[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 11 (Thursday, January 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2387-2394]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-1101]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration


Job Training Partnership Act: Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker 
Programs; Proposed Allocation Formula

AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Notice of a proposed updated allocation formula described 
herein, and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Employment and Training Administration is publishing a 
notice of a description of and rationale for a new allocation formula 
for the Job Training Partnership Section 402 migrant and seasonal 
farmworker programs, and a presentation of preliminary State planning 
estimates derived therefrom for Program Year (PY) 1997 (July 1, 1997 
through June 30, 1998). Public comment is requested.

DATES: Written comments on this notice are invited and must be received 
on or before March 3, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments shall be submitted to Director, Office of 
Special Targeted Programs, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. 
Department of Labor, Room N-4641, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20210.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Charles C. Kane, Chief, Division of Seasonal Farmworker Programs. 
Telephone: (202) 219-5500 (this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail: 
<[email protected]>.

I. Introduction, Scope and Purpose of Notice

    This notice is published pursuant to Section 162(d) of the Act, 
which states:
    Whenever the Secretary utilizes a formula to allot or allocate 
funds made available for distribution at the Secretary's discretion 
under this Act, the Secretary shall, not later than 30 days prior to 
such allotment or allocation, publish such formula in the Federal 
Register for comments along with the rationale for the formula and the 
proposed amounts to be distributed to each State and area. After 
consideration of any comments received, the Secretary shall publish 
final allotments and allocations in the Federal Register.
    Thus, this notice represents the first part of a two-stage process. 
Upon receipt of comments from the public regarding this notice, 
modifications to the proposed formula and preliminary planning 
estimates will be considered. In the second stage, the final formula 
and planning estimates will be published in the Federal Register.
    The formula is developed for the purpose of distributing funds 
geographically by State service areas, on the basis of each State 
service area's relative share of persons eligible for the program. 
Beginning with PY 1997, a revised allocation formula is proposed which 
will update the allocation of funds among the States by using more 
current data on the distribution of the farmworker population. The 
revised formula is the result of work done by an Interagency Task Force 
on Farmworker Population Data (Task Force). The Task Force was convened 
by ETA in an effort to refine the allocation formula used since 1986.
    Part II of this notice provides a discussion for public comment of 
the issues associated with farmworker population data, including: a 
description of available farmworker population data sources; a 
discussion of the factors affecting formula construction; and the 
rationale for the proposed formula.
    Part III describes a hold-harmless provision which is proposed to 
be put into place for three years following the implementation of the 
revised allocation formula. The hold-harmless provision is designed to 
provide a staged transition from old to new funding levels for State 
service areas.
    Part IV describes the proposed application of the formula and the 
hold-harmless provision using the PY 97 appropriation. These results 
are presented in a Table appended to this notice.

II. Description of Proposed Allocation Formula

A. Interagency Task Force on Farmworker Population Data

    In April 1994, a special task force was convened to explore options 
for revising the existing formula and its data bases. The Interagency 
Task Force on Farmworker Population Data consisted of specialists in 
the fields of demography, economics, sociology, survey research, 
statistics; an employment and training programs specialist; and a 
representative of JTPA Section 402 grantees. Staff from ETA, the Bureau 
of Labor Statistics, the Economic Research Service of the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of the Census of the U.S. 
Department of Commerce were represented in this group. The Task Force 
was fortunate to include three members of the 1986 Interagency Task 
Force that developed the original allocation formula, which the 
proposed

[[Page 2388]]

formula in this notice revises and updates.
    The Task Force examined a wide variety of issues in considering 
those most important to developing a funding formula. The formula 
proposed in this notice is intended to be responsive to the many 
concerns about and interest in farmworker population data. It 
represents the Task Force's best effort at crafting a funding 
methodology which meets the following statutory and administrative 
requirements:
    (1) The need to use the most current data available on the 
farmworker population distribution among States and counties;
    (2) The need to employ detailed data which enumerate the farmworker 
population at the State level, to correlate with the State-by-State 
geographical level at which funds are allocated; and
    (3) The need to use data which are descriptive and relevant--that 
is, which address the socio-economic conditions, particularly the 
occupations and incomes, experienced by the farmworker population 
served by the JTPA Section 402 program.

B. Discussion of Data Sources

    The following eight data bases were evaluated for possible use in 
the formula distribution of JTPA Section 402 funds: Census of 
Population, Census of Agriculture, National Agricultural Workers 
Survey, Current Population Survey, Farm Labor Survey, Farm Costs and 
Returns Survey, Bureau of Economic Analysis data, and Migrant 
Enumeration Project data. Each is discussed separately below. Three 
measures were applied to each of the data bases. A measure of currency 
determined whether the data bases were composed of more recent or more 
obsolete data. A measure of detail determined whether data bases 
offered descriptions of the farmworker population at national, State 
and county levels. A measure of relevance determined whether data bases 
contain meaningful data on the socio-economic conditions experienced by 
the population. These measures were applied to each data source 
separately, and in combination with others to determine which one or 
ones would be suitable for a revised formula.
1. Census of Population
    Presently, the Decennial Census of Population (COP) is the only 
source of data on the farmworker population that provides information 
on their socio-economic characteristics which is equally available at 
national, State, and county levels. This is perhaps its greatest 
strength. The COP, among other things, counts individuals by 
occupation, industry, income level, and provides the number of family 
members for respondents. All of these are factors associated with 
participant eligibility in the JTPA Section 402 program. Finally, the 
COP has been used, in whole or in part, for the past decade to allocate 
JTPA Section 402 funds. The funding levels to the grant programs which 
now comprise the JTPA Section 402 system have been relatively stable as 
a result.
    The COP also has a number of recognized weaknesses with regard to 
counting the farmworker population. These have been described 
elsewhere, by numerous, knowledgeable critics and this notice contains 
only a brief recapitulation of these problems. The 1990 COP was 
conducted during one reference week period, generally the last week in 
March or the first week in April. The enumeration in early Spring 
occurred at a time during which agricultural activity across the 
country was limited. Occupational questions on the Census form 
concerned the chief job activity during the survey week. Consequently, 
those farmworkers who were unemployed due to the seasonal nature of 
agricultural, or who were employed for a majority of hours in a nonfarm 
occupation, would not be counted as farmworkers by Census enumerators.
    Migrant and seasonal farmworkers as a group, are characterized by 
many members who: have no fixed address; are highly migratory; have 
limited English-speaking abilities; have low educational levels; work 
intermittently in various agricultural and non-agricultural occupations 
during a single year; have only casual employer-employee links; live in 
rural, often remote, areas; and are unfamiliar with or actively 
distrustful of government agencies and agents, such as Census 
enumerators. The consequent non-identification of such individuals as 
farmworkers tended to exacerbate the problem of under-counting this 
population.
    The COP's weaknesses as a measuring instrument also include the 
fact that it occurs decennially and there are no intercensal surveys of 
equivalent breadth. Additionally, measures of the farmworker (or any 
occupationally-defined) population, are the result of projections made 
from a sample (in that case 17 percent of households), not the universe 
of respondents. However, it should be noted that virtually all 
farmworker data sources suffer this weakness. As a mitigating factor, 
the COP is based on a much larger sample of households than any other 
data set.
2. Census of Agriculture
    The Census of Agriculture (COA) conducted every five years, 
measures total hired and contract labor expenses incurred in the 
operation of farms during an entire year. Additionally, there is a 
periodic enumeration of the number of hired (but not contract) workers 
on farms. The COA combined tallies of labor expenditures and number of 
workers, capture virtually all farmworkers who worked for wages. The 
COA also offers the most complete geographic coverage of hired and 
contract farm labor, as measured by labor expenses.
    The weakness of the COA include the fact that no measures of 
individual worker earnings are available. Therefore, it is not possible 
to determine, without additional refinement of these data, the number 
and distribution of the economically disadvantaged farmworkers who are 
the target population for JTPA Section 402 services. Neither does the 
COA record data based on discrete occupations within agriculture, or 
the number of farmworker dependents. The COA expenditure data include 
farm owners/managers, secretaries, clerks and others who are not 
eligible for program services based on their occupation. In the tally 
of hired farmworkers, there is a potential for a duplicate count given 
the high level of turnover in this industry. Finally, there is a 
potential problem of using expenditure data as a proxy for the number 
of farmworkers in the States, since areas with substantial agribusiness 
may have higher unit costs, and higher expenditures do not necessarily 
equate with larger numbers of workers.
3. National Agricultural Worker Survey
    The National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS), published by the 
Department, is conducted three times annually at peak and slack 
agricultural seasons (January, May and September) and surveys a random 
sample of agricultural workers. The NAWS is rich in demographic and 
socio-economic detail, and includes income and family member data.
    The principal weakness of the NAWS is that it does not provide an 
estimate of either the size or the distribution of the farmworker 
population among the States. A secondary weakness is that its 
description of the farmworker population is based on a relatively small 
sample of between 2,000 and 2,700 respondents located in 72 
predominantly agricultural counties in 25 States. Additionally, the 
surveyed respondents work only in perishable

[[Page 2389]]

commodities and the NAWS does not survey farmworkers in livestock 
production; thus, it excludes those livestock workers who may be 
eligible for JTPA Section 402 program services.
4. Current Population Survey
    The Current Population Survey (CPS), published by the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics, is a monthly probability survey based on a random 
sample of about 57,000 households. Earnings questions are directed to a 
subset of the sample households. Although this is the most timely of 
the data sources considered, with regard to the farmworker population, 
the extremely small sample size limits its applicability to the whole 
farmworker population. Furthermore, because of low statistical 
reliability, DOL does not publish State estimates directly from the CPS 
for most States.
5. Farm Labor Survey
    The Farm Labor Survey (FLS), published by the National Agricultural 
Statistics Service, is a quarterly count (for California, Florida, and 
the full United States) of all wage and salary workers on the farm, 
including clerical and maintenance workers, but excluding contract 
workers. The FLS is a probability survey based on a sample of roughly 
15,000 farms. It projects from this sample the average number of 
persons engaged in agriculture in 16 States and 15 regions comprised of 
two or more States. No income information is available from FLS data. 
However, the FLS reports annual average hourly wages for all hired, 
field, field and livestock, and hourly workers. Agricultural service 
workers and contract workers are excluded. The hourly wage rates are 
available for all States except Alaska. The District of Columbia and 
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico also are excluded. These annual wage 
rates are averages of the wage rates for each survey week, weighted by 
the number of hours worked during the week. The annual average is based 
on data collected for January, April, July and October.
6. Farm Costs and Returns Survey
    The annual Farm Costs and Returns Survey (FCRS) data reflect total 
hired and contract labor expenses incurred in the operation of farms 
during the entire year, including expenses for secretaries and 
maintenance workers. No individual income data are available from the 
FCRS, nor are State estimates of the farmworker population derived 
directly from the FCRS. The FCRS data are used to calculate a national 
estimate which is then distributed to the States, primarily by using 
data from the Census of Agriculture.
7. Bureau of Economic Analysis
    Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) data consist of annual estimates 
of all wage and salary workers, including farmworkers and others 
working on a farm, such as clerical and maintenance workers, but 
excluding contract workers. The BEA estimates are based on data from 
the Farm Labor Survey, the Farm Costs and Returns Survey, the Census of 
Agriculture discussed above, and Unemployment Insurance Program data.
8. Migrant Enumeration Project
    The Migrant Enumeration Project (MEP) data on the number of 
farmworkers are developed from a Demand for Labor study sponsored by 
the Office of Migrant Health of the Department of Health and Human 
Services in 1991-92. The formula used in the study is constructed from 
information on crop acreage, hours needed to perform a specific 
operation (e.g. harvest) on one acre of the crop, work hours per 
farmworker per day, and season length for peak work activity. This 
information was collected in counties with a migrant presence. Inter- 
and intra-State duplicate counts are likely with this methodology. The 
number of dependents found by the MEP was calculated based on NAWS 
data. No farmworker income information is available from the MEP.

C. Data Correlation

    To test the cohesion of the various data bases, the Task Force made 
a comparison of relative distributions for those data bases able to 
provide estimates on a State-by-State level. The NAWS was excluded 
because it does not provide estimates of the distribution of 
farmworkers. Analysis revealed a surprising degree of correlation 
(ranging from 0.8 to 0.99) among the data bases as to the relative 
distribution of farmworkers, despite their differing methodologies, 
timing, definitions of farmworkers and scope. The degree of correlation 
deteriorates when data on the large agricultural States of California, 
Florida and Texas are excluded. In particular, with these States 
excluded, MEP and CPS data correlate very poorly with other data sets. 
Even so, the data sets which are proposed for the formula--the COP, the 
FLS and the COA--range in correlation from 0.86 to 0.91 with all States 
included and from 0.64 to 0.80 with California, Florida and Texas 
excluded.

D. Proposed Allocation Formula

    Based on evaluation of the data bases, the Department proposes that 
the data for the allocation of JTPA Section 402 funds among the States 
in PY 1997 will come from the 1990 Census of Population, the 1992 
Census of Agriculture, and the 1992 Farm Labor Survey. These three data 
bases, while limited in the aspects discussed in this notice, 
nevertheless meet the tests of currency, detail, and relevance. The 
Department's decision to continue to use 1990 COP data is, in part, 
based on Section 162(a) of the Act which provides:
    All allotments and allocations under this Act shall be based on the 
latest available data and estimates satisfactory to the Secretary. All 
data relating to economically disadvantaged and low-income persons 
shall be based on 1980 Census or later data.
    One set of data obtained from the 1990 COP and proposed for use in 
the formula, is the number of workers in certain occupational and 
industrial codes associated with agriculture, who reported on the 
Census questionnaire that they earned an income at or below 70 percent 
of the Lower Living Standard Income Level (LLSIL) set by the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics.
    A second component of the formula is labor expenditure from the 
Census of Agriculture 1992. Labor expenditure data are a function of 
wages times hours worked. Since wage rates vary widely by geographic 
area, the proposed formula converts expenditures from an absolute to a 
relative measure by dividing State expenditures by the annual average 
hired farmworker's wage rate in each State to derive an hours-worked 
figure. The wage rate data are from the 1992 Farm Labor Survey. Because 
the FLS does not report on Puerto Rico annual average wages, data for 
on-the-job training hourly wages in agriculture, from the JTPA Section 
402 grantee for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, were used as a 
substitute. Although the COA/FLS data set does not directly measure the 
number of farmworkers, it does provide a measure of total work supplied 
farmworkers, and the Department believes it will serve as an effective 
proxy.
    Of the amounts available for allocation by formula for each program 
year and which will not be set aside for use in technical assistance or 
special projects pursuant to 20 CFR 633.105(b)(2)--
    (1) Fifty percent of the funds would be allocated on a State-by-
State basis using 1990 Census data on the relative share distribution 
of farmworkers

[[Page 2390]]

among the States who: (a) performed eligible farmwork, and (b) were 
economically disadvantaged, defined as family income at or below 70 
percent of the Lower Living Standard Income Level; and
    (2) Fifty percent of the funds would be allocated on a State-by-
State basis according to the relative share distribution of an estimate 
of the total number of hours of farmwork in each State, determined by 
using Census of Agriculture data on the total labor expenditures in 
each State, adjusted by the average annual hourly wage in agriculture, 
derived from the FLS.
    This two-part formula is intended to provide an equitable 
distribution of the funds available for PY 1997 and beyond.

E. Special Tabulation of COP Data

    The State data from the 1992 Census of Agriculture and the Farm 
Labor Survey portions of the formula were taken from published reports 
with no further refinement of data.
    To collect data for the COP portion of the proposed formula, 
several steps were taken. The Department requested a special tabulation 
of 1990 COP data from the Bureau of the Census in the form of a 
selection of Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) and Standard 
Industrial Classification (SIC) codes which contain information 
somewhat different from that used in the current formula.

F. SOC and SIC Codes

    COP equivalents were used to capture individuals in the following 
Standard Occupational Classification codes:

473--farmers, except horticultural
474--horticultural specialty farmers
475--managers, farms except horticultural
476--managers, horticultural specialty farms
477--supervisors, farm workers
479--farm workers
483--marine life cultivation workers
484--nursery workers
485--supervisors, related agricultural occupations
488--graders and sorters, agricultural products
489--inspectors, agricultural products
494--supervisors, forestry and logging workers
495--forestry workers, except logging
496--timber cutting and logging occupations
497--captains and other officers, fishing vessels
498--fishers

    COP equivalents were used to capture individuals in the following 
Standard Industrial Classification codes:

001--agricultural production, crops
002--agricultural production, livestock
007--agricultural services
008--forestry
009--fishing, hunting and trapping
241--logging
515--farm products, raw materials

    The Department attempted to examine the widest possible range of 
workers in agricultural activities in designing its special tabulation. 
Some of the SOC and SIC categories that were considered are new, e.g., 
SOC codes 494-498 and SIC codes 008, 009, 241 and 515. The following 
SOC and SIC codes were deleted as not being representative of the 
population served by the JTPA Section 402 program: SOC 496--timber 
cutting and logging occupations; SOC 497--captains and other officers, 
fishing vessels; SIC 241--logging; and SIC 515--farm products, raw 
materials. One result of the codes selected for the proposed formula is 
that funds would be allocated for Alaska. This is almost solely due to 
a significant number of low income individuals in fishing occupations. 
Under the current formula, Alaska does not receive JTPA Section 402 
funds because of the minimal level of farmwork activity. The Department 
specifically requests comment on which of the above SOC and SIC codes 
are appropriate to be retained for the farmworker population database.
    The special tabulation was built around a number of tables which 
provide discrete information on the farmworker population. Data are 
available on:
    (1) The whole count of farmworkers;
    (2) The count of farmworkers falling below the Poverty Index;
    (3) The count of farmworkers falling below 70 percent of the LLSIL;
    (4) The count of individuals who did any farmwork in 1989; this 
table attempts to capture individuals who, at the time of the Census in 
April 1990 were farmworkers, but who were unemployed and whose last 
chief job was in farmwork;
    (5) The count of farmworker families falling below the Poverty 
Index;
    (6) The count of farmworker families falling below 70 percent of 
the LLSIL;
    (7) The count of farmworker family members falling below the 
Poverty Index; this table is a proxy for farmworker dependents who are 
potentially eligible for JTPA Section 402 program services; and
    (8) The count of farmworker family members falling below 70 percent 
of the LLSIL; this table is a proxy for farmworker dependents who are 
potentially eligible for JTPA Section 402 program services.

G. Other Formula Design Issues

    Following are some of the ancillary issues which surfaced or were 
revisited (from the 1986 formula deliberations) during the preparation 
of the proposed new formula.
1. LLSIL v. Poverty Index
    The special tabulation from the COP provides counts of farmworkers 
falling under the Poverty Index and farmworkers falling under 70 
percent of the LLSIL. In 1986, the Department decided to change from 
the Poverty Index to the LLSIL. The Rationale at the time was that this 
change was consistent with program regulations and the practice of 
programs funded through other Titles of the JTPA. That rationale 
continues to be applicable to the proposed formula. As well, the LLSIL 
count captures a larger absolute number of farmworkers in all States 
with the exception of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode 
Island. These States experience a large reduction in their relative 
share under the LLSIL count. Rhode Island has not received any funding 
under the JTPA Section 402 program, because, under the formula 
currently in place and under the proposed new formula, its share of 
program funds has not been deemed sufficient to effectively operate a 
program. The Department proposes to continue to use the LLSIL as a 
factor in the farmworker count but specifically invites comment on the 
effect of using the LLSIL count with regard to Connecticut, Maine, and 
Massachusetts.
2. SOC v. SIC
    In 1986, the Department opted to use SOC codes to define 
agricultural occupations. The rationale was to exclude those persons 
working in clerical, administrative and technical positions on a farm. 
These latter persons are captured in the SIC codes. The special 
tabulation of 1990 Census data on the farmworker population took a 
different approach to this issue and did a cross-tabulation of 
farmworkers against both the SOC and SIC codes. This process is 
intended to identify all farmworkers, by occupation and by industry, 
and still exclude clerical, administrative and technical workers.
3. Farmworkers v. Family Member (Dependent) Distribution
    The special tabulation of COP data provided a count of farmworker 
family members. Because family members who are dependents of 
farmworkers are eligible for JTPA Section 402 seervices, an argument 
can be made for using the family member distribution, as a proxy for 
dependents, as the basis for

[[Page 2391]]

allocating funds. An analysis of the relationship between the 
farmworker and the family member LLSIL distributions indicates that 
these two distributions track each other very closely. Nineteen States 
would increase their relative shares only slightly under a family 
member distribution from the COP. For these States, the collective 
increase in relative share is less than six percent. Therefore, since 
there are only small differences in the distribution pattern, and 
because it is not possible to separate actual dependents from the COP 
family member count, the Department proposes to use the farmworker 
distribution from the COP in the Section 402 allocation formula.

H. Rationale for Formula Methodology

    The Department proposes to use data from the COP, in part, to 
create a new funding formula because the level of detail, particularly 
for occupation and income, of COP data at the national, State and local 
level is not matched by other data bases. It is the Department's 
position that the strong probability of undercounts and non-
identification inherent in the COP design is remediated by the more 
periodic information collected by the COA and FLS. While use of labor 
expenditure data as a proxy for the number of hired and contract 
farmworkers is less than ideal, no other data are available which reach 
this group. Finally, the COA offers the most complete geographic 
coverage of hired and contract labor use, as measured by labor 
expenditures. The proposed weights of 50 percent for the COP data and 
50 percent for COA/FLS data are suggested as a balanced approach for 
equitably measuring the distribution of the farmworker population.
    The Department's proposed formula is intended to be responsive to 
the statutory and administrative design requirements of currency, 
detail and relevance. In testing the new formula, certain allocation 
differences emerge from the allocation process presently in place. The 
Table appended to the notice compares the States' relative shares for 
the PY 1996 allocation under the current formula and the relative 
shares under the proposed formula. This Table shows some shifts in 
funds, including counter-intuitive shifts of funds from large 
agricultural States to States with a lower presumed presence of 
farmworkers.
    A significant source of differences between funding under the old 
and proposed formulas is the adjustment that was made to the old 
formula as the result of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 
(IRCA). Following the enactment of IRCA, Congress appropriated 
additional sums each year for the JTPA Section 402 program above the 
statutory levels. Conference language each year also directed the 
Department to use some of these additional funds to serve those newly 
legalized individuals admitted under the Special Agricultural Worker 
(SAW) provisions of IRCA. In response, the Department modified the 
purely Census-driven allocation formula to incorporate Immigration and 
Naturalization Service data on SAW applications in the States. The 
States of California, Texas, and Florida, among others, received 
additional sums much above the amount they would have received using a 
straight application of 1980 Census data. SAW data are not proposed for 
use in the new formula because these data are no longer current and no 
longer collected.
    The hold-harmless provision described in Part III of this notice is 
intended to act as a staged transition from old to new funding levels 
which result from the application of the proposed formula.

III. Description of the Hold-Harmless Provision

    For Program Years 1997, 1998, and 1999, the Department intends to 
apply a hold-harmless provision to the allocation formula in order to 
allow a staged transition from the application of the old formula to 
the new one. The staged transition of the hold-harmless provision is 
proposed specifically as follows:
    (1) In PY 1997, each State service area will receive an amount 
equal to at least 90 percent of its relative share of the PY 1996 
allotments as applied to the PY 1997 formula funds available;
    (2) In PY 1998, each State service area will receive an amount 
equal to at least 80 percent of its relative share of the PY 1997 
allotments as applied to the PY 1998 formula funds available; and
    (3) In PY 1999, each State service area will receive an amount 
equal to at least 70 percent of its relative share of the PY 1998 
allotments as applied to the PY 1999 formula funds available.
    Thereafter, allocations to each State service area would be for the 
amount resulting from a direct application of the proposed funding 
formula without adjustment.
    A State area which would receive less than $60,000 by application 
of the formula will receive no allocation because this amount is deemed 
insufficient for sustaining an independently administered program. 
Although the Department has the authority under 20 CFR 633.105(b)(2) 
not to allocate any funds for use in a State jurisdiction whose 
allocation is less than $120,000, it is proposed that any State 
jurisdictions which would receive more than $60,000 but less than 
$120,000 under the proposed formula will be awarded a minimum 
allocation of $120,000 both during and after the hold-harmless period.
    The Department specifically invites comments on the above 
application of the funding floors provided for at 20 CFR 633.105(b)(2).

IV. Program Year 1997 Preliminary State Planning Estimates

    The allocations set forth in the Table appended to this Notice 
reflect the allocation formula described above. For PY 1996, 
$69,285,000 were appropriated for Section 402 migrant and seasonal 
farmworker programs, of which $65,486,767 were allocated on the basis 
of the old formula. The remaining $3,798,233 of the PY 1996 Section 402 
appropriation retained in the Section 402 national account to fund the 
housing program ($2,400,409), the Hope, Arkansas, Migrant Rest Center 
($266,524), and other training and technical assistance projects 
($1,131,300). The figures in the first numerical column show the actual 
PY 1996 formula allocations to State service areas. The next column 
shows the percentage of each allocation.
    The amount appropriated for PY 1997 is the same as it was for PY 
1996 and the amount available for formula allocation remains at 
$65,486,767. For the purpose of illustrating the effects of the 
proposed formula, the third column of the Table shows the allocations 
based on the proposed formula without the application of the hold-
harmless or funding minimum provisions, with the percentages reported 
in column 4. The State service area allocations with the application of 
the first-year (90%) hold-harmless and funding minimum provisions, 
followed by the percentages, are shown in columns 5 and 6.

A. Proposed Formula Allocations (Without Hold-Harmless Provision)

    The $65,486,767 formula total is proposed for allocation in the 
following manner:
    (1) $32,743,383 (fifth percent of the formula total) would be 
allocated on a State-by-State basis using 1990 Census data on the 
relative share distribution of farmworkers among the States who: (a) 
performed eligible farmwork; and (b) were economically disadvantaged, 
defined as family income at or below 70 percent of the Lower Living 
Standard Income Level; and

[[Page 2392]]

    (2) $32,743,383 (fifty percent of the formula total) would be 
allocated on a State-by-State basis according to the relative share 
distribution of an estimate of the total number of hours of farmwork in 
each State, determined by using 1992 Census of Agriculture data on the 
total wages paid to hired and contract farmworkers in each State, 
adjusted by the average annual hourly wage in agriculture, taken from 
the 1992 Farm Labor Survey.

B. Allocations With Hold-Harmless Provision

    To transition State service areas from the current formula to the 
revised formula funding levels, a graduated hold-harmless provision 
would be applied the first three years: at 90 percent the first year, 
at 80 percent the second year, and at 70 percent the third. For PY 
1997, the State service areas will receive at least 90 percent of their 
relative share of the PY 1996 formula, as applied to the PY 1997 
formula total. Since the PY 1996 formula total and the PY 1997 formula 
total are actually the same, the proposed PY 1997 revised formula 
funding of State service areas will result in no less than 90% of the 
PY 1996 funding that was actually allocated under the current formula.
    For the purpose of comparisons, please refer to the table.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 31st day of December, 1996.
Timothy M. Barnicle,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M

[[Page 2393]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16JA97.019




[[Page 2394]]


[FR Doc. 97-1101 Filed 1-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-C