DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-75,278

WELLMAN DYNAMICS TWIN CITIES, INC.
A SUBSIDIARY OF FANSTEEL INC.
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, DOHERTY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, AND
WARE TECHNOLOGY SERVICES
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA

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 February 15, 2011 by a state workforce office on
behalf of workers of Wellman Dynamics Twin Cities, Inc., a
subsidiary of Fansteel, Inc., Plymouth, Minnesota. The workers
were engaged in activities related to the production of
engineered aluminum castings. The worker group includes on-site
leased workers from American Engineering Testing, Doherty
Staffing Solutions, and Ware Technology Services.
The petitioner alleged that worker separations were due to
a loss of a contract to a firm engaged in foreign sourcing.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that workers of Wellman Dynamics Twin
Cities, Inc. who were engaged in activities related to the
production of engineered aluminum castings do not meet the
criteria for certification.
The investigation revealed that criterion II has not been
met. Wellman Dynamics Twin Cities, Inc. did not increase
imports of engineered aluminum castings or like or directly
competitive articles, shift the production of engineered
aluminum castings to a foreign country, or acquire engineered
aluminum castings or articles like or directly competitive from
a foreign country.
The Department of Labor surveyed the firm's major
declining customers regarding purchases of aluminum castings
during the period the subject of the investigation. The survey
revealed that the customers have not increased imports of
articles like or directly competitive with aluminum castings.
In addition, the Department surveyed firms to which Wellman
Dynamics Twin Cities, Inc. submitted bids for contracts. The
survey revealed that Wellman Dynamics Twin Cities, Inc. was not
the lowest domestic bidder and that the awards were to other
firms within the United States.
Criterion III has not been met because the worker
separations are not attributable to increased imports, a shift
in production to a foreign country, or acquisition of articles
from a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that workers of Wellman Dynamics Twin
Cities, Inc. do not meet the criteria for secondary worker
certification.
The investigation revealed that criterion (2) has not
been met. Wellman Dynamics Twin Cities, Inc. 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. The investigation revealed that the firm
does not qualify as a "Supplier" defined as "a firm that
produces and supplies directly to another firm component parts
for articles, or services, used in the production of articles or
in the supply of services, as the case may be, that were the
basis for a certification of eligibility under subsection (a) of
a group of workers employed by such other firm." The aluminum
castings produced by Wellman Dynamics Twin Cities, Inc. are not
a component part. In addition, a "Downstream Producer" is
defined as "a firm that performs additional, value-added
production processes or services directly for another firm for
articles or services with respect to which a group of workers in
such other firm has been certified under subsection (a)." The
activities of Wellman Dynamics Twin Cities, Inc. do not meet
this definition.
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), have not been satisfied
because Wellman Dynamics Twin Cities, Inc. 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 Wellman Dynamics Twin
Cities, Inc., a subsidiary of Fansteel, Inc., Plymouth,
Minnesota including on-site leased workers from American
Engineering Testing, Doherty Staffing Solutions, and Ware
Technology Services, who were engaged in activities related to
the production of engineered aluminum castings 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 27th day of May, 2011


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