DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-85,208

LOCKHEED MARTIN SHIP AND AVIATION SYSTEMS
A SUBSIDIARY OF LOCKHEED MARTIN MISSION SYSTEMS AND TRAINING
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
DCR WORKFORCE
AKRON, OHIO

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 April 2, 2014, resulted in a
negative determination, issued on May 23, 2014, that was based on
no import increase or shift in production abroad. The determination
was applicable to workers and former workers of Lockheed Martin Ship
and Aviation Systems, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Mission Systems
and Training, including on-site leased workers from DCR Workforce,
Akron, Ohio (herein referred to as “Lockheed Martin” or “workers’ firm”).
The workers’ firm is engaged in activities related to the production
of components for vertical launch anti-submarine rockets and persistent
threat detection system.
The petitioners originally alleged that, “Since 1991, the main contract
at Lockheed Martin has been Vertical Launch Anti-Submarine (VLA)
missiles (rockets) that were sold to Japan. Due to the loss of the
contract, it has become one of the major reasons of the mass layoff.”
Based on information reviewed during the reconsideration investigation,
the Department of Labor determines that worker separations were not
caused by a shift in production or increased imports of components or
finished articles, the firm is not a Supplier or Downstream Producer,
nor has the firm been identified by the International Trade Commission
as a member in a domestic industry the subject of an affirmative finding.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that criterion (2) has not been met because the company and
customer did not import components for vertical launch anti-submarine
rockets and persistent threat detection system or like or directly
competitive articles during the period of January through March 2014
compared to the corresponding period in 2013.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that the firm did not shift the production of components for
vertical launch anti-submarine rockets and persistent threat detection
system or like or directly competitive articles to a foreign country or
acquire components for vertical launch anti-submarine rockets and
persistent threat detection system or like or directly competitive
articles from a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the investigation revealed
that Lockheed Martin 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 Lockheed Martin
Ship and Aviation Systems, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Mission
Systems and Training, including on-site leased workers from DCR
Workforce, Akron, Ohio, who were engaged in employment related to the
production of components for vertical launch anti-submarine rockets
and persistent threat detection system 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 November, 2015

/s/ Hope D. Kinglock

______________________________
HOPE D. KINGLOCK
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance







DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,208

LOCKHEED MARTIN SHIP AND AIR SYSTEMS
A SUBSIDIARY OF LOCKHEED MARTIN MISSION SYSTEMS AND TRAINING
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
DCR WORKFORCE
AKRON, OHIO

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 April 4, 2014 by United Auto Workers (UAW) Local 856
on behalf of workers of Lockheed Martin Ship and Air Systems, a
subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Systems and Training, Akron, Ohio
(Lockheed Martin). The workers' firm is engaged in activities
related to the production of components of a Vertical Launch
Anti-Submarine Rocket System and a Persistent Threat Detection
System. The subject worker group includes on-site leased
workers from DCR Workforce.
The petitioner alleges that, "Since 1991, the main
contract at Lockheed Martin has been Vertical Launch Anti-
Submarine (VLA) missiles (rockets) that were sold to Japan.
Due to the loss of the contract, it as become one of the major
reasons of the mass layoff."
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers' firm and the firm's major
declining customers.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the workers' firm did not shift
production to a foreign country. Rather, the investigation
confirmed that the firm shifted production to other facilities
within the United States.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that imports of articles like or
directly competitive with the articles produced by the firm have
not increased. The investigation did confirm that a customer
switched to a supplier from a foreign country, the switch did
not lead to increased imports into the United States.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Lockheed Martin 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 Lockheed Martin
Ship and Air Systems, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Systems
and Training, including on-site leased workers from DCR
Workforce, Akron, Ohio engaged in activities related to the
production of components of a Vertical Launch Anti-Submarine
Rocket System and a Persistent Threat Detection System 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 23rd day of May, 2014


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