DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-83,184

REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
NORTH AMERICAN DIVISION
PHOENIX, ARIZONA


Notice of Revised Determination
on Reconsideration

The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination was based on the Department’s findings that the petitioning worker group at Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., North American Division, Phoenix, Arizona (subject firm) did not meet the eligibility criteria of the Trade Act, as amended. The Department’s Notice of determination was published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2014 (79 FR 8736).
The request for reconsideration asserts that the petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance was filed on behalf of the Engineering Department and that the scope of the initial investigation was too broad and, therefore, detrimental to the petitioning workers.
Based on information collected from the subject firm during the reconsideration investigation, the Department determines that the subject firm shifted to a foreign country the supply of services like or directly competitive with those provided by the workers of Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., North American Division, Engineering Department, Phoenix, Arizona.
Conclusion
After careful review of the additional facts obtained on reconsideration, I determine that workers of Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., North American Division, Engineering Department, Phoenix, Arizona, 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 Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., North American Division, Engineering Department, Phoenix, Arizona, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after October 29, 2012, through two years from the date of this certification, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on 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 29th day of April, 2014
¬¬¬¬
/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-FN-P



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-83,184

REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC.
NORTH AMERICAN DIVISION
A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF REDFLEX HOLDINGS, LTD.
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM ICONMA, BPS STAFFING,
AZ TECH FINDER, AND VOLT WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS
PHOENIX, ARIZONA


Notice of Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated February 18, 2014, a former worker
requested administrative reconsideration of the negative
determination regarding workers’ eligibility to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former
workers of the subject firm. The determination was issued on
November 25, 2013 and the Department’s Notice of determination was
published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2014 (79 FR
8736). Workers at the subject firm are engaged in employment
related to the installation, maintenance, and operation services of
traffic enforcement systems.
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination
based on the findings that the subject firm did not shift to, or
acquire from, a foreign country the services provided by the
workers of the subject firm; further, neither the subject firm nor
its customers imported services like or directly competitive with
the services supplied by the workers.
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 request for reconsideration asserts that because the
petition was filed only for workers of the Engineering Department,
the scope of the investigation was overly broad and, consequently,
detrimental to the petitioning workers. The petitioner further
asserts that the Department’s determination was based on inaccurate
information and is, therefore, erroneous. The petitioner supplied
facts not previously considered and information indicating a
mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered.
Based on these findings, the Department determines that 29 CFR
90.18(c) has been met.
The Department has carefully reviewed the request for
reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that
the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if
the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of
1974, as amended.
Conclusion
After careful review of the application, I conclude that the
claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the
U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is,
therefore, granted.
Signed at Washington, D.C., this 13th day of March, 2014
/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-83,184

REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC.
NORTH AMERICAN DIVISION
A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF REDFLEX HOLDINGS, LTD.
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM ICONMA, BPS STAFFING,
AZ TECH FINDER, AND VOLT WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS
PHOENIX, ARIZONA

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 October 30, 2013 by workers of Redflex Traffic Systems,
Inc., North American Division, a wholly owned subsidiary of Resflex
Holdings, Ltd., Phoenix, Arizona (Redflex Traffic Systems).
Workers of Redflex Traffic Systems (the subject worker group)
are/were engaged in employment related to the supply of
photographic traffic enforcement services, which consist of
installing, maintaining, and operating photographic traffic
enforcement systems for municipalities.
The petitioners allege that Redflex Traffic Systems is
outsourcing positions to its Melbourne, Australia location.
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 that Criterion (2)(A)(ii) has not been
met because imports of services like or directly competitive with
photographic traffic enforcement services supplied by Redflex
Traffic Systems have not increased during the relevant period.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Redflex Traffic Systems did not shift
the supply of services related to photographic traffic
enforcement, or like or directly competitive services, to a
foreign country or acquire the supply of such services from a
foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Redflex Traffic Systems is not a
Supplier or 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 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.
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 Redflex Traffic Systems,
Inc., North American Division, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Redflex Holdings, Ltd., Phoenix, Arizona to apply for adjustment
assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. §
2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 25th day of November, 2013


/s/Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance






- 3 -