DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-71,291

MODINE MANUFACTURING COMPANY
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
SECURITAS, AEROTEK AND ACCOUNTEMPS
PEMBERVILLE, OHIO

Amended Notice of Revised Determination
On Reconsideration

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. § 2273, the Department of Labor issued
a Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration on July 30,
2010. The Notice of revised determination was published in the
Federal Register on August 13, 2010 (75 FR 49538).
At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed
the revised determination applicable to workers and former
workers of Modine Manufacturing Company, Pemberville, Ohio
(subject firm). The workers are engaged in employment related to
the production of radiators and service parts.
The company reports that workers leased from Securitas,
Aerotek, and Accountemps were employed on-site at the
Pemberville, Ohio location of Modine Manufacturing Company. The
Department has determined that these workers were sufficiently
under the control of the subject firm to be considered leased
workers.
Based on these findings, the Department is amending this
certification to include workers leased from Securitas, Aerotek,
and Accountemps working on-site at the Pemberville, Ohio location
of Modine Manufacturing Company.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-71,291 is hereby
issued as follows:
"All workers of Modine Manufacturing Company, including
on-site leased workers from Securitas, Aerotek, and
Accountemps, Pemberville, Ohio, who became totally or
partially separated from employment on or after June
12, 2008, through July 30, 2012, 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 at Washington, D.C. this 6th day of October 2010.

/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-71,291

MODINE MANUFACTURING COMPANY
PEMBERVILLE, OHIO

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), (c) or
(f) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (c), (f). 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:
I. 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.

II. 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.

(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
(i)(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.

III. The third criterion requires that the increase in imports or
shift/acquisition must have contributed importantly to the
workers’ separation or threat of separation. See Sections
222(a)(2)(A)(iii) and 222(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
§§ 2272(a)(2)(A)(iii), 2272(a)(2)(B)(ii).

Section 222(d) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(d), defines the
terms “Supplier” and “Downstream Producer.” For the Department to
issue a secondary worker certification under Section 222(c) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), 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(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f).
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm under
Section 222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), 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 June 18, 2009, by three workers on behalf of workers of
Modine Manufacturing Company, Pemberville, Ohio. The workers
manufacture radiators for Class 8 heavy trucks.
The petitioners alleged that the subject firm has shifted
production to an offshore location, that it had imported like and
directly competitive products from offshore, and that it had
supplied components to other Modine facilities that had been
certified for Trade Adjustment Assistance.
The investigation included the completion by the firm of a
Business Confidential Data Request, and the carrying out of a
survey of two major declining customers of the subject firm.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that workers of Modine Manufacturing Company who are
engaged in activities related to the production of radiators for
Class 8 heavy trucks do not meet the criteria for certification.

Criterion II has not been met because Modine Manufacturing
Company, Pemberville, Ohio, did not increase imports of radiators
for Class 8 heavy duty truck or like or directly competitive
articles, shift the production of radiators for Class 8 heavy
trucks offshore, or acquire radiators for Class 8 heavy trucks or
like or directly competitive articles from a foreign country from
April 2007 to September 2009.
The Department of Labor surveyed major declining customers
regarding purchases of radiators for Class 8 heavy trucks during
the relevant period of the investigation. The survey revealed
that customer imports of radiators for Class 8 heavy trucks
during the relevant period did not contribute importantly to the
workers’ separation or threat of separation.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that workers of Modine Manufacturing Company,
Pemberville, Ohio, who are engaged in activities related to the
production of radiators for Class 8 heavy duty trucks do not meet
the criteria for secondary worker certification.
The investigation revealed that criterion 2 has not been
met. Modine Manufacturing Company, Pemberville, Ohio, is not a
Supplier or Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a group of
workers who received a primary certification of eligibility under
the Tract Act.
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), have not been satisfied
because 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
determination.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that workers of Modine Manufacturing
Company, Pemberville, Ohio, who manufacture radiators for Class 8
heavy trucks are denied eligibility to apply for adjustment
assistance under Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 12th day of February, 2010

/s/Elliott S. Kushner
______________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance



- 8 -