DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-80,350

BABY BLISS, INC.
MIDDLEVILLE, MICHIGAN

Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

The initial investigation, initiated August 9, 2011, resulted
in a negative determination, issued on September 2, 2011, that was
based on the finding that the subject firm did not employ a worker
group (three or more workers) during the year prior to the date of
the petition (August 8, 2011). The determination was applicable to
workers and former workers of Baby Bliss, Inc., Middleville,
Michigan (subject firm). The notice of determination was published
in the Federal Register on September 19, 2011 (76 FR 58046). A
request for administrative for reconsideration was denied on
October 4, 2011. The subject firm produced children’s clothing
until it closed in October 2004.
As required by the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) Extension
Act of 2011 (the TAAEA), the investigation into this petition was
reopened for a reconsideration investigation to apply the
requirements for worker group eligibility under chapter 2 of title
II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the TAAEA, to the facts
of this petition.
Based on information reviewed during the reconsideration
investigation, the Department of Labor determines that the subject
firm did not employ a worker group during the relevant period.
With respect to Section 222(a) and Section 222(b) of the Act,
the investigation revealed that Criterion (1) has not been met
because the subject firm did not employ a worker group, as defined
by 29 CFR 902, during the relevant time period. Criterion (1)
requires a significant number or proportion of workers at the
subject firm to be totally or partially separated, or threatened
with such separations. Without a worker group at the subject firm
during the relevant period, Criterion (1) cannot be met.
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act, have not been satisfied since the subject 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, 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 Baby Bliss,
Inc., Middleville, Michigan, to apply for adjustment assistance,
in accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 2nd day of December, 2011

/s/ Del Min Amy Chen

______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-80,350

BABY BLISS, INC.
MIDDLEVILLE, 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 (“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) and (b)
of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a) and (b). 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. § 2272(a)(1)) requires that 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
(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) imports of articles like or directly competitive with
articles produced by such firm or subdivision have
increased; and
(iii) the increase 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 or subdivision.

(B) Shift in Production Path:
(i) 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
(ii)(I) 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;
(II)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
(III)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.

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 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.”
The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on August 9, 2011 by a former company official on behalf of
workers of Baby Bliss, Inc., Middleville, Michigan. Workers at
the subject firm were engaged in activities related to production
of children’s clothing.
The petition alleges that the firm lost its major customer due
to increased imports from China, leading to worker separations and
the firm’s closure in 2004. The petitioner further requested that
an exemption to the group eligibility deadline be granted due to
extenuating personal circumstances. During the course of the
investigation, information was collected from the former company
official.
With respect to Section 222(a) and Section 222(b) of the
Act, the investigation revealed that Criterion (1) has not been
met because a significant number or proportion of the workers in
such workers’ firm have not become totally or partially separated
in the year before the date of the petition, nor are workers
threatened to become totally or partially separated. Rather, the
investigation confirmed that all worker separations from the firm
occurred more than one year before the date of the petition. The
program regulations at 29 CFR 90.16(e), derived from 19 U.S.C. §
2273(b), mandate the following exclusion from coverage, “A
certification of eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance
shall not apply to any worker: (1) Whose last total or partial
separation from the firm or appropriate subdivision occurred more
than one (1) year before the date of the petition.” Neither the
Trade Act of 1974, as amended, nor the program regulations at 29
CFR 90, allow exemptions to this exclusion from coverage.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance
(ATAA), the worker group must be certified eligible to apply for
trade adjustment assistance. 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 the
investigation, I determine that all workers of Baby Bliss, Inc.,
Middleville, Michigan engaged in activities related to the
production of children’s clothing are denied eligibility to apply
for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of
1974, as amended, and are also denied eligibility to apply for
alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the
Trade Act of 1974, amended.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 2nd day of September, 2011


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





- 7 -