Sears Holdings Management Corporation, A Division Of Sears Holdings Corporation, Hoffman Estates, Illinois; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration, 31590-31591 [2013-12386]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
31590
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Notices
accordance with the terms of the plan
and periodic premiums under an
insurance or annuity contract, or
(2) for a purpose incidental to the
ordinary operation of the plan;
(c) The loan or other extension of
credit is unsecured;
(d) The loan or other extension of
credit is not directly or indirectly made
by an employee benefit plan;
(e) The loan or other extension of
credit is not described in section
408(b)(3) of ERISA and the regulations
promulgated thereunder (29 CFR
2550.408b–3) or section 4975(d)(3) of
the Code and the regulations
promulgated thereunder (26 CFR
54.4975–7(b)); and
(f)(1) Any loan described in section
IV(b)(1) that is entered into on or after
April 7, 2006 and that has a term of 60
days or longer must be made pursuant
to a written loan agreement that
contains all of the material terms of
such loan;
(2) Any loan described in (b)(2) of this
paragraph that is entered into for a term
of 60 days or longer must be made
pursuant to a written loan agreement
that contains all of the material terms of
such loan.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Section V: Temporary Exemption
The restrictions of section 406(a)(1)(B)
and (D) and section 406(b)(1) and (b)(2)
of the Act, and the taxes imposed by
section 4975(a) and (b) of the Code, by
reason of section 4975(c)(1)(B), (D) and
(E) of the Code, shall not apply, from
January 1, 1975, until the date that is six
months following the date a final
amendment is published in the Federal
Register, to: (1) A Covered Extension of
Credit, as defined in section VI(e); (2) a
Covered Loan, as defined in section
VI(f); and (3) a Covered Repayment (as
defined in section VI(g)) if:
(a) No interest or other fee is charged
to the plan, and no discount for
payment in cash is relinquished by the
plan, in connection with the Covered
Extension of Credit, Covered Loan, or
Covered Repayment;
(b) The Covered Extension of Credit is
set forth in an Account Opening
Agreement between a plan and a
financial institution, where the financial
institution is subject to oversight by a
regulatory agency or a self-regulatory
organization;
(c) The Covered Loan is not directly
or indirectly made by a plan;
(d) The Covered Extension of Credit
and the Covered Loan are not described
in section 408(b)(3) of ERISA and the
regulations promulgated thereunder (29
CFR 2550.408b–3) or section 4975(d)(3)
of the Code and the regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:14 May 23, 2013
Jkt 229001
promulgated thereunder (26 CFR
54.4975–7(b));
(e) The Covered Loan arose from a
lawful cost (including a fee, expense,
investment loss or tax); and
(f) The amount of a Covered Loan
from a Related Account to a Plan
Account is no greater than and relates
to an amount debited to the Plan
Account in connection with an expense
described in paragraph (e) of this
section. The amount of a Covered
Repayment of a Covered Loan must not
be greater than the original Covered
Loan amount.
Section VI. Definitions
(a) For purposes of section II, a ‘‘Y2K
problem’’ is a disruption of computer
operations resulting from a computer
system’s inability to process data
because such system recognizes years
only by the last two digits, causing a
‘‘00’’ entry to be read as the year ‘‘1900’’
rather than the year ‘‘2000.’’
(b) For purposes of section III, the
‘‘September 11, 2001 disruption’’ is the
disruption to the United States financial
and securities markets and/or the
operation of persons providing
administrative services to employee
benefit plans, resulting from the acts of
terrorism that occurred on September
11, 2001;
(c) For purposes of this exemption,
the terms ‘‘employee benefit plan’’ and
‘‘plan’’ refer to an employee benefit plan
described in ERISA section 3(3) and/or
a plan described in section 4975(e)(1) of
the Code;
(d) For purposes of section V, the term
‘‘Plan Account’’ means an account
established with a financial institution
by an employee benefit plan described
in section 3(3) of ERISA or a plan
described in section 4975(e)(1) of the
Code.
(e) For purposes of section V, the term
‘‘Covered Extension of Credit’’ means an
indemnification agreement, crosscollateralization agreement or other
grant of a security interest in favor of a
financial institution, as set forth in an
Account Opening Agreement between a
plan and the financial institution, which
guarantees the payment of debits to (or
by) a Plan Account by (or to) a Related
Account, but does not include a loan or
payment under such agreement or
security interest;
(f) For purposes of section V, the term
‘‘Covered Loan’’ means a loan to a Plan
Account by a Related Account,
including by means of a debit to a
Related Account and a corresponding
credit to the Plan Account, where the
Covered Loan is made pursuant to a
Covered Extension of Credit;
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(g) For purposes of section V, the term
‘‘Covered Repayment’’ means the
repayment by a Plan Account to a
Related Account of a Covered Loan.
(h) For purposes of section V, the term
‘‘Related Account’’ means an
investment account established with a
financial institution by a person or
entity, where such account is subject to
an Account Opening Agreement with
the financial institution that also covers
a Plan Account and/or guarantees the
payment of debits to the Plan Account.
(i) For purposes of section V, the term
‘‘Account Opening Agreement’’ means a
written brokerage, futures or other
investment agreement.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of
May, 2013.
Lyssa E. Hall,
Director, Office of Exemption Determinations,
Employee Benefits Security Administration,
U. S. Department of Labor.
[FR Doc. 2013–12362 Filed 5–23–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–29–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–81,253]
Sears Holdings Management
Corporation, A Division Of Sears
Holdings Corporation, Hoffman
Estates, Illinois; Notice of Negative
Determination on Reconsideration
On August 3, 2012, the Department of
Labor issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration for the workers and
former workers of Sears Holdings
Management Corporation, Hoffman
Estates, Illinois (subject firm). The
Department’s Notice of determination
was published in the Federal Register
on August 14, 2012 (77 FR 48550).
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.
During the initial investigation, the
Department received information that
the petitioners worked in different units
of the subject firm: one petitioner
worked in the marketing unit, another
E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM
24MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
petitioner worked in the analytics
segment of the information and
technology unit, and the third petitioner
worked in the space management
segment of the supply chain unit. The
Department also received information
from the subject firm that the services
supplied by each of the petitioners did
not shift to a foreign country as alleged
in the petition.
In the request for reconsideration, one
of the initial petitioners stated that the
worker group was incorrect in the initial
investigation (‘‘My position at Sears had
nothing to do with Analytics or space
Management. I worked in Marketing’’),
that the correct worker group consist of
workers supplying ‘‘Accounting,
Marketing, and inventory services’’ and
that worker separations was due to
Sear’s shift the supply of services to a
foreign country (‘‘The IMPACT program
supported by (Sears Holding) India will
be taking over’’).
During the reconsideration
investigation, the Department reviewed
the petition; information supplied by
the petitioners; information supplied by
Sears’ representative during the initial
investigation; and information supplied
in the request for reconsideration. The
Department also requested that the
subject firm confirm previouslysubmitted information and address the
allegations in the request for
reconsideration.
The subject firm clarified that one
petitioner supplied print marketing
management services, another petitioner
supplied project coordinator analytics
services, and the third petitioner
supplied merchandise planning analysis
services. The subject firm also
confirmed that the services previously
supplied by the petitioners were not
being performed by Sears Holding India
and that services supplied by Sears
Holding India were not increasing while
services decreased at Hoffman Estates,
Illinois. The subject firm also provided
information that the services supplied
by the petitioning workers remain at
Hoffman Estates, Illinois.
While there is a certification
applicable to TA–W–73,244, each
petition is determined based on facts
specific to the petition. Therefore, facts
relevant to one petition cannot be the
basis for certification of another
petition.
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 Workers of Sears
Holdings Management Corporation,
Hoffman Estates, Illinois, to apply for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:14 May 23, 2013
Jkt 229001
adjustment assistance, in accordance
with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
2273.
Signed in Washington, DC, on this 8th day
of May, 2013.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2013–12386 Filed 5–23–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–81,929]
Joy Global, Inc., Also Known as Joy
Technologies, Inc., Including On-Site
Leased Workers From All Seasons
Temporaries and Manpower Franklin,
Pennsylvania; Notice of Negative
Determination on Reconsideration
On December 6, 2012, the Department
of Labor (Department) issued a Notice of
Affirmative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration
applicable to workers and former
workers of Joy Global, Inc., also known
as Joy Technologies, Inc., (subject firm),
including on-site leased workers from
All Seasons Temporaries and
Manpower, Franklin, Pennsylvania
(subject facility).
The group eligibility requirements for
workers of a Firm under Section 222(a)
of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a), can be
satisfied if the following criteria are met:
(1) A significant number or proportion
of the workers in such workers’ firm
have become totally or partially
separated, or are threatened to become
totally or partially separated; and
(2)(A)(i) the sales or production, or
both, of such firm have decreased
absolutely;
(ii)(I) imports of articles or services
like or directly competitive with articles
produced or services supplied by such
firm have increased;
(II) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles—
(aa) into which one or more
component parts produced by such firm
are directly incorporated, or
(bb) which are produced directly
using services supplied by such firm,
have increased; or
(III) imports of articles directly
incorporating one or more component
parts produced outside the United
States that are like or directly
competitive with imports of articles
incorporating one or more component
parts produced by such firm have
increased; and
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31591
(iii) the increase in imports 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
(B)(i)(I) there has been a shift by such
workers’ firm to a foreign country in the
production of articles or the supply of
services like or directly competitive
with articles which are produced or
services which are supplied by such
firm; or
(II) such workers’ firm has acquired
from a foreign country articles or
services that are like or directly
competitive with articles which are
produced or services which are
supplied by such firm; and
(ii) the shift described in clause (i)(I)
or the acquisition of articles or services
described in clause (i)(II) contributed
importantly to such workers’ separation
or threat of separation.
Initial Investigation
On August 29, 2012, a representative
from International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
District Lodge 98, filed a petition for
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA),
dated August 25, 2012, on behalf of
workers and former workers of the
subject facility. Workers are engaged in
the production of underground mining
machines and component parts. The
workers are not separately identifiable
by product line.
The negative determination was based
on the findings that the subject firm had
not experienced a decline in the sales or
production of mobile underground
mining machines and repair
components during the period under
investigation (the representative base
period is August through December
2010, full year 2011, and January
through August 2012; hereafter referred
to as ‘‘period under investigation’’ or
‘‘relevant time period’’); that the subject
firm did not shift the production of
these articles, or like or directly
competitive articles, to a foreign country
or acquire the production of these
articles, or like or directly competitive
articles, from a foreign country; that the
subject firm is not a Supplier 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); that the subject firm
does not act as a Downstream Producer
to a firm (or subdivision, whichever is
applicable) 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 that the
workers’ firm has not been publically
identified by name by the International
Trade Commission as a member of a
E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM
24MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 101 (Friday, May 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31590-31591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12386]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-81,253]
Sears Holdings Management Corporation, A Division Of Sears
Holdings Corporation, Hoffman Estates, Illinois; Notice of Negative
Determination on Reconsideration
On August 3, 2012, the Department of Labor issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers
and former workers of Sears Holdings Management Corporation, Hoffman
Estates, Illinois (subject firm). The Department's Notice of
determination was published in the Federal Register on August 14, 2012
(77 FR 48550).
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.
During the initial investigation, the Department received
information that the petitioners worked in different units of the
subject firm: one petitioner worked in the marketing unit, another
[[Page 31591]]
petitioner worked in the analytics segment of the information and
technology unit, and the third petitioner worked in the space
management segment of the supply chain unit. The Department also
received information from the subject firm that the services supplied
by each of the petitioners did not shift to a foreign country as
alleged in the petition.
In the request for reconsideration, one of the initial petitioners
stated that the worker group was incorrect in the initial investigation
(``My position at Sears had nothing to do with Analytics or space
Management. I worked in Marketing''), that the correct worker group
consist of workers supplying ``Accounting, Marketing, and inventory
services'' and that worker separations was due to Sear's shift the
supply of services to a foreign country (``The IMPACT program supported
by (Sears Holding) India will be taking over'').
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department reviewed
the petition; information supplied by the petitioners; information
supplied by Sears' representative during the initial investigation; and
information supplied in the request for reconsideration. The Department
also requested that the subject firm confirm previously-submitted
information and address the allegations in the request for
reconsideration.
The subject firm clarified that one petitioner supplied print
marketing management services, another petitioner supplied project
coordinator analytics services, and the third petitioner supplied
merchandise planning analysis services. The subject firm also confirmed
that the services previously supplied by the petitioners were not being
performed by Sears Holding India and that services supplied by Sears
Holding India were not increasing while services decreased at Hoffman
Estates, Illinois. The subject firm also provided information that the
services supplied by the petitioning workers remain at Hoffman Estates,
Illinois.
While there is a certification applicable to TA-W-73,244, each
petition is determined based on facts specific to the petition.
Therefore, facts relevant to one petition cannot be the basis for
certification of another petition.
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 Workers of Sears Holdings
Management Corporation, Hoffman Estates, Illinois, to apply for
adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19
U.S.C. 2273.
Signed in Washington, DC, on this 8th day of May, 2013.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2013-12386 Filed 5-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
