Page:Full Disclosure Appendix, Eighteen Major Cases.djvu/46

 pp. 63–64. The study showed that CRA lending was overall profitable or marginally profitable and that performance of CRA lending activities in general did not differ from mortgage activities not related to CRA. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 2000, pp. 52, 58, 62–63, and 69.

189. These improvements were introduced through subsequent amendments of the Federal Reserve Board’s Regulation C, which implements HMDA.

190. See Apgar and Calder, 2005.

191. See National Community Reinvestment Coalition, 2005, and Association of Community Organiz ations for Reform Now, 2005.

192. Avery, Canner, and Cook, 2005, pp. 344–394.

193. A number of books influential at the time proposed a spectrum of policy solutions. At one end of the policy spectrum, Bluestone and Harrison, 1983, and Magaziner and Reich, 1982, advocated comprehensive “industrial policies” to respond to the lo ss of U.S. manufacturing preeminence. On the other hand, books like McKenzie, 1982, argued that restructuring was a normal feature of an evolving economy and that government inter vention through plant closing legislation could have deleterious effects on economic well-being.

194. Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, Pub. L. 100 –379, August 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 890 (codified at 29 USC §§2101–2109 (2000)). The Department of Labor published final regulations on the law in 20 C.F.R. pt. 639 (2006).

195. Both Congress and state legislatures debated various forms of plant closing legislation from the late 1970s until the passage of WARN. When the legislation was finally passed, President Ronald Reagan chose not to either veto or sign it. For a legislative history, see U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Education and Labor, Legislative History of S. 2527, Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, Public Law 100–379, 100th Cong., 2nd sess., serial no. 101 -K (Washington, D.C .: GPO, 1990).

196. See Ehrenberg and Jakubson, 1990, pp. 39 –46, for a discussion of these critiques.

197. The regulation provides a number of further refinements of these definitions relating to simultaneous employment reductions in multiple units of a company as well as to the length of the employment reductions.

198. See 29 U.S .C. §2102(b)(2)(A) (“unforeseeable” business reasons); 29 U.S.C. §2102(b)2)(B) (natural disasters); 29 U.S .C . §2102(b)(1); and 20 C.F.R . §639.9 . Exemptions also apply in cases relating to transfers or reassignments of employees, sale of a business, or strikes and lockouts. See, for example, 29 U.S .C . §2103(1) (employees hired with understanding that such employment only for the duration of a project that has since been completed); and 29 U.S .C . §2103(2) (strikes or lockouts).

199. The notice must include the name and address of the employ ment site where the closing or layoff will occur, a statement regarding whether the action is permanent or temporary, the expected date of each worker’s termination, the job titles of those affected, and the number of jobs that will be lost in each job classification. See 20 C.F.R. §639.7.

200. Ehrenberg and Jakubson, 1990, p. 44.

201. For a discussion of the limited impact of advanced notification on the universe of employment losses, see General Accounting Office, 2003b.