Job Training Partnership Act: Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Programs; 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