DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-81,317

DANA HOLDING CORPORATION
POWER TECHNOLOGIES GROUP DIVISION
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM MANPOWER
MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN

Notice of Revised Determination
on Reconsideration

On August 8, 2012, the Department of Labor issued a Notice of
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
applicable to workers and former workers of Dana Holding Company,
Power Technologies Group Division, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (subject
firm). The worker group includes on-site leased workers from
Manpower. The subject worker group includes workers engaged in
activities related to the production of gaskets. The
reconsideration investigation revealed that the subject workers do
not produce exhausts.
Section 222(a)(1) has been met because a significant number or
proportion of the workers in the subject firm have become totally
or partially separated, or are threatened with such separation.
Based on information provided during the reconsideration
investigation, the Department determines that worker separations at
the subject firm are related to a shift in a portion of the
production of gaskets (or like or directly competitive articles) to
a foreign country and that the shift in the production of these
articles contributed importantly to worker separations at the
subject firm.
Conclusion
After careful review of the additional facts obtained during
the reconsideration investigation, I determine that workers of Dana
Holding Company, Power Technologies Group Division, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, who were engaged in employment related to the production
of gaskets, 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 Dana Holding Company, Power Technologies Group
Division, including on-site leased workers from Manpower,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin who became totally or partially separated
from employment on or after February 8, 2011, through two
years from the date of certification, 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 20th day of November, 2012
/S/ Elliott S. Kushner
______________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance

4510-FN-P
?
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-81,317

DANA HOLDING CORPORATION
POWER TECHNOLOGIES GROUP DIVISION
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM MANPOWER
MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN

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 February 9, 2012 by the United Auto Workers (UAW) on
behalf of workers of Dana Holding Company, Power Technologies Group
Division, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (subject firm). The workers’ firm
was engaged in activities related to the production of gaskets and
exhausts for the automotive industry.
The petitioner alleged increased imports of metal gaskets from
foreign countries resulted in closure of the firm.
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 articles like or directly competitive with
gaskets and exhausts produced by Dana Holding Corporation, have not
increased.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift the production
of gaskets and exhausts or like or directly competitive articles to
a foreign country or acquire gaskets and exhausts or like or
directly competitive articles from a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Dana Holding 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).
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Dana Holding 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 either because Criterion
(1) has not been met 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 Dana Holding Corporation,
Power Technologies Group Division, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, engaged in
activities related to the production of gaskets and exhausts are
denied eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance, in
accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 30th day of April, 2012

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




- 3 -