DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,649

OSHKOSH DEFENSE, LLC
A SUBSIDIARY OF OSHKOSH CORPORATION
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM ACCOUNTEMPS, STS
TECHNICAL SERVICES, AEROTEK, CADRE, EDCI IT SERVICES, LANDMARK
STAFFING RESOURCES, OMNI RESOURCES, PREMIER TEMPORARY STAFFING,
STRAIGHT SHOT EXPRESS, TEKSYSTEMS, KELLY SERVICES, AWI,
AND BELCAN ENGINEERING GROUP
OSHKOSH, WISCONSIN


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).
Oshkosh Defense LLC, a subsidiary of Oshkosh Corporation,
Oshkosh, Wisconsin (subject firm) is engaged in activities related
to the production of tactical wheeled vehicles and non-defense
articles. The worker group includes on-site leased workers from
Accountemps, STS Technical Services, Cadre, Aerotek, EDCI IT
Services, Landmark Staffing Resources, Omni Resources, Premier
Temporary Staffing, Straight Shot Express, Teksystems, Kelly
Services, AWI, and Belcan Engineering Group.
The initial investigation, initiated on November 17, 2014,
resulted in a negative determination, issued on December 30, 2014,
that was based on the findings that the subject firm did not import
from a foreign country articles like or directive competitive with
tactical wheeled vehicles and non-defense articles produced by the
workers of the subject firm nor did the firm shift production of
articles like or directly competitive with tactical wheeled
vehicles and non-defense articles to a foreign country.
Based on information reviewed during the reconsideration
investigation, the Department of Labor determines that the
requirements for certification have not been met.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the subject firm did not increase
imports of articles like or directly competitive with the
tactical wheeled vehicles and non-defense articles produced by the
workers of the subject firm. The investigation revealed that
customer imports of articles like or directly competitive with
the tactical wheeled vehicles and non-defense articles have not
increased during the relevant time period, as identified in
applicable regulation. Rather, the investigation confirmed that
the tactical wheeled vehicles produced by the subject firm were
sold to the United States military and the non-defense articles
were for the internal use of the subject firm.

With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the subject firm did not shift
production of tactical wheeled vehicles and non-defense articles,
or a like or directly competitive article, to a foreign country
or acquire tactical wheeled vehicles and non-defense articles, or
a like or directly competitive article, from a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Oshkosh Defense LLC, a subsidiary of
Oshkosh Corporation, Oshkosh, Wisconsin, is not 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), and 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 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 Oshkosh
Defense LLC, a subsidiary of Oshkosh Corporation, including on-site
leased workers from Accountemps, STS Technical Services, Aerotek,
Cadre, EDCI IT Services, Landmark Staffing Resources, Omni
Resources, Premier Temporary Staffing, Straight Shot Express,
Teksystems, Kelly Services, AWI, and Belcan Engineering Group,
Oshkosh, Wisconsin, to apply for adjustment assistance, in
accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 21st day of November, 2015

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




DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,649

OSHKOSH DEFENSE, LLC
A SUBSIDIARY OF OSHKOSH CORPORATION
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM ACCOUNTEMPS, STS
TECHNICAL SERVICES, AEROTEK, CADRE, EDCI IT SERVICES, LANDMARK
STAFFING RESOURCES, OMNI RESOURCES, PREMIER TEMPORARY STAFFING,
STRAIGHT SHOT EXPRESS, TEKSYSTEMS, KELLY SERVICES, AWI,
AND BELCAN ENGINEERING GROUP
OSHKOSH, WISCONSIN

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 November 17, 2014 by a State Workforce Office on behalf
of workers of Oshkosh Defense, a subsidiary of Oshkosh
Corporation, Oshkosh, Wisconsin. The workers' firm is engaged in
activities related to production of tactical wheeled vehicles
and non-defense articles. The worker group includes on-site
leased workers from Accountemps, STS Technical Services, Cadre,
Aerotek, EDCI IT Services, Landmark Staffing Resources, Omni
Resources, Premier Temporary Staffing, Straight Shot Express,
Teksystems, Kelly Services, AWI, and Belcan Engineering Group.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers' firm.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that imports of articles like or
directly competitive with the tactical wheeled vehicles and
non-defense articles have not increased during the relevant
time period. Rather, the investigation confirmed that the
tactical wheeled vehicles produced by the subject firm were
sold to the United States military and the non-defense
articles were for the internal use of the subject firm.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Oshkosh Defense did not shift
production of tactical wheeled vehicles or non-defense articles
to a foreign country during the relevant time period.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Oshkosh 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).
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 Oshkosh Defense,
a subsidiary of Oshkosh Corporation, including on-site leased
workers from Accountemps, STS Technical Services, Aerotek,
Cadre, EDCI IT Services, Landmark Staffing Resources, Omni
Resources, Premier Temporary Staffing, Straight Shot Express,
Teksystems, Kelly Services, AWI, and Belcan Engineering Group,
Oshkosh, Wisconsin engaged in activities related to production
of tactical wheeled vehicles and non-defense articles 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 30th day of December, 2014


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