[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 19, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27390-27402]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-12554]



[[Page 27389]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Department of Labor





_______________________________________________________________________



Employment and Training Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 19, 1999 / 
Notices  

[[Page 27390]]



DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration


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

AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, DOL.

ACTION: Notice of Final Allocation Formula.

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

SUMMARY: On December 22, 1998, the Employment and Training 
Administration (ETA) published a notice in the Federal Register (63 FR 
70795 (Dec. 22, 1998)) of a description of and rationale for a new 
allocation formula for the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), section 
402 and the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), Section 167, migrant and 
seasonal farmworker program and presented preliminary State planning 
estimates derived therefrom for Program Year (PY) 1999 (July 1, 1999 
through June 30, 2000). Public comments were requested at that time. 
The public comment period closed on February 5, 1999. This notice 
responds to the comments and publishes a new allocation formula.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael S. Jones on (202) 219-
8216, Ext. 103 (this is not a toll free number) or via e-mail at 
<[email protected]>, or Mr. Ross Shearer, Jr. on (202) 219-8216, Ext. 
102 (this is not a toll free number) or via e-mail at 
<[email protected]>.

I. Introduction, Scope and Purpose of Notice

    This notice is published pursuant to Section 162(d) of the JTPA, 
which states:
    Whenever the Secretary utilizes a formula to allot or allocate 
funds made available for distribution at the Secretary's discretion 
under the Act, the Secretary shall, not less than 30 days prior to 
allotment or allocation, publish such formula in the Federal Register 
for comment along with the rationale for the formula and the proposed 
amount 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 second stage of a two-stage 
process. The first stage of the process involved the consideration of 
comments from the public regarding the notice which was published on 
December 22, 1998. As a result of these considerations, the Department 
of Labor (DOL) plans to make modifications to the proposed formula. In 
this second stage, the final allocation formula description is 
published in this notice. The resulting planning estimates are 
published herein and include data from updated sources. These data have 
been processed in accordance with the allocation formula methodology 
with adjustments as described herein.
    The formula is developed for the purpose of distributing funds 
geographically by State service area, on the basis of each State 
service area's relative share of persons eligible for the program. 
Beginning with PY 1999, the revised allocation formula will be 
implemented which will improve and update the methodology for 
allocating funds among the States by using more relevant and 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 (Interagency Task Force) and 
the DOL's response to public comments received in response to a January 
16, 1997 Federal Register notice of a proposed updated allocation 
formula for the JTPA, Section 402 program and a December 22, 1998 
Federal Register notice of a proposed updated allocation formula for 
the JTPA, Section 402 and the WIA, Section 167 Migrant and Seasonal 
Farmworker (MSFW) program.
    In developing an allocation formula for the MSFW Program, the DOL 
has a responsibility to use the most current and reliable data 
available. To do so, the DOL sought the advice of experts in 
agricultural economics. This process led to the development of a 
formula which combines data from the Census of Agriculture (COA), the 
Farm Labor Survey (FLS), the National Agricultural Workers Survey 
(NAWS), and the Census of Population (COP). As a result of our 
consideration of the public comments received pursuant to the December 
22, 1998 notice, the DOL will incorporate Unemployment Insurance (UI) 
contributions data from the DOL Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) ES 202 
report into the allocation formula.
    Enumerating farmworkers and estimating their proportion among the 
States is a daunting task. Farmworkers migrate extensively--often 
traveling nearly the length or breadth of the United States during a 
single agricultural season--live in non-standard housing (even seasonal 
farmworkers and migrants who are at their home base), and supplement 
their agricultural wages with nonagricultural employment and 
unemployment insurance (when they are determined eligible). Moreover, 
many farmworkers, including citizens and noncitizens authorized to work 
in the United States, are wary of government. These factors and many 
more, severely complicate the task of allocating funds among the States 
in relationship to potentially eligible farmworkers.
    The current JTPA, Section 402 allocation formula is based primarily 
on the 1980 COP. After passage of the Immigration Reform and Control 
Act (IRCA), the JTPA, Section 402 allocation formula was supplemented 
by incorporating data about the number and site of application for 
Special Agricultural Workers (SAW) whose status was adjusted as a 
result of IRCA. At this time, it is obvious that the 1980 COP and the 
IRCA-based SAW data are neither correct nor relevant.
    From the time the current allocation formula was first introduced, 
it was the subject of concern. Concerns were expressed about the 
current allocation formula methodology because, among other reasons:
     It relied, at least initially, exclusively on the 1980 
COP;
     The only means available to adjust the COP data for the 
JTPA, Section 402 program eligibility was in the inclusion of 
farmworkers employed in certain specifically eligible agricultural 
occupations who also met the Lower Living Standard Income Level (LLSIL) 
poverty guideline;
     The COP was not (and still is not) designed to allow for 
the identification of otherwise JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 
eligible farmworkers who are either absent from the United States 
during the time the COP is taken, or who are engaged in nonagricultural 
activities or unemployed during the COP-reference week;
     The COP was not (and still is not) designed to identify 
persons living in difficult-to-find housing, ``back-of-the house'' 
residences and other non-standard dwellings and living arrangements; 
and,
     The COP did not (and still does not) accommodate 
consideration of other factors relevant to the JTPA, Section 402/WIA, 
Section 167 farmworker population such as specific program eligibility 
criteria.
    Most experts, including officials from the Bureau of the Census at 
the Department of Commerce, acknowledge that the COP does not provide 
an effective enumeration of farmworkers. Consequently, reliance on the 
COP data should be subordinate to the application of other data sources 
that are recognized as providing greater reliability for this purpose.
    While the ETA has been attentive to these concerns, data sources 
and

[[Page 27391]]

scholarship available when the current allocation formula was 
developed, did not offer nationally relevant alternatives. In 
developing this allocation formula, the DOL has sought to allocate MSFW 
program funds in a way that accounts nationally for:
     The identification of JTPA, Section 402-eligible 
farmworkers;
     The time and location of their activities (including the 
amount of time spent by eligible farmworkers doing farmwork versus non-
farmwork); and
     Their turnover rates.
    In developing the new allocation formula, the DOL has not operated 
in a vacuum. The DOL has sought the opinion of experts in the field, 
grantee representatives, and the general public. The DOL is pleased to 
have received comments, input and participation from individuals in 
seventeen States.
    In an effort to ensure that the principals in every JTPA, Section 
402 grantee organization had a thorough understanding of the proposed 
allocation formula and an opportunity to offer meaningful input, the 
Division of Seasonal Farmworker Programs (DSFP) sponsored four 
educational campaign conferences during the summer of 1998--including 
support for the travel and lodging expenses of every attendee. Also, 
throughout the educational campaign process, the DSFP has entertained 
questions and comments from JTPA, Section 402 grantee staff and other 
interested persons via telephone, e-mail and during grantee-sponsored 
and other conferences. This input was considered in the development of 
the proposed allocation formula that was published on December 22, 
1998.
    To achieve an equitable basis for an allocation formula, the DOL 
has sought to draw from a combination of data sources available on 
MSFW's. In devising the proposed allocation formula, the DOL is 
satisfied that the appropriate combination of the best choices of 
available sources of data on MSFW has been achieved.
    The development of this allocation formula was guided by a Task 
Force convened by the ETA's DSFP in 1994. This Interagency Task Force 
included representatives from the DOL's Office of Policy and its Bureau 
of Labor Statistics. Representation from outside the DOL included the 
Bureau of the Census at the Commerce Department, the Economic Research 
Service at the Agriculture Department and the Executive Director of the 
Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs--an association of MSFW 
Program grantees.
    To satisfy our concern about the reasonableness and equity of this 
proposed allocation formula, ETA engaged Dr. Phillip Martin--a widely 
recognized expert in the field of agricultural economics--to review the 
formula proposal and its methodology. He is a Professor of Agricultural 
and Resource Economics at the University of California at Davis, and 
has published extensively on labor migration, economic development, and 
immigration policy issues.
    In evaluating the proposed allocation formula and its methodology, 
Dr. Martin was asked to: (1) determine whether or not a single reliable 
source of data exists from which a count or distribution among grantee 
jurisdictions within the United States of MSFWs approximating the MSFW 
program eligibility criteria could be derived; and, (2) determine the 
adequacy of the proposed allocation formula for the distribution of 
MSFW program funds among grantee jurisdictions in a manner which 
approximates the distribution of farmworkers within the United States 
who meet the MSFW program eligibility criteria. Dr. Martin was also 
asked to provide recommendations, as applicable, for methods by which 
the allocation formula might be enhanced.
    As a result of his review, Dr. Martin concluded that there is no 
better allocation formula available, essentially because the proposed 
allocation formula is better than the current formula, represents the 
best combination of available data sources and satisfies the major 
requirements for allocation formulae of accuracy, transparency (it is 
understandable), and reliance on published data.
    The DOL knows of no single data source that purports to be the 
definitive and comprehensive count of MSFW's in the United States. 
While the DOL is not in a position to make a definitive statement about 
the total number of farmworkers in the United States, the proposed 
allocation formula provides the most accurate means currently available 
to estimate the relative proportion of eligible farmworkers among the 
States.

II. Response to Public Comments

    A total of 66 timely comments were received. Of those, 7 were 
generally supportive and 59 generally expressed opposition to some part 
or all of the allocation formula. Twenty-five letters were received 
after the February 5, 1999 deadline. They were not considered. However, 
the proportions of these letters in terms of factors such as the degree 
of support, the sector represented by the author and the message were 
roughly similar to those of the letters that were received prior to the 
deadline.
    The following is an analysis of the public comments received and 
ETA's response.

A. General Comments

1. Impact of the Allocation Formula and Reduced Funding on Existing 
Programs
    Almost all individuals commenting about or on behalf of program 
jurisdictions where the amount of funding would be reduced as a result 
of the application of this allocation formula, expressed concern about 
the impact of the allocation formula and funding reductions on the 
program in place. A few individuals questioned the validity of the 
proposed allocation formula based on the difference between the results 
of the current and proposed allocation formula.
    The DOL is also concerned about the impact of the allocation 
formula on jurisdictions where funding amounts would be reduced as a 
result of the application of this formula. Accordingly, the 
implementation of this allocation formula incorporates a hold-harmless 
provision to provide for an orderly phase-in to full implementation. 
Similarly, DOL is also concerned about the impact of continuing to use 
an allocation formula based on data, portions of which, are almost 
twenty years old.
    Initially, the DOL had planned to phase in the implementation of 
the allocation formula over a three year period. In doing so (assuming 
future funding as at least equal to PY 1998 levels), states would 
receive no less than 90, 70 and 50 percent, respectively, of PY 1998 
funding during the three program years following implementation. The 
formula would then be fully implemented during the fourth year. Since 
the total amount of funds available to Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico 
are based solely on those jurisdictions' share of LLSIL farmworker as 
reported in the 1990 COP, as applicable, the hold harmless provision 
will be applied to those jurisdictions to the extent practicable. To 
minimize disruption, the DOL has decided to phase in the implementation 
of this allocation formula over a four year period. In doing so 
(assuming future funding as at least equal to PY 1998 levels), states 
would receive no less than 95, 90, 85 and 80 percent, respectively, of 
PY 1998 funding during the four program years following implementation. 
In 2003, it is expected that updated information will be available from 
most of the data sources used in this formula.
    The current allocation data is based on the 1980 COP and IRCA SAW 
data

[[Page 27392]]

which are almost 20 and 13 years old, respectively. Unlike the current 
formula, this revised formula does not simply rely on a static, one-
time snap-shot of the population. The methodology employed in this 
revised formula takes more factors that are specifically relevant to 
the MSFW population into account, such as program eligibility, time and 
location of activity and turnover. In the current formula, the only 
adjustment factor available was for LLSIL poverty for eligible 
farmworker occupations identified in the COP. While it is likely that 
most IRCA SAW applicants met LLSIL poverty guidelines, data was not 
available to make that determination or to screen for other relevant 
eligibility factors.
2. Allocation Formula Results Differ From Results of Locally Available 
Scientific and Survey Research Data and Other Administrative Data 
Sources
    Several individuals commented that local State sources of survey 
research data on farmwork, agricultural industry, National and local-
level administrative data sources on farmworkers and other locally 
available information tended to support different conclusions as to the 
appropriate allocation percentage for their State. In a few instances, 
individuals offered JTPA, Section 402 participant characteristics or 
other sources of data, usually resulting from significant outreach 
efforts, as evidence of their claim. Some individuals argued that, for 
this reason, the data sources used in the allocation formula should be 
reconsidered.
    For the purposes of a nationally applicable MSFW funding formula, 
there are several problems with using national or locally developed 
administrative data resulting from program outreach or service 
delivery. Administrative data based on outreach or service delivery are 
often influenced by available services; program biases, resources, 
capabilities and operating methods; and other factors. Statistically 
valid conclusions about the universe of farmworkers cannot be developed 
from a sample drawn from such data. Typically, such data is not derived 
from random sampling or other techniques designed to ensure that the 
sample is representative of the population. Statistically sound locally 
available State data, to be useful, must be nationally available. 
Accordingly, the use of such data would not provide a consistent basis, 
across jurisdictions, for allocating program funds. According to Dr. 
Martin--the independent consultant engaged by the DOL to review the 
allocation formula--one of the positive qualities of the allocation 
formula is its reliance on published data.
3. Impact of Section 182 of WIA on Allocation Formula
    Several commenters expressed their belief that Section 182 of the 
WIA requires that this allocation formula be based either exclusively 
or significantly on the COP. In recognition of the deficiencies 
associated with the use of the COP as a primary ingredient in the 
development of the allocation formula, some have recommended that the 
DOL seek a technical amendment from the Congress to remove any doubt 
about Congressional intent. Others suggest that the DOL base the 
allocation exclusively on the COP.
    By its own terms, WIA sec. 182(a) applies only to formula 
``allotments to States and grants to outlying areas'' and does not 
apply to grants made under sec. 167. Moreover, even if sec. 182(a) were 
applicable to sec. 167 grants, it does not mandate that the allocation 
formula derive exclusively from Census data. Instead, the statute 
requires that data relating to disadvantaged adults and disadvantaged 
youth be based on the most recent satisfactory Census data available. 
The formula set forth in this notice is indeed based in part on Census 
data. However, as discussed in this notice and in the December 22, 1998 
notice proposing the formula, Census data alone is not a satisfactory 
means to accurately determine the number of migrant and seasonal 
farmworkers in an area. Because of this, it is appropriate and 
necessary for DOL to supplement the Census data with more accurate data 
sources. The use of Census data supplemented by other accurate data 
sources in this formula not only complies with WIA sec. 182(a) it also 
allocates funds in the most rational manner.
4. Modular Nature of Formula Components
    Several individuals commented favorably about the use of the COA 
and the NAWS and the ability to revise the allocation as these data 
sources are updated. It was also recommended that the DOL use the 1997 
COA as soon as it is available.
    One of the characteristics of the revised allocation formula, 
designed to promote continued currency, is the ability to incorporate 
revised data from the allocation formula data sources as they are 
updated. In this regard, the DOL concurs with the recommendation and 
will use the 1997 COA data for hired and contract crop and livestock 
workers for the PY 1999 allocation. As other allocation formula data 
sources are updated and revised, the DOL plans to incorporate that data 
as well.
5. Supportive Comments
    Those who favored the revised allocation formula expressed their 
support, agreed with the conclusion by the DOL contractor (who 
conducted the independent evaluation about the adequacy of the 
allocation formula) that there is no better allocation formula 
available, stated their opposition to the continued use of a formula 
based on 1980 COP data, and recommended the implementation of the 
formula for PY 1999 with a hold harmless provision.
    Other supportive comments acknowledged that the revised formula is 
an improvement over the current formula and can be easily updated. In 
addition, the DOL's use of an Interagency Task Force and an independent 
review was praised.
    One comment urged the DOL and the MSFW Employment and Training 
Advisory Committee to use the development of this allocation formula as 
an opportunity to redefine the size and needs of the customer base. 
This recommendation will be submitted to the Advisory Committee.

B. Allocation Formula Methodology

1. Differential Treatment of Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico
    In the design of the allocation formula, DOL used a different 
method for allocating funds to Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico than was 
used in the 48 contiguous States. As described in the December 22, 1998 
issuance, this differential treatment was due to the fact that all of 
the data sources applied to the formula for the contiguous 48 States 
were not available for those jurisdictions.
    One individual expressed opposition to the differential treatment 
of Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Several other individuals offered 
evidence intended to demonstrate that anomalies in the data sources, as 
related to their program jurisdictions, were sufficient to justify 
treatment similar to that which is being applied to Alaska, Hawaii and 
Puerto Rico.
    As much as the DOL would like to treat all jurisdictions exactly 
the same with respect to the data sources used to allocate funds, since 
all data sources used in the formula are not available for Alaska, 
Hawaii and Puerto Rico, it is not possible to accord those 
jurisdictions similar treatment. Conversely, all of the data sources 
used in the allocation formula are available for the 48 contiguous 
states. Furthermore, the DOL does not believe that any limitations in

[[Page 27393]]

the quality of the data available for the 48 contiguous states warrant 
treatment similar to that which is being applied to Alaska, Hawaii and 
Puerto Rico. As explained in the December 22, 1998 proposal, the DOL 
believes that the treatment for Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico is a 
reasonable and equitable alternative.
2. Inclusion of the State of Oklahoma in Delta Southeast Agricultural 
Region
    We received comments in opposition to ETA's decision to include the 
State of Oklahoma with the Delta Southeast (DSE) agricultural region 
for the purpose of this allocation formula. The State of Oklahoma is in 
the Southern Plains (SP) agricultural region. However, when the 
Interagency Task Force reviewed preliminary allocation formula data, 
some task force members expressed a concern that because of differences 
between Oklahoma and Texas in terms of the characteristics of farm 
laborers, that Oklahoma should be either treated as a separate 
agricultural region or included with an agricultural region with more 
similar agricultural labor patterns. Available data was not sufficient 
to treat Oklahoma as a separate agricultural region. Accordingly, the 
Task Force recommended, and ETA concurred, that Oklahoma should be 
included with the DSE agricultural region because of similarities in 
agricultural labor.
    Commenters offered comparisons of crop, labor, harvesting, 
cultural, and weather patterns and practices between Oklahoma and the 
SP agricultural region versus Oklahoma and the DSE region to show that 
Oklahoma had more similarities with the SP region than the DSE region 
and should, as a result, be included with the SP agricultural region. 
The validity and applicability of some of the arguments provided was 
equivocal; however, ETA discussions with USDA and other private 
agricultural labor specialists suggest that while there are noticeable 
differences between the agricultural labor patterns in Oklahoma and 
Texas, there are more similarities between Oklahoma and SP than there 
are between Oklahoma and DSE. Moreover, since there is not overwhelming 
evidence to support the decision to include Oklahoma with DSE, the 
transparency of the allocation formula is enhanced and the principle of 
consistent treatment is reinforced by not making ad hoc alterations in 
the agricultural regions for the purpose of this formula. Accordingly, 
ETA has decided to revise the allocation formula to include Oklahoma 
within the SP agricultural region.
3. Complexity
    Several individuals expressed concern about the complexity of the 
allocation formula. We acknowledge that the formula is complex. 
Primarily, this complexity is a result the nature of agricultural labor 
in the United States, the current status of scholarship on this topic 
and the lack of a single source of data on JTPA, Section 402/WIA, 
Section 167 eligible hired and contract farm labor that account for 
factors such as program eligibility, time and location of activity and 
turnover. The current approach and an earlier allocation formula 
proposal relied on a much simpler design. Critiques of both have 
focused on their lack of relevance to the population. As described 
earlier, to promote a greater understanding of the formula, DSFP 
sponsored a series of workshops for representatives of JTPA, Section 
402 grantee organizations.
4. Equity and Validity
    Another comment suggested that the allocation formula should not be 
used because it results in unfair allotments among recipients. However, 
no specific inequities were identified. A comment suggested that, since 
the number of eligible farmworkers cannot be known, the accuracy of the 
formula cannot be evaluated.
    The DOL believes that, considering the status of scholarship on 
this topic and the availability of data, the proposed allocation 
formula is as fair and equitable as possible. The DOL plans to make 
several adjustments in the allocation formula based on comments from 
the public and follow-up research. The additional adjustments will 
enhance the precision and accuracy of the formula. Further, the DOL 
believes that this allocation formula is vastly superior to the one 
that is currently in place.
5. Future Consideration
    One comment expressed disagreement with a recommendation by Dr. 
Martin, the DOL contractor who provided the independent evaluation of 
the allocation formula. Dr. Martin recommended that ``as UI coverage is 
extended to more farm workers, the DOL may want to consider using UI 
data on wages paid rather than COA data and thus avoid the issues 
related to payments made to family members and fringe benefits.'' The 
commenter objected to this recommendation because of concerns about 
limited availability of data at the State level and differences in UI 
coverage for MSFWs among the States. Dr. Martin and the DOL understand 
the current limitations associated with using UI data for wages paid 
rather than COA data. However, in the future, these limitations may be 
overcome. Accordingly, the DOL concurs with Dr. Martin's recommendation 
and will consider the appropriateness of using UI data as a component 
of the allocation formula in the future when such use is feasible.

C. Census of Agriculture

1. Appropriateness of Using COA Hired Farm and Contract Labor Farm 
Production Expense Data
    A number of comments questioned the validity and/or appropriateness 
of using COA hired farm and contract labor farm production expense data 
for crop and livestock farmworkers as a proxy for wage data. Those 
commenting on this point raised a number of issues.
    Many argued that COA hired and contract labor production expenses 
are not exclusively wages, and, therefore, include workers' 
compensation, unemployment insurance, other fringe benefits and payroll 
taxes, and the related salaries, fringe benefits and payroll costs of 
officers, managers and administrative personnel--which might tend to 
overstate the relative proportion of wages in some areas and understate 
them in others. Among those making this point, some suggested that 
these expenses were greater in Western States where the prevalence of 
large corporate agricultural establishments is more significant. Others 
suggested that farmworkers in other parts of the country--the East, 
Southeast and elsewhere--generally did not receive UI, workers' 
compensation and other employment benefits to the same degree as 
farmworkers in the Western States. Further, some commented that it was 
more likely that hired and contract labor production expenses 
associated with payments to officers, managers and administrative 
personnel would be more significant in States with larger agricultural 
establishments.
    A number of recommendations were made. They included:
     Identification and subtraction of UI and workers' 
compensation payments by State--made on behalf of hired and contract 
crop and livestock workers from COA hired and contract labor farm 
production expenses.
     Collaboration with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to 
collect and use wage only data for crop and livestock workers.
     Use hired labor figures instead of production figures and 
work with USDA to obtain unduplicated count of hired labor.

[[Page 27394]]

    It is possible to identify and extract UI payroll tax payments made 
on behalf of hired crop and livestock workers from COA data. The DOL 
intends to accomplish this by using 1996 BLS State-level ES-202 data 
for hired crop and livestock workers to determine the amount of UI 
payroll tax payments to be subtracted from the COA farm production 
expense totals for crop and livestock workers in each State.
    A similar adjustment is not possible for contract workers because 
ES-202 data collection and reporting does not always associate UI tax 
payments made on behalf of contract crop workers with the State where 
the corresponding work is performed. The State or States where UI 
payroll tax is reported by labor contractors on behalf of their workers 
depends on many factors including where the labor contractors form 
their crews; when and where UI tax liability is established; when and 
where additional members are added to a crew; and whether or not, where 
and how often, the crew leader and members function as employees of an 
agricultural establishment.
    The DOL also explored the feasibility of identifying and extracting 
workers' compensation insurance premiums from COA farm production 
expenses for crop and livestock hired and contract labor. Unlike with 
UI, there is no central workers' compensation insurance premium data 
collection apparatus at the federal level. Data on premiums paid or due 
is not available by SIC code in every State. Moreover, some 
agricultural establishments use liability insurance in lieu of workers' 
compensation. Those premium costs are even more elusive. (These non-
workers' compensation insurance costs are also likely to be reported as 
labor expenses to the COA.) Inasmuch as workers' compensation insurance 
premiums paid on behalf of hired and contract crop and livestock 
workers cannot be identified in a uniform manner across the States, an 
adjustment based on workers compensation premiums will not be made.
    Currently, the COA does not include a question that requires 
agricultural establishments to report only the wages of crop and 
livestock hired and contract laborers. It is theoretically possible to 
add a question to the COA requesting agricultural establishments to 
provide the wages of their hired workers.
    Obtaining the wages of contract workers through a question posed to 
agricultural establishments would present a significant challenge, 
since owners of agricultural establishments would only have access to 
their cost of procuring contract labor and not the wages paid by the 
contractor to the crew. As such, the value of data resulting from such 
a question would be limited.
    Obtaining wage-only information for hired farmworkers could be done 
by adding the question to a future sample survey of agricultural 
producers or adding the question to the 2002 COA. The costs associated 
with adding a wage question to a future sample survey or the next COA 
is prohibitive given the size of the appropriation for this program. 
However, the USDA could decide to add such a question in the future if 
that action was consistent with its research interest or if the 
addition of such a question satisfied a significant public interest. At 
this point, wage-only data is not available and the DOL is not prepared 
to defer the implementation of this allocation formula pending the 
possible future availability of this data.
    It was also suggested that the DOL consider using the number of 
hired farm labor workers reported in the COA who worked less than 150 
days in lieu of using farm production expenses. This suggestion was 
considered and rejected, since the suggested data are actually the 
number of job slots that were filled for less than 150 days. It is not 
reasonable to use this figure as a count of farmworkers as it is rife 
with duplication. Further, these data exclude contract labor. Another 
comment suggested that the DOL work with USDA to eliminate the 
duplication from the hired farm labor worker figure. This is a daunting 
task and no one consulted by the DOL had a clear idea of how it could 
be accomplished in an economically reasonable fashion.
    Some of those commenting expressed a concern about piece rate wages 
relative to hourly wages because of potential under-reporting of hours 
by employers in order to mask potential wage and hour violations. The 
DOL is not aware of any data available to adjust COA production expense 
data for hired and contract labor which can account for under-reporting 
of labor hours worked paid at piece rate wages. In addition, the 
severity of this problem varies from region to region. The DOL is not 
aware of any data which allows adjustments to the geographic variances 
in the under-reporting of piece rate labor hours.
    Some of those commenting expressed concerns about the use of COA 
production expense data for hired and contract labor because it is 
based on a 25 percent sample of agricultural employers. Despite these 
concerns, the COA sample size is adequate to produce statistically 
valid production expense data for hired and contract labor.
    Many individuals expressed concerns that COA hired and contract 
labor expense data may not include:
     Sharecroppers, farmworkers paid for their agricultural 
labor in cash, farmworkers paid for their agricultural labor with 
commodities and services, and other individuals who perform farmwork 
through unspecified informal arrangements;
     Farmworkers employed by third-party harvesters (processing 
firms and packing houses) and independent buyers (pinhookers), 
intermediaries (bird dogs), crew leaders, and other similar 
agricultural entrepreneurs; and
     Farmwork performed by homeless individuals.
    With respect to the requirement to report the production expense 
costs associated with the labor of crop workers hired by third-party 
harvesters and independent buyers in the COA, the following has been 
learned. Where the employer is a third-party harvester or independent 
buyer and also operates an agricultural establishment, the production 
expenses associated with the crop workers employed to do harvesting, 
are includable in that harvester's or buyer's COA survey. Where the 
employer is an independent buyer, who does not operate an agricultural 
establishment but purchases the crops harvested by the producer, labor 
costs are reportable by the producer.
    The DOL is not aware of any data that could be used to adjust the 
COA hired or contract labor production expense data to account for the 
degree to which owners of agricultural establishments might fail to 
report or inaccurately report production expenses for farm labor costs 
in the COA for some types of workers. Similarly, the DOL is not aware 
of any scientific data which would provide a basis for adjustment for 
crop or livestock workers who are paid in cash or through other 
informal means. Therefore, while this is a valid concern, we are unable 
to perform a statistically valid adjustment to account for this kind of 
labor practice.

D. National Agricultural Workers Survey

    Generally, comments received pertaining to the NAWS can be grouped 
in two categories: (1) methodology and limitations, and (2) 
applicability to the allocation formula. Comments pertaining to the 
NAWS and DOL's response are described below.

[[Page 27395]]

1. National Agricultural Workers Survey Methodology and Limitations
(a) Lack of Public Access to the NAWS Raw Data
    Some comments expressed concerns about the lack of public access to 
the NAWS raw data. The NAWS raw data is protected by privacy 
restrictions, and therefore cannot be provided.
(b) Scope of the NAWS
    Some of those providing comments argue that the NAWS was designed 
to develop a National estimate of demographic earnings and mobility 
patterns, etc. and was never intended to count farmworkers or provide 
State and local labor market information.
    Some commenters expressed concerns about using the NAWS in the 
allocation formula because the NAWS surveys were not done in every 
State within every agricultural region. Generally, those comments 
questioned the validity of the result of the NAWS-based adjustments 
because they do not agree that agricultural labor and cultural 
practices within their State and/or among the States in their 
respective agricultural regions are sufficiently homogeneous to support 
the use of the methodology employed in this allocation formula. Related 
to this concern, one commenter suggested that, because of the limited 
scope of the NAWS, the eligibility adjustment should only be used as a 
temporary measure until the quality of the survey data are verified as 
reasonable and consistent across States.
    In response to this concern, the DOL will provide information on 
the statistical validity of the NAWS adjustments at the time the PY 
1999 preliminary state planning estimates are published.
(c) Inclusiveness of the NAWS Data
    Some of those commenting suggest that the NAWS does not include 
dependents of farmworkers, misidentifies female farmworkers, and fails 
to include fruit packinghouse workers. A few of those noted that they 
based this conclusion on a comparison of the characteristics of JTPA, 
Section 402 participants served by their program and the NAWS survey 
results. Contrary to these concerns, the NAWS survey does include 
farmworkers who may also be dependents, properly identifies females and 
includes fruit packinghouse workers. The NAWS also includes information 
on family size and composition. It should be noted, however, that the 
DOL made the determination not to explicitly include dependents, other 
than those who also are identified consequent to their own farmwork 
status.
    It is not surprising that the results from the NAWS would tend to 
be different from JTPA, Section 402 administrative records. The NAWS is 
a scientifically drawn sample of the universe of MSFW. Conversely, 
administrative records of participants served are not a representative 
sample of the population and as such cannot be used to draw valid 
conclusions about the composition of the universe.
(d) Expansion of the NAWS to Include Livestock and Other Workers
    One individual recommended that the NAWS be expanded to incorporate 
livestock and other workers. This recommendation was provided to the 
DOL economist responsible for the NAWS.
2. Use of the National Agricultural Workers Survey in This Allocation 
Formula
(a) NAWS-Based Adjustment Factors
    A substantial number of comments were received about the DOL's use 
of the NAWS data in the allocation formula to make adjustments for 
program eligibility, time and location of activity, and turnover. One 
comment suggested that the use of the NAWS data for adjustment purposes 
is a weakness in the formula. Some recommended that the DOL should not 
use the NAWS in the allocation formula. A number of people suggested 
that the NAWS should only be used to adjust to COA data for program 
eligibility and not for migration and turnover--which were 
characterized by some as so-called policy-driven adjustments.
    Some of those commenting believe Florida is penalized by these 
adjustments because of its long growing season and internal migration. 
Some advocate that a special adjustment be made for Florida. Some 
advocate that Florida should be treated in the same manner as Alaska, 
Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Others advocate either that all adjustments or 
adjustments 2 and 3 only, not be applied to COA data for Florida. Other 
comments suggested that the result of adjustment 2 and 3 was to place a 
higher value on migrants.
    Adjustment 2 (time and location of activity or ``downtime'') 
accounts for time spent by eligible crop workers in a particular region 
while they are engaged in non-agricultural employment or are not 
working. This adjustment is relevant to an allocation formula related 
to the distribution of resources for a migrant and seasonal farmworker 
program because these farmworkers are JTPA 402/WIA 167 eligible when 
not doing farmwork. Unlike a more single-point-in-time or snap-shot 
type data source such as the COP, this NAWS-based adjustment accounts 
for the time an eligible farmworker spends in a region while he or she 
is not engaged in agriculture.
    Adjustment 3 (turnover rate) accounts for the difference in length 
of employment by crop farmworkers. This adjustment is relevant to an 
allocation formula related to the distribution of funds for a migrant 
and seasonal farmworker program because not all farmwork jobs are for 
the same duration of time and the number of farmworkers employed for a 
unit of time varies by agricultural region. This adjustment allows the 
formula to determine the relative number of eligible workers in each 
region as opposed to total time spent by eligible workers in the 
region. As with Adjustment 2, a snap-shot data source, such as the COP, 
is not capable of accounting for this variance.
    Using data from the COA alone, such adjustments would not be 
possible. If any of the three NAWS-based adjustments were eliminated 
from the allocation formula methodology, there would be far less 
relationship between the resulting allocations and the distribution of 
the farmworker population in terms of MSFW program eligibility, 
migration patterns, and regional/State characteristics of agricultural 
employment.
    Florida is not penalized by the adjustments because of its long 
growing season or internal migration pattern. A major influence on 
Florida's allocation is based on the tendency of Florida farmworkers to 
leave the State immediately after their agricultural employment. 
Moreover, the data show that a relatively high percentage of Florida 
farmworkers do not meet program eligibility. Furthermore, the DOL does 
not believe that any limitations in the quality of the data available 
for the 48 contiguous states warrant treatment similar to that which is 
being applied to Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico.
(b) Work Authorization
    Some comments expressed concerns about the high percentage of crop 
workers in their respective region who, according to the NAWS data, 
lack work authorization.
    Statistically valid conclusions pertaining to work authorization 
and other related factors can be drawn from the NAWS data. The 
statistical validity of the NAWS findings related to their use in this 
allocation formula are

[[Page 27396]]

presented in Section II. D1 (b) of this notice.
(c) Relationship Between the NAWS Data and JTPA, Section 402/WIA, 
Section 167 Eligibility
    Some comments expressed concern with the use of the NAWS data for 
eligibility adjustment purposes because the NAWS data does not exactly 
match the JTPA, Section 402 eligibility criteria.
    Available NAWS data does not exactly match the JTPA, Section 402/
WIA, Section 167 eligibility criteria. Under JTPA, Section 402/WIA, 
Section 167, a determination of qualifying farmwork can include any 
consecutive 12 month period out of the 24-month period prior to 
enrollment.1 The NAWS respondent work history only includes 
the 12-month period prior to the conduct of the survey interview. 
Further, under JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167, to be considered a 
farmworker, an individual would have to have earned at least $400 from 
farmwork. The NAWS can determine if someone earned at least $500 from 
farmwork.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under certain circumstances (military service, 
hospitalization, incapacitation, incarceration, etc.), the period in 
which the 12-month eligibility determination is made may be extended 
beyond two years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NAWS is the only relevant, statistically valid, national source 
of demographic and socio-economic information on the farmworker 
population. Since there is no source of data specifically designed to 
enumerate JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 eligible farmworkers, it 
is not surprising that there would not be an exact match between data 
source elements and MSFW eligibility criteria. The DOL is aware of the 
differences between the NAWS data elements and MSFW program 
eligibility. The differences are considered to be minor and 
insignificant.
(d) Other NAWS Use Issues
    Some comments challenge the validity of the allocation formula 
based on a comparison of the relative geographical sizes of States. No 
component of this allocation formula is based on the relationship among 
States in terms of geographical size. The relevant issue is a State's 
proportional share of the relative number of eligible farmworkers and 
not the size of an area.
    Another comment expressed a concern about a NAWS finding that the 
DSE agricultural region has a higher than average wage rate. However, 
the finding question was not derived from the NAWS. The finding results 
from FLS and COA data.

E. Other Farmworkers

    One individual recommended the elimination of forestry and fishery 
workers from the allocation formula and that the weight assigned to 
crop and livestock workers be redistributed excluding other workers. 
The individual argued that forestry and fishery workers are not 
farmworkers. Including forestry and fishery workers as farmworkers 
would confuse the definition of farmwork and stretch its credibility.
    The DOL concurs with this comment. Accordingly, the final 
allocation formula will not include forestry and fishery workers. The 
weight assigned to crop workers and livestock workers in the final 
allocation will be based on the relative share of COP LLSIL crop and 
livestock workers only.

F. Minimum Funding Provision

    Several individuals commented that the DOL should continue the use 
of the minimum funding level. Using arguments based on economy of scale 
and the practices of other funding sources, those commenting on this 
issue suggested that the minimum funding amount be increased from 
$120,000 to between $240,000 and $300,000.
    This allocation formula is designed to allocate funds based on the 
DOL's best assessment of the relative distribution of MSFW's among the 
States. If the existing $120,000 minimum funding allocation strategy 
were used, based on the results of the allocation formula, some States 
would receive funding in excess of twice the amount of their formula-
based allocation. In situations where the allocation for a particular 
area would be insufficient to qualify it for a separate grant, the DOL 
does not believe that reasonable combinations of geographically-
contiguous jurisdictions would compromise the provision of high quality 
workforce investment activities benefitting farmworkers.

III. Final Allocation Formula--Detailed Description

    A detailed description of the proposed JTPA, Section 402/WIA, 
Section 167 allocation formula follows:

A. Standardized or Adjusted Hours of Farmwork by State

    The standardized or adjusted hours of farmwork by State involves 
determining the relative number of hours worked by Crop Workers and by 
Livestock Workers in each State.
1. Establish The Total Wage 2 Bill for Each State for Crop 
and Livestock Work
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Hired and contract labor agricultural production expenses 
for crop and livestock farmworkers are used as a proxy for wages as 
wage only is not available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Data from the 1997 Census of Agriculture 3 provide the 
total agricultural labor production expenses (SICs 01 and 02) by State, 
and the total crop labor (SIC 01) production expenses, by State. The 
livestock labor (SIC 02) production expenses are calculated by 
subtracting the crop labor production expenses from the total labor 
production expenses. 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Data from the 1997 Census of Agriculture was not available 
when the allocation formula proposal was published.
    \4\ This reported data includes hired and contract labor. The 
contract labor data includes the contractor's management expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    COA production expense data is used as a proxy for agricultural 
wages as data on wages paid to hired and contract agricultural crop and 
livestock workers is not available on a National basis. It has been 
argued that agricultural production expense data include elements that 
are not applied on a uniform basis to all crop and livestock worker 
wages. Since it is possible to identify unemployment insurance 
contributions paid on behalf of hired crop and livestock workers by 
State, with a strong degree of precision, Unemployment Insurance 
payments made on behalf of hired crop and livestock workers will be 
subtracted from the State production expense totals.
2. Calculate the Hours Worked in Crop Work and in Livestock Work for 
Each State
    The Farm Labor Survey (FLS) as reported in USDA's Farm Labor 
provides information by region on the average hourly wage, separately, 
for crop workers and livestock workers. To calculate an approximate 
number of hours worked by crop workers and livestock workers, the total 
production expense for each State is divided by the hourly wage for 
that State's region. These calculations were made for both crop workers 
and livestock workers. This calculation was done for all States except 
for Alaska and Hawaii. 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In the design of the allocation formula, DOL used a 
different method for allocating funds to Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto 
Rico than was used in the 48 contiguous States because all of the 
data sources applied to the formula for the contiguous 48 States 
were not available for those jurisdictions.

[[Page 27397]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MY99.015


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MY99.016

3. Determination of the Relative Share of Labor Hours for Each State
    The  percentage of labor hours (for crop work, and for livestock 
work) that each State contributes to the United States' total was 
calculated. This is done by dividing each State's total for crop labor 
bill by the State's average for crop wages and each State's total for 
livestock labor bill by the State's average for livestock wages. The 
percentage for crop and livestock hours of each State is calculated by 
dividing the State's hours for each into the total for all States for 
each.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Data organized under the US Department of Agriculture 
Regions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Crop Hours Adjustments

    The crop hours adjustment accounts for JTPA, Section 402/WIA, 
Section 167 program eligibility, time and location of activity by 
eligible farmworkers and turnover rate.
1. Adjustment 1--Eligibility for JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 
Program
    Adjustment 1 applies JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 eligibility 
criteria to the NAWS information for the purpose of adjusting the crop 
worker figures for JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 eligibility.
(a) Primary Employment in Agriculture: 50 Percent of Income Derived 
From Crop Farmwork
    Eligibility for the JTPA, Section 402 program requires that at 
least 50 percent of a farmworker's income be derived from agricultural 
employment. For the WIA, Section 167 program, the comparable 
requirement calls for primary employment in agriculture. For the 
purpose of this allocation formula, deriving at least 50 percent of 
income from crop farmwork, is being used as the basis for this facet of 
the adjustment.
    The NAWS collects information from all respondents regarding their 
total personal income, including their income derived exclusively from 
agricultural employment. In lieu of specifying an exact dollar amount, 
the NAWS respondents are asked to choose from among a number of stated 
ranges within which he or she believes his/her total family income 
falls (most ranges cover a span of $2,500).
    To determine the percentage of a farmworker's income that is 
derived from agricultural employment, reported agricultural income was 
divided by total earned income. A result of 50 percent or greater 
indicates that half or more of the farmworker's income came from 
agricultural employment.
    In order to formulate a number that could be used in such an 
equation, the midpoint of the income range was assigned as the dollar 
value of the farmworker's income. For example, a respondent indicates 
that his total income for the previous year fell in the range of 
$10,000 to $12,499, and his income from agricultural employment fell 
within the $7,500 to $9,999 range. The dollar value assigned as the 
respondent's total income would be the midpoint of $10,000 to $12,499, 
or $11,250, and the dollar value assigned as the respondent's 
agricultural income would be the midpoint of the $7,500 to $9,999 
range, or $8,750. The percentage of total income that came from 
agricultural income would be calculated using the two mid-point figures 
by dividing the agricultural income figure of $8,750 by the total 
income figure of $11,250. The result in this example being 78 percent, 
would qualify the hypothetical farmworker as meeting this eligibility 
criterion.
    The LLSIL poverty criteria values used are the highest national 
(except Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico) non-metro limit for each family 
size. The calculation uses the higher of the Health and Human Services 
or LLSIL values. For example, for family sizes of 1 to 6, the values 
applied, are as follows: $7,360, $10,520, $14,440, $17,820, $21,030, 
and $24,600.
(b) Primary Employment in Agriculture: 25 Days or $400 of Crop Farmwork 
in Previous 24 Months
    To be eligible for the JTPA, Section 402 program, a farmworker must 
be employed at least 25 days in farmwork for any consecutive 12-month 
period within the 24 months preceding application for enrollment, or 
have earned $400 in farmwork and have been primarily employed in 
farmwork on a seasonal basis. For the WIA, Section 167 program, the 
comparable requirement calls for primary employment in agricultural 
labor characterized by chronic unemployment or underemployment 
(seasonal employment). For the purpose of this allocation formula, 
working at least 25 days in crop agriculture or earning at least $400 
from crop agriculture during the previous 12 months, is being used as 
the basis for this facet of the adjustment.
    The NAWS collects information on farmworkers' periods of employment 
and non-employment for the twelve months prior to the interview. From 
this information, one is able to construct the number of days during 
these twelve months that the NAWS respondent worked in farmwork.
    For months 13 through 24 prior to the interview, the respondent is 
asked to estimate the number of months in which he or she worked in 
farmwork; one day or more worked per month equals one month. A NAWS 
respondent who stated that he/she had worked for two or more months in 
farmwork during the 13 through 24 month period is considered to have 
worked 25 days in agricultural employment.
    As mentioned previously, the NAWS collects information on 
farmworkers' income from agricultural employment from the previous 
year. As the responses to this question are categorical (as discussed 
above), the NAWS does not have exact amounts earned by farmworkers. The 
lowest category is ``under $500.'' Thus, $500 is used as the minimum 
amount earned from farmwork (rather than $400). Income information is 
available only for the one year period preceding the NAWS interview.
    To satisfy this criterion for eligibility for the JTPA, Section 
402/WIA, Section 167 program, a farmworker must fulfill one of the 
three standards elaborated above: either he/she worked 25 days or more 
in the 12 months prior to the interview; or he/she worked two months 
during the 13 through 24 month period prior to the interview; or he/she 
earned $500 or more from farmwork in the past year.
(c) Below the LLSIL Poverty Line
    Eligibility for the JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 program 
requires that a crop farmworker and his/her family fall below the LLSIL 
poverty line. Because the NAWS collects information

[[Page 27398]]

on the number of members in a farmworker's household as well as the 
farmworker's total family income, the NAWS is able to estimate whether 
the income of the farmworker's family places the family below the LLSIL 
poverty line. A family was determined to fall within the LLSIL poverty 
line when the family income fell within an income category below the 
one in which the LLSIL poverty line fell. For example, the LLSIL 
poverty line for a family of 4 individuals was $18,740. This amount 
falls in the income range of $17,500 to $19,999. Thus, a family of 4 
individuals whose family income falls below this range was considered 
to satisfy the criterion of falling below the LLSIL poverty line. 
7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The LLSIL consists of differing metropolitan and rural 
levels reflective of varying costs-of-living among differing 
metropolitan and rural regions. However, to facilitate the 
application of the NAWS data to this formula, and since many 
farmworkers earn income in more than one State, a single national 
standard is applied for each family size that is the highest rural 
level for each family size. For a family size of one, however, the 
HHS poverty level was used, as it is higher than the LLSIL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(d) Legal or Pending Status
    The NAWS collects information on crop farmworkers' citizenship and 
work authorization status. A farmworker was considered to satisfy the 
criterion of legal status for the JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 
program if he/she was determined to be a citizen or a legal permanent 
resident, or if he/she held a valid form of work authorization. A 
farmworker who was determined to be undocumented was not considered to 
fulfill this eligibility criterion.
    Individuals who met all four of the criteria stated above were 
coded as eligible for the JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 program.
    In summary, adjustment 1 (the JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 
eligibility ratio) is a ratio which adjusts total crop hours worked to 
account for hours worked by JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 eligible 
farmworkers. This ratio is the total number of farmwork days (as 
measured in the NAWS) worked by JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 
eligible crop workers divided by the total number of farmwork days 
worked by all crop workers. This ratio is always less than one, and it 
is multiplied by the hours worked by all crop workers to produce the 
estimated hours worked by JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 eligible 
farmworkers for each region.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MY99.017

2. Adjustment 2--Time and Location of Activities
    For all the NAWS respondents, the following data are collected 
separately by geographic location:

the number of days that respondents spent doing crop farmwork and 
doing the other activities reported under the NAWS, consisting of 
non-farmwork, not working, or living abroad.

    These data permit adjusting for State-to-State movements of crop 
workers during a 12 month period. For each of these items except living 
abroad, the days were accumulated under the regions 8 in 
which the respondents indicated they occurred. These regions are the 
regions used for the wages in the previous step.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Regions were used because there were some States with 
few or no observations and the data is not reliable below the 
regional level. Alaska and Hawaii, each single State regions, were 
not included in this calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Adjustment 2 (time and location of activity) accounts for the time 
spent by crop workers in non-agricultural employment and time not 
employed to provide a percentage of JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 
eligible non-crop work time in each region. This is a ratio always 
greater than 1 that is calculated for each USDA region by dividing the 
sum of the number of days JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 eligible 
respondents reported working as crop workers, not working and working 
in nonagricultural work by the total number of days reported working as 
crop workers.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MY99.018

    To compute the total time that crop workers spent in each State, 
the number of hours worked by JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 
eligible crop workers (the result of applying adjustment 1) is 
multiplied by Adjustment 2 to provide the time spent in each State by 
eligible crop workers.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MY99.019

    3. Adjustment 3--Annual Crop Employment
    To this point, the figures are aggregations that could be converted 
into annual units of eligible hours for each State, but such units do 
not translate directly into the numbers of jobs or of farmworkers. This 
is due to regional variations in the seasonal, short-term nature of 
farmwork employment and the high probability of farmworkers holding 
multiple farmwork jobs during each agricultural season. The number of 
workers needed to make up the eligible worker hours in an annualized 
unit (e.g., 2,000 hrs.) varies from region to region. Although a number 
of workers are represented in an annualized unit (i.e., a year's worth 
of hours), due to the regional differences in crop agriculture, there 
are fractional differences in every 1,000 hours of eligible crop work 
represented for each region/State. As already stated, the NAWS records 
have the total number of eligible farmworkers in each region and the 
total number of days worked annually (in agriculture and non-
agricultural employment) and the total number of days present, but not 
working by the eligible farmworkers. These data provide the total sum 
of time eligible crop workers are present in each region/

[[Page 27399]]

State. The ratio of the total number of these farmworkers to the total 
number of days present in each region/State jurisdiction is an 
expression of the annual average number of days worked per farmworker 
in crop work. Differences among the regions that are due to the 
geographic differences in employment and residency/presence in the 
jurisdiction, are accounted for by the application of this ratio.
    Adjustment 3 (annual crop employment) accounts for relative 
differences in the length of time engaged in crop employment and other 
eligible activities by eligible workers annually. This is the ratio of 
the number of eligible workers divided by the number of eligible days. 
The longer the annual number of days worked in crops, the lower the 
ratio and the fewer the number of workers represented by every time 
unit, such as 10,000 hours or an estimated annualized unit. (The 
reciprocal produces an estimated annual number of days worked in crops, 
or present in other eligible activities, per eligible farm worker.) 
Adjustment 3 converts the final COA/FLS numbers into a people 
denominated index.

C. Livestock Adjustments

    Livestock adjustments involve determining the State relative share 
of livestock workers expressed as percentages.
    The State relative share of livestock hours from the Standardized 
or Adjusted Hours of Farmwork, described above, is adjusted by the COP 
data for economically disadvantaged criteria. The number of 
economically disadvantaged (LLSIL) livestock workers is divided by the 
total number of livestock workers in each State. This JTPA, Section 
402/WIA, Section 167-eligibility rate for livestock workers in each 
State is multiplied by the State's percentage share of livestock worker 
hours. This product expresses the share of livestock worker hours 
performed by those living below the LLSIL. The products of these 
calculations for each State are adjusted to sum to 100 so that they 
express the percentage each State's JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167-
eligible livestock workers comprise of the national total.

D. Combining the State Distributions of the Farm Occupations

    The formula computes the ratio of JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 
167-eligible crop workers to livestock workers. Because differing 
approaches are used for determining each State's relative shares of 
crop workers and livestock workers, it is necessary to weight the 
relative relationship of the two groups of data. The COP counts crop 
and livestock workers, thus it is used to determine the relative 
distribution of the two, as follows. Using COP data on farmworkers 
meeting the LLSIL criteria, the formula computes the percentage that 
the US total of economically disadvantaged (LLSIL) crop workers 
comprise of total (LLSIL) farmworkers. Similarly, the percentage that 
LLSIL livestock workers comprise of total LLSIL farmworkers and that 
the other LLSIL farmworkers comprise of total LLSIL farmworkers is 
computed. The sum of the State percentages is the relative weight of 
each group, expressed as the percentage the group represents of the 
total. The sum of the two national percentages equals 100 percent.

E. Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico

    FLS (QALS) data on Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico are either 
incomplete or nonexistent. The COA is not taken in Puerto Rico and the 
NAWS data are not available for Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, where 
Census data must be relied on for measuring the populations of crop and 
livestock workers as well as other farmworkers. The basic objection to 
the Census, its failure to adequately locate and count migratory 
farmworkers, would not appear to be as significant an issue for the two 
island jurisdictions where, relative to conditions found on the 
mainland, the farmworker population tend to live at fixed addresses. 
However, there is a potential bias of Census under-count that remains 
for those areas, but at present the Department has no data with which 
to address this deficiency. Consequently, the necessity of relying on 
Census data for determining the numbers of combined crop and livestock 
workers in these two jurisdictions is considered to be the best 
alternative to complement the approach in the contiguous 48 States.

F. Special Tabulation of COP Data

    To collect data for the COP portion of the proposed formula the DOL 
used 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 
for farmworkers falling below 70 percent of the LLSIL poverty 
guidelines.

G. SOC and SIC Codes

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

477--supervisors, farm workers
479--farm workers
484--nursery workers
485--supervisors, related agricultural occupations
488--graders and sorters, agricultural products
489--inspectors, agricultural products
    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

IV. Description of the Hold-Harmless Provision

    For Program Years 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 the DOL 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. Since the total amount of funds available to Alaska, 
Hawaii and Puerto Rico are based solely on those jurisdictions' share 
of LLSIL farmworker as reported in the 1990 COP, as applicable, the 
hold harmless provision will be applied to those jurisdictions to the 
extent practicable. The staged transition of the hold-harmless 
provision will be implemented as follows:
    (1) In PY 1999, each State service area will receive an amount 
equal to at least 95 percent of their PY 1998 allotments, as applied to 
the PY 1999 formula funds available. In the event the total amount 
available for PY 1999 allotments is less than the total amount 
available for PY 1998 allotments, each State will receive an amount 
equal to at least 95 percent of what they would have received had the 
PY 1998 allotment been equal to the PY 1999 allotment.
    (2) In PY 2000, each State service area will receive an amount 
equal to at least 90 percent of their PY 1998 allotments, as applied to 
the PY 2000 formula funds available. In the event the total amount 
available for PY 2000 allotments is less than the total amount 
available for PY 1998 allotments, each State will receive an amount 
equal to at least 90 percent of what they would have received had the 
PY 1998 allotment been equal to the PY 2000 allotment.
    (3) In PY 2001, each State service area will receive an amount 
equal to at least 85 percent of their PY 1998 allotments as applied to 
the PY 2001 formula funds available. In the event the total amount 
available for PY 2001 allotments is less than the total amount 
available for PY 1998 allotments, each State will receive an amount 
equal to at least 85 percent of what they would have received had the 
PY 1998 allotment been equal to the PY 2001 allotment.
    (4) In PY 2002, each State service area will receive an amount 
equal to at least 80 percent of their PY 1998 allotments

[[Page 27400]]

as applied to the PY 2002 formula funds available. In the event the 
total amount available for PY 2002 allotments is less than the total 
amount available for PY 1998 allotments, each State will receive an 
amount equal to at least 80 percent of what they would have received 
had the PY 1998 allotment been equal to the PY 2002 allotment.
    Thereafter, allocations to each State service area would be for an 
amount resulting from a direct allocation of the proposed funding 
formula without adjustment.

V. Minimum Funding Provisions

    A State area which would receive less than $60,000 by application 
of the formula will, at the option of the DOL, receive no allocation 
or, if practical, be combined with another adjacent State area. Funding 
below $60,000 is deemed insufficient for sustaining an independently 
administered program. However, if practical, a State jurisdiction which 
would receive less than $60,000 would be combined with another adjacent 
State area.

VI. Program Year 1999 Preliminary State Planning Estimates

    The state allotments set fourth in the Table appended to this 
notice reflect the distribution resulting from the allocation formula 
described above. For PY 1998, $71,017,000 was appropriated for JTPA, 
Section 402 migrant and seasonal farmworker programs, of which 
$67,123,818 was allocated on the basis of the old formula. The 
remaining $3,893,182 of the PY 1998 JTPA, Section 402 appropriation was 
retained in the JTPA, Section 402 national account to fund the 
farmworker housing program; the Hope, Arkansas Migrant Rest Center; 
Training and Technical Assistance Mini-Grants; and other training and 
technical assistance projects and initiatives. The figures in the first 
numerical column show the actual PY 1998 formula allocations to State 
service areas. The next column shows the percentage of each allocation.
    For PY 1999, $71,571,000 was appropriated for the JTPA, Section 402 
migrant and seasonal farmworker program, of which $67,596,408 will be 
allocated. The remaining $3,974,592 will be retained in the National 
account for farmworker housing ($3,000,000) and other training and 
technical assistance projects and initiatives ($974,592). For purposes 
of illustrating the effects of the proposed allocation formula, the 
third column of the Table shows the allocations based on the proposed 
formula without the application of the hold-harmless or minimum funding 
provisions. The percentages are reported in column 4. The State service 
area allocations with the application of the first-year (95 percent) 
hold-harmless and minimum funding provisions, followed by the 
percentages, are shown in columns 5 and 6.

    Signed at Washington, D.C., this 14th day of May, 1999.
Raymond Bramucci,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.

BILLING CODE 4510-30-P

[[Page 27401]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MY99.020



[[Page 27402]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MY99.021



[FR Doc. 99-12554 Filed 5-18-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-C