Brooklawn Parkway, Suite 106, Syracuse, New York
locations.
Conclusion
After careful review of the additional facts obtained on
reconsideration, I determine that workers of Era Systems, LLC,
formerly Era Systems Corporation, a subsidiary of Systems
Research and Applications Corporation, 6647 Old Thompson Road,
Syracuse, New York (TA-W-81,047) and Era Systems, LLC, formerly
Era Systems Corporation, a subsidiary of Systems Research and
Applications Corporation, 6712 Brooklawn Parkway, Suite 106,
Syracuse, New York (TA-W-81,047A), who were engaged in employment
related to the supply of research and development services for
air traffic components and software used for tracking and
transmitting flight-related data, meet the worker group
certification criteria under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
§ 2272(a). In accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
§ 2273, I make the following certification:








"All workers of Era Systems, LLC, formerly Era Systems
Corporation, a subsidiary of Systems Research and
Applications Corporation, 6647 Old Thompson Road, Syracuse,
New York (TA-W-81,047) and Era Systems, LLC, formerly Era
Systems Corporation, a subsidiary of Systems Research and
Applications Corporation, 6712 Brooklawn Parkway, Suite 106,
Syracuse, New York (TA-W-81,047A) who became totally or
partially separated from employment on or after February 13,
2010, through two years from the date of certification, and
all workers in the group threatened with total or partial
separation from employment on the date of certification
through two years from the date of certification, are
eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2
of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.”
Signed at Washington, D.C., this 26th day of June, 2012
/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-FN-P


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-81,047

ERA SYSTEMS, LLC
FORMERLY ERA SYSTEMS CORPORATION
A SUBSIDIARY OF SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS CORPORATION
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK

Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. § 2273, the Department of Labor herein
presents the results of an investigation regarding certification
of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance.
Workers of a firm may be eligible for worker adjustment
assistance if they satisfy the criteria of subsection (a), (b) or
(e) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (b) and (e).
For the Department of Labor to issue a certification for workers
under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), the
following criteria must be met:
(1) The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2282(a)(1)) requires that a significant
number or proportion of the workers in the workers’ firm
must have become totally or partially separated or be
threatened with total or partial separation.

(2) The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied in one of two
ways:
(A) Increased Imports Path:
(i) sales or production, or both, at the workers’ firm must
have decreased absolutely, AND
(ii) (I) imports of articles or services like or directly
competitive with articles or services produced or
supplied by the workers’ firm have increased, OR
(II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles into which the component
part produced by the workers’ firm was directly
incorporated have increased; OR
(II)(bb) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles which are produced
directly using the services supplied by the
workers’ firm have increased; OR
(III) imports of articles directly incorporating
component parts not produced in the U.S. that are
like or directly competitive with the article into
which the component part produced by the workers’
firm was directly incorporated have increased.
(iii) the increase in imports described in clause (ii)
contributed importantly to such workers’ separation
or threat of separation and to the decline in the
sales or production of such firm.

(B) Shift in Production or Supply Path:
(i)(I) there has been a shift by the workers’ firm to a
foreign country in the production of articles or supply
of services like or directly competitive with those
produced/supplied by the workers’ firm; OR
(II) there has been an acquisition from a foreign
country by the workers’ firm of articles/services that
are like or directly competitive with those
produced/supplied by the workers’ firm; and
(ii) the shift described in clause (i)(I) or the acquisition
of articles or services described in clause (i)(II)
contributed importantly to such workers’ separation or
threat of separation.

For the Department to issue a secondary worker certification
under Section 222(b) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(b), to workers
of a Supplier or a Downstream Producer, the following criteria
must be met:
(1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in
the workers’ firm or an appropriate subdivision of the
firm have become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated;

(2) the workers’ firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer
to a firm that employed a group of workers who received
a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of
the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), and such supply or
production is related to the article or service that
was the basis for such certification; and

(3) either
(A) the workers’ firm is a supplier and the component
parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph
(2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production
or sales of the workers’ firm;
or
(B) a loss of business by the workers’ firm with the
firm described in paragraph (2) contributed
importantly to the workers’ separation or threat of
separation.

Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), defines the
terms “Supplier” and “Downstream Producer.”
Workers of a firm may also be considered eligible if they
are publicly identified by name by the International Trade
Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation
resulting in a category of determination that is listed in
Section 222(e) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(e).
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm
under Section 222(e) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(e), can be
satisfied if the following criteria are met:
(1) the workers’ firm is publicly identified by name by the
International Trade Commission as a member of a
domestic industry in an investigation resulting in--
(A) an affirmative determination of serious injury or
threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) an affirmative determination of market disruption
or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) an affirmative final determination of material
injury or threat thereof under section
705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and
1673d(b)(1)(A));

(2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period
beginning on the date on which--
(A) a summary of the report submitted to the President
by the International Trade Commission under
section 202(f)(1) with respect to the affirmative
determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is
published in the Federal Register under section
202(f)(3); or
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described
in subparagraph (1) is published in the Federal
Register; and

(3) the workers have become totally or partially
separated from the workers’ firm within--
(A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year
period preceding the 1-year period described in
paragraph (2).

The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on November 2, 2011 by a one-stop operator on behalf of
workers of Era Systems, LLC, formerly Era Systems Corporation, a
subsidiary of Systems Research and Applications Corporation,
Syracuse, New York. The workers’ firm is engaged in activities
related to the supply of research and development services for
air traffic components and software used for tracking and
transmitting flight-related data.
The petitioner claimed that the firm was purchased by a
foreign company, which led to the worker separations.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers’ firm.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that imports of services like or directly
competitive with the services supplied by the firm have not
increased.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that there has not been a shift to a
foreign country of services like or directly competitive with the
research and development services supplied by the firm, and there
has not been an acquisition from a foreign country of services
like or directly competitive with the research and development
services supplied by the firm.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Era Systems, LLC is not a Supplier or
Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a group of workers
who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a)
of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a).
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act, Criterion (1) has not been met because the
workers’ firm has not been publicly identified by name by the
International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry
in an investigation resulting in an affirmative finding of
serious injury, market disruption, or material injury, or threat
thereof.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that the requirements of Section 222
of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272, have not been met and, therefore,
deny the petition for group eligibility of Era Systems, LLC,
formerly Era Systems Corporation, a subsidiary of Systems
Research and Applications Corporation, Syracuse, New York engaged
in activities related to the supply of research and development
services to apply for adjustment assistance, in accordance with
Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 13th day of January, 2012

/s/ Michael W. Jaffe
______________________________
MICHAEL W. JAFFE
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance







- 5 -