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, MICHIGAN


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 USC 2273), the Department of Labor (Department) herein
presents the results of the remand investigation regarding
workers’ eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance.
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 USC
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, D.C. this 13th day of June 2007.

/s/ Richard Church
_______________________________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance

4510-FN-P


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, MICHIGAN

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 (19 USC 2273), the Department of Labor herein presents
the results of an investigation regarding certification of
eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance. In
accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended
(19 USC 2273), the Department of Labor herein presents the
results of an investigation regarding certification of
eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance. The group
eligibility requirements for directly-impacted (primary) workers
under Section 222(a) the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, can be
satisfied in either of two ways:
I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied:
B. 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; or

II. Section (a)(2)(B) both 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. 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

C. One of the following must be satisfied:

1. 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;

2. 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

3. 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.

The investigation was initiated on October 24, 2006, in
response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of
workers of Creative Engineering Products, formerly known as
Carlisle Engineered Products, Belleville Division, a subsidiary
of the Reserve Group, Belleville, Michigan. The workers at the
subject facility produced plastic injection automotive parts.
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C) and
(a)(2)(B)(II.B) have not been met.
Creative Engineered Products did not shift production of
plastic injection automotive parts offshore or import plastic
injection automotive parts in 2004, 2005, or in January through
September 2006.
Worker separations at the subject facility are primarily
due to the subject facility’s primary customer sourcing plastic
injection automotive parts from other domestic producers.
The Department of Labor surveyed the subject firm’s major
declining customer regarding its purchases of plastic injection
automotive parts during 2004, 2005 and January through September
2006. The survey determined that the customer did not import
plastic injection automotive parts during the relevant period.
In addition, in accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act
of 1974 (26 USC 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor
herein presents the results of its investigation regarding
certification of eligibility to apply for alternative trade
adjustment assistance (ATAA) for older workers.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for ATAA, the worker group must be
certified eligible to apply for trade adjustment assistance
(TAA). 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 this
investigation, I determine that all workers of Creative
Engineering Products, formerly known as Carlisle Engineered
Products, Belleville Division, a subsidiary of the Reserve
Group, Belleville, Michigan are denied eligibility to apply for
adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of
1974, and are also denied eligibility to apply for alternative
trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act
of 1974.
Signed in Washington, D. C. this 6th day of December 2006


/s/ Linda G. Poole

______________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance







- 10 -