DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,114

PREDATOR SYSTEMS, INC.
A DIVISION OF CURTISS-WRIGHT CONTROLS
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS OF
AEROTEK COMMERCIAL STAFFING
BOCA RATON, FLORIDA

Notice of Negative Determination
After Statutory Reconsideration

As required by the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reauthorization
Act of 2015 (TAARA 2015), which was enacted as Title IV of the
Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law No. 114-27,
section 405(a)(1)(A), the investigation into this petition was
reopened for a reconsideration investigation to apply the
requirements for worker group eligibility under chapter 2 of title
II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the TAARA 2015, to the
facts of this petition (statutory reconsideration).
The initial investigation, initiated March 4, 2014, resulted
in a negative determination, issued on April 22, 2014, that was
based on no import increase and/or production shift abroad. The
determination was applicable to workers and former workers of
Predator Systems, Inc., a division of Curtiss-Wright Controls,
including on-site leased workers from Aerotek Commercial Staffing,
Boca Raton, Florida (herein referred to as “Predator Systems,
Inc.”). The workers’ firm is engaged in activities related to the
production of hydraulic components for ground defense vehicles and
pneumatic components for precision guided bombs. The workers are
not separately identifiable.
The petitioner originally alleged that, “Production has been
shifted to a foreign country: Mexico.”
Based on information reviewed during the reconsideration
investigation, the Department of Labor determines that there was no
shift in production to a foreign country, no acquisition of
articles from a foreign country, no increased company or customer
imports, Predator Systems, Inc. has not been identified as an
injured firm by the International Trade Commission, and is not a
Supplier or a Downstream Producer to a firm whose workers were
certified eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA).
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that criterion (2) has not been met
because imports have not increased in January 2013 compared to
January 2014. The firm, nor their customers, import articles
like or directly competitive to what the worker group produces
and supplies.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift the production
of hydraulic components for ground defense vehicles and pneumatic
components for precision guided bombs or like or directly
competitive articles to a foreign country or acquire hydraulic
components for ground defense vehicles and pneumatic components for
precision guided bombs or like or directly competitive articles
from a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Predator System, Inc. is not a
Supplier or a 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, have not been satisfied either because Criterion
(1) has not been met since 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, 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 Predator
Systems, Inc., a division of Curtiss-Wright Controls, including on-
site leased workers from Aerotek Commercial Staffing, Boca Raton,
Florida, who were engaged in employment related to production of
hydraulic components for ground defense vehicles and pneumatic
components for precision guided bombs to apply for adjustment
assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. §
2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 4th day of December, 2015


/s/Hope D. Kinglock
______________________________
HOPE D. KINGLOCK
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance




DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,114

PREDATOR SYSTEMS, INC.
A DIVISION OF CURTISS-WRIGHT CONTROLS
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS OF
AEROTEK COMMERCIAL STAFFING
BOCA RATON, FLORIDA

Negative Determinations Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance
And Alternative Trade 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) and
(b) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a) and (b). 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. § 2272(a)(1)) requires that a significant
number or proportion of the workers in such 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 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) imports of articles like or directly competitive with
articles produced by such firm or subdivision have
increased; and
(iii) the increase 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 or subdivision.

(B) Shift in Production Path:
(i) there has been a shift in production by such workers'
firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles
like or directly competitive with articles which are
produced by such firm or subdivision; and
(ii)(I) the country to which the workers' firm has
shifted production of the articles is a party to a
free trade agreement with the United States;
(II)the country to which the workers' firm has
shifted production of the articles is a beneficiary
country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African
Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin
Economic Recovery Act; or
(III)there has been or is likely to be an increase
in imports of articles that are like or directly
competitive with articles which are or were produced
by such firm or subdivision.

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 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."
The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on March 4, 2014 on behalf of workers of Predator Systems,
Inc., a division of Curtiss-Wright Controls, Boca Raton, Florida
(Predator Systems, Inc.). The workers' firm is engaged in
activities related to the production of hydraulic components
used for ground defense vehicles and pneumatic components used
in precision guided bombs. The worker group includes on-site
leased workers from Aerotek Commercial Staffing.
The petitioners alleged that production has been shifted
to a foreign country. During the course of the investigation,
information was collected from the workers' firm and surveys
were collected from the firm's major declining customers.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the imports of articles like or
directly competitive did not increase during the relevant
period.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that subject firm shifted production to
an affiliated firm within the United States.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Predator Systems, Inc. is not a
Supplier or a 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).
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance
(ATAA), the worker group must be certified eligible to apply for
trade adjustment assistance. Since the workers are denied
eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified
eligible for ATAA.

Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that all workers of Predator Systems,
Inc., a division of Curtiss-Wright Controls, Boca Raton, Florida
engaged in activities related to the production of hydraulic
components used for ground defense vehicles and pneumatic
components used in precision guided bombs are denied eligibility
to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the
Trade Act of 1974, as amended, and are also denied eligibility
to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under
Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, amended.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 22nd day of April, 2014

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