[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 220 (Thursday, November 15, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64244-64245]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-22321]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-62,176]


First American Title Insurance Company: Eagle Production Center; 
Flint, MI; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for 
Reconsideration

    By application dated October 16, 2007, a worker requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of 
First American Title Insurance Company, Eagle Production Center, Flint, 
Michigan (subject firm) to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) 
and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). The negative 
determination was issued on October 9, 2007, and the Department's 
Notice of negative determination was published in the Federal Register 
on October 26, 2007 (72 FR 60910).
    The worker-filed TAA/ATAA petition was denied because the subject 
firm does not produce an article within the meaning of Section 
222(a)(2) of the Act. Workers at the subject firm are engaged in title 
insurance operations which entail the examining of chain of title for 
residential and commercial properties, writing title commitments and 
policies, interacting with customers and providing customer service, 
and abstracting.
    Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c), administrative reconsideration may be 
granted if:
    (1) It appears on the basis of facts not previously considered that 
the determination complained of was erroneous;
    (2) It appears that the determination complained of was based on a 
mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or
    (3) In the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a misinterpretation 
of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision.
    The request for reconsideration alleges that the subject workers 
produce an ``end product.'' These products include search packages 
(abstracts of land title and copies of documents identifying a chain of 
title and encumbrances to the property); property reports (copies of 
documents covering the customers' interests such as easements and 
mortgages); title commitments (a document that indicates a commitment 
to issue title insurance and provides a complete history of the 
property); and title policies (a compilation of documents that is 
delivered to and paid for by the customer). The request for 
reconsideration also states that the ``assemblage and distribution of 
the product(s)'' is being shifted to India and the Philippines.
    It is the Department's policy that the subject firm must produce an 
article domestically. The Department's policy is supported by current 
regulation. 29 CFR 90.11(c)(7) requires that the petition include a 
``description of the articles produced by the workers' firm or 
appropriate subdivision, the production or sales of which are adversely 
affected by increased imports, and a description of the imported 
articles concerned. If available, the petition should also include 
information concerning the method of manufacture, end uses, and 
wholesale or retail value of the domestic articles produced and the 
United States tariff provision under which the imported articles are 
classified.''
    In order to determine whether the subject firm is a manufacturing 
firm, the Department consulted the North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS) Web site. The NAICS identifies the 
primary activity of the company, which is useful in understanding what 
a firm does for its customers, which, in turn, aids in determining 
whether a firm produces an article or provides services for its 
customers. According to the NAICS, the subject firm is a ``Direct Title 
Insurance Carrier.'' This industry includes ``establishments primarily 
engaged in initially underwriting * * * insurance policies to protect 
the owners of real estate or real estate creditors against loss 
sustained by reason of any title defect to real property.''
    After careful review of the request for reconsideration and 
previously-submitted information, the Department determines that the 
subject firm is a service firm and not a manufacturing firm. As a 
corollary, the Department determines that there was no shift of 
production abroad.
    While the Department has discretion to issue regulations and 
guidance on the operation of the TAA program, the Department cannot 
expand the program

[[Page 64245]]

to include workers that Congress did not intend to cover, such as 
service workers. In 2002, while amending the Trade Act, the Senate 
explained the purpose and history of TAA:

    Since it began, TAA for workers has covered mostly manufacturing 
workers, with a substantial portion of program participants being 
steel and automobile workers in the mid- to late-1970s to early 
1980s, and light industry and apparel workers in the mid- to late-
1990s. In fiscal years 1995 through 1999, the estimated number of 
workers covered by certifications under the two TAA for workers 
programs averaged 167,000 annually, reaching a high of about 228,000 
in 1999, despite a falling overall unemployment rate. During the 
same period, approximately 784 firms were certified under the TAA 
for firms program. Participating firms represent a broad array of 
industries producing manufactured products, including auto parts, 
agricultural equipment, electronics, jewelry, circuit boards, and 
textiles, as well as some producers of agricultural and forestry 
products.

S. Rep. 107-134, S. Rep. No. 134, 107th Cong., 2nd Sess. 2002, 2002 WL 
221903 (February 4, 2002) (emphasis added). Clearly, the language 
suggests that the focus of TAA is the manufacture of marketable goods.
    Congress has recognized the difference between manufacturers and 
service firms and that an amendment to the Trade Act is needed to cover 
workers in service firms. It has recently rejected at least two 
attempts to amend the Trade Act to expand TAA coverage to service 
firms. It did not pass the ``Trade Adjustment Assistance Equity for 
Service Workers Act of 2005'' or the ``Fair Wage, Competition, and 
Investment Act of 2005.'' Most recently, Senator Baucus introduced the 
``Trade and Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act of 2007'' which 
provides for an expansion of coverage to workers in a ``service sector 
firm'' when there are increased imports of services like or directly 
competitive with articles produced or services provided in the United 
States, or a shift in provision of like or directly competitive 
articles or services to a foreign country, and Congressman Rangel 
introduced a similar bill in the House of Representatives that was 
discussed in late October 2007.
    Until Congress amends the Trade Act to cover service workers, the 
worker group seeking TAA certification (or on whose behalf 
certification is being sought) must work for a firm or appropriate 
subdivision that produces an article and there must be a relationship 
between the workers' work and the article produced by the workers' firm 
or appropriate subdivision that produces an article domestically.
    After careful review of the request for reconsideration and 
previously submitted materials, the Department determines that there is 
no new information that supports a finding that Section 222(a)(2) of 
the Trade Act of 1974 was satisfied and that there was no mistake or 
misinterpretation of the facts or the law.

Conclusion

    After review of the application and investigative findings, I 
conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law 
or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department 
of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 6th day of November 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-22321 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P