DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-82,112

ROCKWELL COLLINS, INC.
COMMERCIAL SYSTEMS
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
ALLEGIS GROUP SERVICES
CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA

TA-W-82,112A

ROCKWELL COLLINS, INC.
GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
ALLEGIS GROUP SERVICES
CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA

TA-W-82,112B

ROCKWELL COLLINS, INC.
SHARED SERVICES AND OPERATIONS
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
ALLEGIS GROUP SERVICES
CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA

Determinations 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 three 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.

Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), defines the
terms "Supplier" and "Downstream Producer." 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.

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 October 31, 2012 by a State Workforce Office on behalf
of workers of Rockwell Collins, Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The workers'
firm is engaged in activities related to the production of
aviation electronic equipment. Workers are separately
identifiable by the following divisions: Rockwell Collins, Inc.,
Commercial Systems, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (TA-W-82,112); Rockwell
Collins, Inc., Government Systems, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (TA-W-
82,112A); and Rockwell Collins, Inc., Shared Systems and
Operations, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (TA-W-82,112B). Workers of
Rockwell Collins, Inc., Commercial Systems, Cedar Rapids, Iowa
(TA-W-82,112) are engaged in activities related to the production
of aviation electronic equipment (i.e. flight deck systems,
communications systems, navigation sensors, safety/surveillance
systems, displays, flight management systems, flight/pilot
control systems and information management systems) for
commercial clients. Workers of Rockwell Collins, Inc., Government
Systems, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (TA-W-82,112A) are engaged in
activities related to the production of aviation electronic
equipment (i.e. communication systems, military data link
systems, navigation systems, display systems, integrated flight
deck solutions, integrated computer systems and simulations
systems) for government clients. Workers of Rockwell Collins,
Inc., Shared Systems and Operations, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (TA-W-
82,112B) supply services in support of the production of aviation
electronic equipment in both the Commercial Systems and the
Government Systems units. Workers of Rockwell Collins, Inc.,
Shared Systems and Operations, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (TA-W-82,112B)
are not separately identifiable by the business unit they
support. The services supplied include human resources, e-
business and operations, business development, engineering, and
finance. Each of the three aforementioned subject worker groups
consist of on-site leased workers from Allegis Group Services.
The petitioners alleged that Rockwell Collins has locations
worldwide and that international trade may be playing a role in
the workers' layoffs.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers' firm.
The investigation revealed that workers of Rockwell Collins,
Inc., Commercial Systems, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (TA-W-82,112) who
are engaged in activities related to the production of aviation
electronic equipment do not meet the criteria for certification.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Rockwell Collins, Inc., Commercial
Systems, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (TA-W-82,112) has not experienced a
decline in the sales or production of aviation electronic
equipment during the relevant period under investigation. Sales
and production increased from 2010 to 2011. Sales increased while
production remained constant during the period of January through
September 2012 in contrast to the same period in 2011.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Rockwell Collins, Inc., Commercial
Systems, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (TA-W-82,112) did not shift the
production of aviation electronic equipment to a foreign country
or acquire aviation electronic equipment from a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Rockwell Collins, Inc., Commercial
Systems, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (TA-W-82,112) is a Supplier 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);
however, the component parts supplied did not account for at
least 20 percent of the production or sales or contribute
importantly to workers' separation or threat thereof.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the subject firm does not act as a
downstream producer to a firm (or subdivision, whichever is
applicable) 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, have not been satisfied either because
Criterion (1) has not been met since the workers' firm has not
been publically 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.
Furthermore, the investigation revealed that workers of
Rockwell Collins, Inc., Government Systems, Cedar Rapids, Iowa
(TA-W-82,112A) who are engaged in activities related to the
production of aviation electronic equipment and workers of
Rockwell Collins, Inc., Shared Systems and Operations, Cedar
Rapids, Iowa (TA-W-82,112B) who supply services in support of the
production of aviation electronic equipment meet the criteria for
certification.
Section 222(a)(1) has been met because a significant number
or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become
totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become
totally or partially separated.
Section 222(a)(2)(A)(i) has been met because the sales and
production of aviation electronic equipment by Rockwell Collins,
Inc., Government Systems, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (TA-W-82,112A) have
decreased absolutely.
Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) has been met because company
imports of articles like or directly competitive with the article
produced by Rockwell Collins, Inc., Government Systems, Cedar
Rapids, Iowa (TA-W-82,112A) have increased.
Finally, Section 222(a)(2)(A)(iii) has been met because
increased company imports contributed importantly to the worker
group separations and sales/production declines at Rockwell
Collins, Inc., Government Systems, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (TA-W-
82,112A) and Rockwell Collins, Inc., Shared Systems and
Operations, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (TA-W-82,112B).






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 for workers of
Rockwell Collins, Inc., Commercial Systems, including on-site
leased workers from Allegis Group Services, Cedar Rapids, Iowa
(TA-W-82,112) and, therefore, deny the petition for group
eligibility of Rockwell Collins, Inc., Commercial Systems,
including on-site leased workers from Allegis Group Services,
Cedar Rapids, Iowa (TA-W-82,112), who are engaged in activities
related to the production of aviation electronic equipment to
apply for adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223
of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Furthermore, I determine that workers of Rockwell Collins,
Inc., Government Systems, including on-site leased workers from
Allegis Group Services, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (TA-W-82,112A), who
are engaged in activities related to the production of aviation
electronic equipment, and workers of Rockwell Collins, Inc.,
Shared Systems and Operations, including on-site leased workers
from Allegis Group Services, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (TA-W-82,112B),
who are engaged in activities related to the supply of support
services 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 Rockwell Collins, Inc., Government Systems,
including on-site leased workers from Allegis Group
Services, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (TA-W-82,112A) and all workers
of Rockwell Collins, Inc., Shared Systems and Operations,
including on-site leased workers from Allegis Group
Services, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (TA-W-82,112B), who became
totally or partially separated from employment on or after
October 25, 2011 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 in Washington, D.C. this 8th day of January, 2013.

/s/ Elliott S. Kushner

______________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance