[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34044-34045]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-11833]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-60,277]


Creative Engineered Products, Formerly Known as Carlisle 
Engineered Products, Belleville Division, a Subsidiary of the Reserve 
Group; Belleville, MI; Notice of Revised Determination on Remand

    On April 20, 2007, the United States Court of International Trade 
(USCIT) granted the Department of Labor's request for voluntary remand 
in Former Employees of Creative Engineering Products v. U.S. Secretary 
of Labor, Court No. 07-00073. In accordance with Section 223 of the 
Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273), the Department of Labor 
(Department) herein presents the results of the remand investigation 
regarding workers' eligibility to apply for worker adjustment 
assistance.

[[Page 34045]]

    On October 23, 2006, a company official filed a petition for Trade 
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance 
(ATAA) on behalf of workers and former workers of Creative Engineering 
Products, formerly known as Carlisle Engineering Products, Belleville 
Division, A Subsidiary of the Reserve Group, Belleville, Michigan (the 
subject firm). Workers produced plastic injection parts for the 
automotive industry. The subject firm shut down on October 31, 2006.
    A negative determination regarding the subject worker group's 
eligibility to apply for TAA and ATAA was issued on December 6, 2006. 
The determination was based on the findings that, during the relevant 
period (the twelve-month period prior to the petition date), the 
subject firm did not shift production of plastic injection automotive 
parts (parts) abroad and that neither the subject firm nor its major 
declining customer imported parts during the relevant period. The 
Department's Notice of negative determination was published in the 
Federal Register on December 27, 2006 (71 FR 77805).
    By letter dated December 14, 2006, a company official requested 
administrative reconsideration by the Department. The request asserted 
that the subject firm's closure was caused by the major customer's 
decision to move its operations to Canada. By letter dated January 18, 
2007, the Department dismissed the request for reconsideration, stating 
that the statute does not provide for TAA certification based on a 
customer's shift of production to Canada and that no information, new 
or previously-submitted, revealed that the subject firm shifted 
production of parts abroad or that there were increased imports of 
parts during the relevant period. The Department's Dismissal of 
Application for Reconsideration was issued on January 24, 2007. The 
Notice of the Department's action was published in the Federal Register 
on February 2, 2007 (72 FR 5085).
    By letter dated February 15, 2007, a worker requested judicial 
review by the USCIT. In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the 
Department's denial, based on a finding of negligible imports by the 
subject firm, was arbitrary.
    Since the petition was filed by the subject firm and the subject 
firm requested reconsideration, it was reasonable for the Department to 
believe that the subject firm had the workers' best interest at heart, 
and provided accurate and complete information in the previous 
investigations. However, because it is the Department's practice to 
view facts in the light most beneficial to the workers, it is possible 
that there was a misunderstanding and the workers were unintentionally 
injured by the mistake(s).
    Therefore, in order to address the Plaintiff's allegation of 
increased imports and to determine whether the workers are eligible to 
apply for TAA, the Department requested voluntary remand. The 
Department's request was granted on April 20, 2007.
    For a worker group to be certified for TAA based on increased 
imports, all of the following must be satisfied:
    A. 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;
    B. The sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision 
have decreased absolutely; and
    C. Increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with 
articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed 
importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to 
the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision.
    During the remand investigation, the Department contacted the 
company official to confirm the article produced by the subject worker 
group. The Department also conducted another survey to determine 
whether there were increased customer imports of articles like or 
directly competitive with plastic injection automotive parts produced 
at the subject firm during the relevant period. The remand 
investigation also included an industry-wide review of import trends.
    Because the subject firm closed on October 31, 2006, the Department 
determines that, during the relevant period, a significant number or 
proportion of the workers in the subject firm have become totally 
separated and that subject firm sales and production have decreased 
absolutely.
    The survey conducted during the remand investigation revealed that, 
during the relevant period, customer purchases from the subject firm 
decreased while imports increased. The survey also revealed overall 
decreased domestic purchases during the same period of increased import 
purchases. Further, the rate of import increase was higher than the 
rate of purchase decrease from the subject firm and other domestic 
sources.
    During the relevant period, aggregate imports of articles like or 
directly competitive with plastic injection automotive parts produced 
by the subject firm increased.
    Based on the findings of the remand investigation, the Department 
determines that increased imports of articles like or directly 
competitive with plastic injection automotive parts produced by the 
subject firm contributed importantly to the subject workers' separation 
and to the decline in subject firm sales and production.
    In accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 
2813), as amended, the Department herein presents the results of its 
investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA. 
The Department has determined in this case that the group eligibility 
requirements of Section 246 have been met.
    A significant number of workers at the firm are age 50 or over and 
possess skills that are not easily transferable. Competitive conditions 
within the industry are adverse.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the information obtained during the remand 
investigation, I determine that increased imports of articles like or 
directly competitive with plastic injection automotive parts produced 
by the subject workers contributed to the total separation of a 
significant number or proportion of workers at the subject firm.
    In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following 
certification:

    ``All workers of Creative Engineering Products, formerly known 
as Carlisle Engineering Products, Belleville Division, A Subsidiary 
of the Reserve Group, Belleville, Michigan, who became totally or 
partially separated from employment on or after October 23, 2005, 
through two years from the issuance of this revised determination, 
are eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance under Section 
223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are eligible to apply for 
alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the 
Trade Act of 1974.''

    Signed at Washington, DC this 13th day of June 2007.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E7-11833 Filed 6-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P