Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2011 / Notices 14695 

DATES: The closing date for receipt of 

applications is May 2, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeannette Flowers, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Room N4716, 

Washington, DC 20210; telephone: 202– 

693–3322. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 11th day of 

March 2011. 

B. Jai Johnson, 

Grant Officer, Employment and Training 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6245 Filed 3–16–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

Notice of Funding Opportunity and 

Solicitation for Grant Applications 

(SGA) for National Farmworker Jobs 

Training Program (NFJP) Housing 

Assistance 

AGENCY: Employment and Training 

Administration, Labor. 

ACTION: Notice of Solicitation for Grant 

Applications (SGA). 

Funding Opportunity Number: SGA– 

DFA–PY–10–08. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Labor 

(the Department or DOL), Employment 

and Training Administration (ETA), 

Office of Workforce Investment (OWI), 

Division of Adult Services (DAS), 

announces a grant competition for 

operating the Housing Assistance 

portion of the National Farmworker Jobs 

Program (NFJP), under section 167 of 

the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 

(WIA), 29 U.S.C. 2912. Section 167(a) of 

WIA requires the Secretary to conduct a 

grants competition every two years for 

the purpose of carrying out the activities 

authorized under section 167. Although 

housing assistance is identified in WIA 

as one of the allowable activities under 

NFJP, Congressional appropriations 

language directs the Department to 

make available a specific amount of the 

funds appropriated for the NFJP for 

migrant and seasonal farmworkers 

housing assistance grants, and requires 

that no less than 70 percent of the 

specified amount must be used for 

permanent housing activities. 

We are conducting this competition 

before the passage of the Department of 

Labor’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 

appropriation in anticipation of the 

appropriation of funds for Program Year 

(PY) 2011 NFJP housing assistance 

grants, but we will not obligate any 

funds for PY 2011 grants unless and 

until they are appropriated. The FY 

2011 appropriation request for this 

program is $5,700,000. 

The complete SGA and any 

subsequent SGA amendments are 

described in further detail on ETA’s 

Web site at http://www.doleta.gov/ 

grants or on http://www.grants.gov. The 

Web sites provide application 

information, eligibility requirements, 

review and selection procedures and 

other program requirements governing 

this solicitation. 

DATES: The closing date for receipt of 

applications is May 3, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Eileen Banks, 200 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Room N4716, Washington, DC 

20210; telephone: 202–693–3403. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 11th day of 

March 2011. 

B. Jai Johnson, 

Grant Officer, Employment and Training 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6244 Filed 3–16–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–72,510] 

Jeld-Wen Millwork Distribution, 

Wilkesboro, NC; Notice of Negative 

Determination on Reconsideration 

On October 7, 2010, the Department 

of Labor issued an Affirmative 

Determination Regarding Application 

for Reconsideration for workers and 

former workers of Jeld-Wen Millwork 

Distribution, Wilkesboro, North 

Carolina (subject firm). The 

Department’s Notice was published in 

the Federal Register on October 25, 

2010 (75 FR 65513). 

Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c), 

reconsideration may be granted under 

the following circumstances: 

(1) If it appears on the basis of facts 

not previously considered that the 

determination complained of was 

erroneous; 

(2) If it appears that the determination 

complained of was based on a mistake 

in the determination of facts not 

previously considered; or 

(3) If in the opinion of the Certifying 

Officer, a misinterpretation of facts or of 

the law justified reconsideration of the 

decision. 

The petition, filed by a company 

official, stated that the workers 

distribute ‘‘wood exterior door frames’’ 

and that ‘‘door frames are being 

imported from China and South 

America at a price we can’t compete 

with at this location.’’ 

The initial negative determination 

was based on the findings that there was 

no increase in imports of like or directly 

competitive articles by either the subject 

firm or its customers, and no shift to/ 

acquisition from a foreign country by 

the workers’ firm in production of like 

or directly competitive articles. The 

investigation also revealed that the 

subject firm did not produce a 

component part that was used by a firm 

that employed workers eligible to apply 

for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) 

and used the component parts in the 

production of the article that was the 

basis for the TAA certification. 

The workers, in the request for 

reconsideration, state that the subject 

firm’s competitors and customer have 

increased imports of like or directly 

competitive articles from China. The 

workers also allege that the articles 

produced at the subject firm include 

door component parts (‘‘door jambs, 

door T–AST, door mull posts’’) and 

window component parts (‘‘replacement 

window grills’’). 

Information obtained during the 

reconsideration investigation confirmed 

that the only articles produced by the 

subject firm during the relevant period 

are wood exterior door frames; that, 

during the relevant period, the subject 

firm did not increase reliance on 

imports of wood exterior door frames; 

and that the subject firm supplies 

articles exclusively to internal 

customers. 

Moreover, information obtained 

during the reconsideration investigation 

confirmed that that the subject firm did 

not perform a service (such as 

distribution) that was used by a firm 

that both employed a worker group 

eligible to apply for TAA and directly 

used the services supplied in the 

production of an article or supply of a 

service that was the basis for the TAA 

certification. 

Aggregate data reviewed during the 

reconsideration investigation revealed 

that U.S. imports of articles like or 

directly competitive with wood exterior 

door frames did not increase during the 

relevant period. 

Conclusion 

After reconsideration, I affirm the 

original notice of negative 

determination of eligibility to apply for 

worker adjustment assistance for 

workers and former workers of Jeld-Wen 

Millwork Distribution, Wilkesboro, 

North Carolina. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
14696 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2011 / Notices 

Signed in Washington, DC, on this 4th day 

of March 2011. 

Del Min Amy Chen, 

Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6185 Filed 3–16–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–72,355] 

Flanders Tool Company, Inc., Flanders, 

NJ; Notice of Negative Determination 

on Reconsideration 

On January 4, 2010, the Department of 

Labor issued a Negative Determination 

Regarding Eligibility to apply for worker 

adjustment assistance for the workers 

and former workers of Flanders Tool 

Company, Flanders, New Jersey (the 

subject firm). The Department’s Notice 

was published in the Federal Register 

on February 16, 2010 (75 FR 7039). 

By application dated February 12, 

2010, the petitioner requested 

administrative reconsideration of the 

negative determination regarding 

workers’ eligibility to apply for Trade 

Adjustment Assistance (TAA) 

applicable to workers and former 

workers of the subject firm. At the 

request of the petitioners, the 

Department conducted further 

investigation to determine if the workers 

meet the eligibility requirements of the 

Trade Act of 1974, as amended. Workers 

are engaged in employment related to 

the production of precision cutting tools 

and drills. 

Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c), 

reconsideration may be granted under 

the following circumstances: 

(1) If it appears on the basis of facts 

not previously considered that the 

determination complained of was 

erroneous; 

(2) If it appears that the determination 

complained of was based on a mistake 

in the determination of facts not 

previously considered; or 

(3) If in the opinion of the Certifying 

Officer, a mis-interpretation of facts or 

of the law justified reconsideration of 

the decision. 

The initial negative determination 

was based on the findings that there was 

no increase in imports by the workers’ 

firm or customers of articles like or 

directly competitive with precision 

cutting tools and drills, or a shift to/ 

acquisition from a foreign country by 

the workers’ firm in the production of 

articles like or directly competitive with 

precision cutting tools and drills, and 

that the workers’ firm did not produce 

and supply directly component parts (or 

services) to a firm that both employed 

a worker group eligible to apply for 

TAA and directly used the component 

parts (or services) in the production of 

the article or in the supply of the service 

that was the basis for the TAA 

certification. 

The request for reconsideration stated 

that the subject firm supplies products 

to certified customers. 

Information obtained during the 

reconsideration investigation confirmed 

that the subject firm did not produce 

and supply directly component parts to 

a firm that both employed a worker 

group eligible to apply for TAA and 

directly used the component parts in the 

production of the article or in the 

supply of the service that was the basis 

for the TAA certification. 

While tools and capital equipment are 

used in the production of an article, 

they are not component parts. 

Information obtained during the 

reconsideration investigation confirmed 

that, during the relevant period, the 

major declining customers of the subject 

firm did not directly or indirectly 

import articles like or directly 

competitive with the precision cutting 

tools and drills produced by the subject 

firm. 

Conclusion 

After reconsideration, I affirm the 

original notice of negative 

determination of eligibility to apply for 

worker adjustment assistance for 

workers and former workers of Flanders 

Tool Company, Flanders, New Jersey. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on this 4th day 

of March 2011. 

Del Min Amy Chen, 

Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6193 Filed 3–16–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–72,493] 

Ananke, Inc., Providence, RI; Notice of 

Negative Determination on 

Reconsideration 

On December 1, 2010, the Department 

of Labor issued an Affirmative 

Determination Regarding Application 

for Reconsideration for the workers and 

former workers of Ananke, Inc., Rhode 

Island (subject firm). The Department’s 

Notice was published in the Federal 

Register on December 13, 2010 (75 FR 

77664). The workers at the subject firm 

supplied on-site application packaging 

services to a financial services firm 

located in Boston, Massachusetts. 

Therefore, the worker group includes 

workers who report to the subject firm 

but are located in Massachusetts; 

however, the worker group does not 

include any on-site leased or temporary 

workers. 

Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c), 

reconsideration may be granted under 

the following circumstances: 

(1) If it appears on the basis of facts 

not previously considered that the 

determination complained of was 

erroneous; 

(2) If it appears that the determination 

complained of was based on a mistake 

in the determination of facts not 

previously considered; or 

(3) If in the opinion of the Certifying 

Officer, a mis-interpretation of facts or 

of the law justified reconsideration of 

the decision. 

The initial negative determination 

was based on the findings that neither 

the subject firm nor a declining 

customer imported services like or 

directly competitive with the 

application packaging services supplied 

by the subject workers; that the subject 

firm did not shift to/acquire from a 

foreign country the supply of services 

like or directly competitive with the 

application packaging services supplied 

by the subject workers; and that workers 

of the subject firm are not adversely 

affected secondary workers. 

The request for reconsideration states 

that ‘‘Ananke Inc. performed application 

packaging services for John Hancock 

* * * In September 2009, John Hancock 

replaced * * * Ananke Inc. with * * * 

Cognizant Technology Solutions (an 

offshoring/outsourcing company)’’ and 

included support documentation. 

Information obtained during the 

reconsideration investigation confirmed 

that, during the relevant period, neither 

the subject firm nor a client firm shifted 

to/acquired from a foreign country the 

supply of services like or directly 

competitive with the application 

packaging services supplied by the 

workers. Rather, the shift in the supply 

of services that is alleged by the 

petitioner is related to services that are 

neither like nor directly competitive 

with those supplied by the subject 

workers. 

Conclusion 

After reconsideration, I affirm the 

original notice of negative 

determination of eligibility to apply for 

worker adjustment assistance for 

workers and former workers of Ananke, 

Inc., Rhode Island. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES