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, 34044-34045 [E7-11833]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
34044
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 20, 2007 / Notices
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
PPA directed the Secretary of Labor, in
consultation with the Secretary of the
Treasury, to solicit information
regarding the feasibility of the
application of computer model
investment advice programs to
Individual Retirement Accounts and
similar types of plans (hereinafter,
collectively, IRAs).3 The PPA further
directed that the Secretary of Labor, in
consultation with the Secretary of the
Treasury, determine, based on the
information received from the
solicitation, whether there is any
computer model investment advice
program which may be utilized to
provide investment advice to IRA
beneficiaries, where such program: (1)
Utilizes relevant information about the
account beneficiary, which may include
age, life expectancy, retirement age, risk
tolerance, other assets or sources of
income, and preferences as to certain
types of investments; (2) takes into
account the full range of investments,
including equities and bonds, in
determining the options for the
investment portfolios of the beneficiary;
and (3) allows the beneficiary, in
directing the investment, sufficient
flexibility in obtaining advice to
evaluate and select investment
options[0].
On December 4, 2006, the Department
of Labor published a request for
information (RFI) regarding the
feasibility of computer model
investment advice programs for IRAs
(71 FR 70427). On December 12 and 13,
2006, the Department solicited
comments, by mail, from certain
trustees and other persons offering
computer model investment advice
programs. The Department received
over 60 comments in response to these
solicitations.
The RFI posed several questions that
focused on the specific statutory
requirements imposed by the PPA for
computer model investment advice
programs for beneficiaries of IRAs.
Many of the comments took differing
views as to the existence of such
programs depending on the meaning of
how a participant’s account balance should be
invested and not be inappropriately weighted with
respect to any investment option.
3 See PPA section 601(b)(3)(A)(i). These plans are:
(1) An individual retirement account described in
section 408(a) of the Code; (2) an individual
retirement annuity described in section 408(b) of
the Code; (3) an Archer MSA described in section
220(d) of the Code; (4) a health savings account
described in section 223(d) of the Code; (5) a
Coverdell education savings account described in
Code section 530; or (6) a trust, plan, account, or
annuity which, at any time, has been determined
by the Secretary of the Treasury to be described in
any preceding subparagraph of this paragraph
[i.e.,(1) through (5) above].
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:25 Jun 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
the term ‘‘full range of investments’’ in
PPA section 601(b)(3)(B).
After carefully reviewing the
information received to date, the
Department has decided that it would
be beneficial to solicit additional
information by means of a public
hearing. The Department is interested in
obtaining information on all aspects of
computer model based investment
advice programs for IRAs that would
help in making the required
determination, including additional
information relating to the questions
posed in the RFI. In particular, the
Department is interested in
understanding what particular types of
investments or asset classes a computer
model program should take into account
in order to provide appropriate advice
to IRA beneficiaries. In addition, the
Department seeks additional
information on the manner in which
such programs could operate without
bias as to investments offered by the
fiduciary advisor or an affiliate, if the
particular advice program allocates IRA
assets among only such investments.
The Department is also interested in
knowing whether the scope of relief
from ERISA’s prohibited transaction
provisions afforded by the statute is
adequate to facilitate the use of
computer-based programs for IRAs
should the Department determine that
such programs are feasible. Conversely,
the Department seeks information
concerning the scope of relief that
would be necessary, and the conditions
that would be appropriate, if it were
necessary to issue the class exemption
described in PPA section
601(b)(3)(C)(ii).
The hearing will be held on July 31,
2007 beginning at 9:30 a.m., EST, in
Rooms N–4437 B, C and D at the U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Any
interested person who wishes to be
assured of an opportunity to present
oral comments at the hearing should
submit by 3:30 p.m., EST, July 19, 2007:
(1) A request to be heard; and (2) a copy
of an outline of the topics to be
discussed. To facilitate the receipt and
processing of responses, EBSA
encourages interested persons to submit
their request and outline electronically
either: (1) By e-mail to e-OED@dol.gov;
or (2) by using the Federal eRulemaking
portal at https://www.regulations.gov
(follow the instructions for submission
of comments), using docket number:
EBSA–2007–0021. All requests and
outlines submitted to the Department,
including those submitted by e-mail,
will be posted on www.regulations.gov
in the above-referenced docket. Persons
submitting requests and outlines
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
electronically are encouraged not to
submit paper copies. Persons interested
in submitting written requests and
outlines on paper should send or deliver
their requests and outlines to the Office
of Exemption Determinations, Employee
Benefits Security Administration, Room
N–5700, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210, Attention: Computer Model
Investment Advice Programs For IRAs—
Hearing. The Department will prepare
an agenda indicating the order of
presentation of oral comments. In the
absence of special circumstances, each
commenter will be allotted fifteen
minutes in which to complete his or her
presentation. Information about the
agenda will be posted on or after July
25, 2007 on www.regulations.gov in
docket number: EBSA–2007–0021 or
may be obtained by contacting Chris
Motta, Office of Exemption
Determinations, Employee Benefits
Security Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, telephone (202)
693–8540 (this is not a toll-free
number). Those individuals who make
oral comments at the hearing should be
prepared to answer questions regarding
their comments. The hearing will be
transcribed.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 14th day of
June, 2007.
Ivan L. Strasfeld,
Director, Office of Exemption
Determinations,Employee Benefits Security
Administration,U.S. Department of Labor.
[FR Doc. E7–11885 Filed 6–19–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–29–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, 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.
E:\FR\FM\20JNN1.SGM
20JNN1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 20, 2007 / Notices
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 previouslysubmitted, 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:25 Jun 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
34045
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
E:\FR\FM\20JNN1.SGM
20JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34044-34045]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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
