Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 1997 / Notices 5853

Form No.

Number

of respondents

Average

time per

respondence

(minutes)

Burden

hours

5000–4 .. 633 21 221

5000–7 .. 37 19 12

Total ................ ................ 233

Total Annualized capital/startup

costs: 0.

Total annual costs (operating/

maintaining systems or purchasing

services): 0.

Description: This information

collection contains provisions whereby

persons may be temporarily qualified or

certified to perform certain duties at

coal mines which are related to miner

safety and health and which require

specialized expertise.

Agency: Occupational Safety and

Health Administration.

Title: Inorganic Arsenic (1910.1018).

OMB Number: 1218–0104.

Frequency: On occasion.

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit; Federal Government; State, Local

or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents: 42.

Estimated Time Per Respondent:

Ranges from 5 minutes to maintain

records to 12 hours to update

compliance programs.

Total Burden Hours: 9,060.

Total Annualized capital/startup

costs: 0.

Total annual costs (operating/

maintaining systems or purchasing

services): $1,316,218.

Description: The purpose of the

inorganic arsenic standard and its

information collection is to provide

protection for employees against the

health effects associated with

occupational exposure to inorganic

arsenic. This standard requires

employers to monitor employee

exposure, to provide medical

surveillance and to maintain employee

exposure monitoring and medical

records. If exposure levels are above the

Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs),

then employers must establish and

implement a written control plan to

reduce exposures below the PELs.

Employers are also required to notify

OSHA area offices of regulated areas

and changes to regulated areas.

Agency: Occupational Safety and

Health Administration.

Title: Coke Oven Emissions

(1910.1029).

OMB Number: 1218–0128.

Frequency: On occasion.

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit; Federal Government; State, Local

or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents: 22.

Estimated Time Per Respondent:

Ranges from 5 minutes to maintain

records to 3 hours to update compliance

programs.

Total Burden Hours: 96,379.

Total Annualized capital/startup

costs: 0.

Total annual costs (operating/

maintaining systems or purchasing

services): $2,012,684.

Description: The purpose of the coke

oven emissions standards and its

information collection to provide

protection for employees against the

health effects associated with

occupational exposure to coke oven

emission. This standard requires

employers to monitor employee

exposure, to provide medical

surveillance and to maintain employee

exposure monitoring and medical

records. If exposure levels are above the

Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs), the

employers must establish and

implement a written control plan to

reduce exposures below the PELs.

Employers are also required to notify

OSHA area offices of regulated areas

and changes to regulated areas.

Agency: Occupational Safety and

Health Administration.

Title: 1,3 Butadiene (1910.1051), Final

Rule.

OMB Number: 1218–0170.

Frequency: On occasion.

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit; Federal Government; State, Local

or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents: 255.

Estimated Time Per Respondent:

Ranges from 15 seconds to label a

respirator filter element to 6 hours to

develop a compliance program.

Total Burden Hours: 9,254.

Total Annualized capital/startup

costs: 0.

Total annual costs (operating/

maintaining systems or purchasing

services): $9,254.

Description: The purpose of the 1,3

butadiene standard and its information

collection is designed to provide

protection for employees from the

adverse health effects associated with

the occupational exposure to 1,3

butadiene. The standard requires

employers to monitor employee

exposure, to provide medical

surveillance and to maintain employee

exposure monitoring the medical

records. If exposure levels are above the

action level, employers must establish

and implement a written Exposure Goal

Program. If exposure levels are above

the Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs),

employers must establish and

implement a written compliance

program.

Theresa M. O’Malley,

Departmental Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–3098 Filed 2–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILING CODE 4510–26–M

Employment and Training

Administration

Labor Certification Process for the

Temporary Employment of Aliens in

Agriculture and Logging in the United

States: 1997 Adverse Effect Wage

Rates and Allowable Charges for

Agricultural and Logging Workers’

Meals

AGENCY: U.S. Employment Service,

Employment and Training

Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Notice of adverse effect wage

rates (AEWRs), allowable charges for

meals, and maximum travel subsistence

reimbursement for 1997.

SUMMARY: The Director, U.S.

Employment Service, announces 1997

adverse effect wage rates (AEWRs) for

employers seeking nonimmigrant alien

(H–2A) workers for temporary or

seasonal agricultural labor or services,

the allowable charges employers seeking

nonimmigrant alien workers for

temporary or seasonal agricultural labor

or services or logging work may levy

upon their workers when they provide

three meals per day, and the maximum

travel subsistence reimbursement which

a worker with receipts may claim in

1997.

AEWRs are the minimum wage rates

which the Department of Labor has

determined must be offered and paid to

U.S. and alien workers by employers of

nonimmigrant alien agricultural workers

(H–2A visaholders). AEWRs are

established to prevent the employment

of these aliens from adversely affecting

wages of similarly employed U.S.

workers.

The Director also announces the new

rates which covered agricultural and

logging employers may charge their

workers for three daily meals.

Under specified conditions, workers

are entitled to reimbursement for travel

subsistence expense. The minimum

reimbursement is the charge for three

daily meals as discussed above. The

Director here announces the current

maximum reimbursement for workers

with receipts.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. John R. Beverly, III, Director, U.S.

Employment Service, U.S. Department

of Labor, Room N–4700, 200
5854 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 1997 / Notices

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20210. Telephone:

202–219–5257 (this is not a toll-free

number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Attorney General may not approve an

employer’s petition for admission of

temporary alien agricultural (H–2A)

workers to perform agricultural labor or

services of a temporary or seasonal

nature in the United States unless the

petitioner has applied to the Department

of Labor (DOL) for an H–2A labor

certification. The labor certification

must show that: (1) there are not

sufficient U.S. workers who are able,

willing, and qualified and who will be

available at the time and place needed

to perform the labor or services involved

in the petition; and (2) the employment

of the alien in such labor or services

will not adversely affect the wages and

working conditions of workers in the

United States similarly employed. 8

U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a), 1184(c), and

1188.

DOL’s regulations for the H–2A

program require that covered employers

offer and pay their U.S. and H–2A

workers no less than the applicable

hourly adverse effect wage rate (AEWR).

20 CFR 655.102(b)(9); see also 20 CFR

655.107. Reference should be made to

the preamble to the July 5, 1989, final

rule (54 FR 28037), which explains in

great depth the purpose and history of

AEWRs, DOL’s discretion in setting

AEWRs, and the AEWR computation

methodology at 20 CFR 655.107(a). See

also 52 FR 20496, 20502–20505 (June 1,

1987).

A. Adverse Effect Wage Rates (AEWRs)

for 1997

Adverse effect wage rates (AEWRs)

are the minimum wage rates which DOL

has determined must be offered and

paid to U.S. and alien workers by

employers of nonimmigrant (H–2A)

agricultural workers. DOL emphasizes,

however, that such employers must pay

the highest of the AEWR, the applicable

prevailing wage or the statutory

minimum wage, as specified in the

regulations. 20 CFR 655.102(b)(9).

Except as otherwise provided in 20 CFR

Part 655, Subpart B, the regionwide

AEWR for all agricultural employment

(except those occupations deemed

inappropriate under the special

circumstances provisions of 20 CFR

655.93) for which temporary alien

agricultural labor (H–2A) certification is

being sought, is equal to the annual

weighted average hourly wage rate for

field and livestock workers (combined)

for the region as published annually by

the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA does not provide data on

Alaska). 20 CFR 655.107(a).

The regulation at 20 CFR 655.107(a)

requires the Director, U.S. Employment

Service, to publish USDA field and

livestock worker (combined) wage data

as AEWRs in a Federal Register notice.

Accordingly, the 1997 AEWRs for work

performed on or after the effective date

of this notice, are set forth in the table

below:

TABLE.—1997 ADVERSE EFFECT

WAGE RATES (AEWRS)

State 1997

AEWR

Alabama ............................................ $5.92

Arizona .............................................. 5.82

Arkansas ........................................... 5.70

California ........................................... 6.53

Colorado ........................................... 6.09

Connecticut ....................................... 6.71

Delaware ........................................... 6.26

Florida ............................................... 6.36

Georgia ............................................. 5.92

Hawaii ............................................... 8.62

Idaho ................................................. 6.01

Illinois ................................................ 6.66

Indiana .............................................. 6.66

Iowa .................................................. 6.22

Kansas .............................................. 6.55

Kentucky ........................................... 5.68

Louisiana ........................................... 5.70

Maine ................................................ 6.71

Maryland ........................................... 6.26

Massachusetts .................................. 6.71

Michigan ............................................ 6.56

Minnesota ......................................... 6.56

Mississippi ......................................... 5.70

Missouri ............................................. 6.22

Montana ............................................ 6.01

Nebraska ........................................... 6.55

Nevada .............................................. 6.09

New Hampshire ................................ 6.71

New Jersey ....................................... 6.26

New Mexico ...................................... 5.82

New York .......................................... 6.71

North Carolina ................................... 5.79

North Dakota ..................................... 6.55

Ohio .................................................. 6.66

Oklahoma .......................................... 5.48

Oregon .............................................. 6.87

Pennsylvania ..................................... 6.26

Rhode Island ..................................... 6.71

South Carolina .................................. 5.92

South Dakota .................................... 6.55

Tennessee ........................................ 5.68

Texas ................................................ 5.48

Utah .................................................. 6.09

Vermont ............................................ 6.71

Virginia .............................................. 5.79

Washington ....................................... 6.87

West Virginia ..................................... 5.68

Wisconsin .......................................... 6.56

Wyoming ........................................... 6.01

B. Allowable Meal Charges

Among the minimum benefits and

working conditions which DOL requires

employers to offer their alien and U.S.

workers in their applications for

temporary logging and H–2A

agricultural labor certification is the

provision of three meals per day or free

and convenient cooking and kitchen

facilities. 20 CFR 655.102(b)(4) and

655.202(b)(4). Where the employer

provides meals, the job offer must state

the charge, if any, to the worker for

meals.

DOL has published at 20 CFR

655.102(b)(4) and 655.111(a) the

methodology for determining the

maximum amounts covered H–2A

agricultural employers may charge their

U.S. and foreign workers for meals. The

same methodology is applied at 20 CFR

655.202(b)(4) and 655.211(a) to covered

H–2B logging employers. These rules

provide for annual adjustments of the

previous year’s allowable charges based

upon Consumer Price Index (CPI) data.

Each year the maximum charges

allowed by 20 CFR 655.102(b)(4) and

655.202(b)(4) are changed by the same

percentage as the twelve-month percent

change in the CPI for all Urban

Consumers for Food (CPI–U for Food)

between December of the year just past

and December of the year prior to that.

Those regulations and 20 CFR

655.111(a) and 655.211(a) provide that

the appropriate Regional Administrator

(RA), Employment and Training

Administration, may permit an

employer to charge workers no more

than a higher maximum amount for

providing them with three meals a day,

if justified and sufficiently documented.

Each year, the higher maximum

amounts permitted by 20 CFR

655.111(a) and 655.211(a) are changed

by the same percentage as the twelvemonth percent change in the CPI–U for

Food between December of the year just

past and December of the year prior to

that. The regulations require the

Director, U.S. Employment Service, to

make the annual adjustments and to

cause a notice to be published in the

Federal Register each calendar year,

announcing annual adjustments in

allowable charges that may be made by

covered agricultural and logging

employers for providing three meals

daily to their U.S. and alien workers.

The 1996 rates were published in a

notice on February 8, 1996 at 61 FR

4800.

DOL has determined the percentage

change between December of 1995 and

December of 1996 for the CPI–U for

Food was 3.3 percent.

Accordingly, the maximum allowable

charges under 20 CFR 655.102(b)(4),

655.202(b)(4), 655.111, and 655.211

were adjusted using this percentage

change, and the new permissible

charges for 1997 are as follows: (1) for

20 CFR 655.102(b)(4) and 655.202(b)(4),
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 1997 / Notices 5855

1Section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of

1978 (43 FR 47713, October 17, 1978) generally

transferred the authority of the Secretary of the

Treasury to issue administrative exemptions under

section 4975(c)(2) of the Code to the Secretary of

Labor.

the charge, if any, shall be no more than

$7.41 per day, unless the RA has

approved a higher charge pursuant to 20

CFR 655.111 or 655.211(b); for 20 CFR

655.111 and 655.211, the RA may

permit an employer to charge workers

up to $9.25 per day for providing them

with three meals per day, if the

employer justifies the charge and

submits to the RA the documentation

required to support the higher charge.

C. Maximum Travel Subsistence

Expense

The regulations at 20 CFR

655.102(b)(5) establish that the

minimum daily subsistence expense

related to travel expenses, for which a

worker is entitled to reimbursement, is

the employer’s daily charge for three

meals or, if the employer makes no

charge, the amount permitted under 20

CFR 655.104(b)(4). The regulation is

silent about the maximum amount to

which a qualifying worker is entitled.

The Department, in Field

Memorandum 42–94, established that

the maximum is the meals component

of the standard CONUS (continental

United States) per diem rate established

by the General Services Administration

(GSA) and published at 41 CFR Ch. 301.

The CONUS meal component is now

$28.00 per day.

Workers who qualify for travel

reimbursement are entitled to

reimbursement up to the CONUS meal

rate for related subsistence when they

provide receipts. In determining the

appropriate amount of subsistence

reimbursement, the employer may use

the GSA system under which a traveler

qualifies for meal expense

reimbursement per quarter of a day.

Thus, a worker whose travel occurred

during two quarters of a day is entitled,

with receipts, to a maximum

reimbursement of $14.00. If a worker

has no receipts, the employer is not

obligated to reimburse above the

minimum stated at 20 CFR 655.102(b)(4)

as specified above.

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 31st day

of January 1997.

John R. Beverly

Director, U.S. Employment Service.

[FR Doc. 97–3095 Filed 2–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

Pension and Welfare Benefits

Administration

[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 97–11;

Application D–09707]

Class Exemption for the Receipt of

Certain Investment Services by

Individuals for Whose Benefit

Individual Retirement Accounts or

Retirement Plans for Self-Employed

Individuals Have Been Established or

Maintained

AGENCY: Pension and Welfare Benefits

Administration, U.S. Department of

Labor.

ACTION: Grant of class exemption.

SUMMARY: This document contains a

final class exemption from the

prohibited transaction restrictions of the

Employee Retirement Income Security

Act of 1974 (ERISA) and the Internal

Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code). The

class exemption permits the receipt of

services at reduced or no cost by an

individual for whose benefit an

individual retirement account (IRA) or,

it self-employed, a Keogh Plan is

established or maintained, or by

members of his or her family, from a

broker-dealer, provided that the

conditions of the exemption are met.

The exemption affects individuals with

beneficial interests in such plans who

receive such services as well as the

broker-dealers who provide such

services.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Allison Padams, Office of Exemption

Determinations, Pension and Welfare

Benefits Administration, U.S.

Department of Labor, (202) 219–8971,

(This is not a toll-free number); or Paul

D. Mannina, Plan Benefits Security

Division, Office of Solicitor, U.S.

Department of Labor (202) 219–9141,

(This is not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July

31, 1996, the Department of Labor (the

Department) published a notice in the

Federal Register (61 FR 39996) of the

pendency of a proposed class exemption

from the restrictions of sections

406(a)(1)(D) and 406(b) of ERISA and

the sanctions resulting from the

application of sections 4975 (a) and (b),

4975(c)(3) and 408(e)(2) of the Code by

reason of section 4975(c)(1) (D), (E) and

(F) of the Code. This exemption was

requested in an exemption application

filed on behalf of the Securities Industry

Association (the SIA or the Applicant).

The application was filed pursuant to

section 408(a) of ERISA and section

4975(c)(2) of the Code and in

accordance with the procedures set

forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B, (55

FR 32836, August 10, 1990.) 1

The notice of pendency gave

interested persons an opportunity to

comment or request a public hearing on

the proposal. No requests for a public

hearing were received by the

Department. Two public comments

were received by the Department. Upon

consideration of the record as a whole,

the Department has determined to grant

the proposed exemption subject to

certain modifications. These

modifications and the comments are

discussed below.

Discussion of the Comments Received

One commenter sought clarification of

the language in the preamble to the

notice of proposed exemption which

addressed the Investment Company

Institute’s inquiry as to whether the

exemption would provide relief for a

relationship brokerage program whereby

a broker-dealer offers reduced sales

charges with respect to the purchase of

investment company shares as the size

of the purchase increases. In this regard,

a broker-dealer would aggregate total

purchases of all of a customer’s

accounts, including IRAs and Keogh

Plans. Thus, a broker-dealer would set

a schedule of commissions or rates that

vary according to the size of the

transaction. Specifically, the commenter

requests that the Department clarify that

the exemption covers ‘‘rights of

accumulation’’ programs as described in

the National Association of Securities

Dealers’ Rules of Fair Practice in which

a broker dealer takes into account both

a customer’s present purchases of shares

and the aggregate quantity of securities

previously purchased by the customer.

The Department notes that such

programs would be covered by the

exemption provided that all the

conditions of the exemption are

satisfied.

In addition, the commenter requests

that the Department reconsider its views

stated in footnote 8 of the Preamble

relating to ‘‘letter of intent programs’’ in

which broker-dealers reduce sales

commissions based on the aggregate of

a customer’s actual purchases and

anticipated purchases over a specified

period of time, as agreed to by the

customer (the Target Amount). The

commenter states that the letter of intent

is not a binding obligation on the

customer to purchase the Target

Amount. Rather, if the customer holds