9208 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 1997 / Notices

Frequency: On occasion.

Affected Public: Individuals or

households; business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 1.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 1

hour.

Total Burden Hours: 1.

Total Annualized capital/startup

costs: 0.

Total annual costs (operating/

maintaining systems or purchasing

services): 0.

Description: This class exemption

exempts from the prohibited transaction

provisions of ERISA certain transactions

between a bank collective investment

fund and persons who are parties in

interest with respect to a plan as long as

the plan’s participation in the collective

investment funds does not exceed a

specified percentage of the total assets

in the collective investment fund.

Agency: Pension Welfare Benefits

Administration.

Title: Prohibited Transaction

Exemption 90–1.

OMB Number: 1210–0083.

Frequency: On occasion.

Affected Public: Individuals or

households; business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 1.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 1

hour.

Total Burden Hours: 1.

Total Annualized capital/startup

costs: 0.

Total annual costs (operating/

maintaining systems or purchasing

services): 0.

Description: This class exemption

allows parties in interest of an employee

benefit plan that invests in an insured

pool separate account to engage in

transactions with the separate account if

the plan’s participation in the separate

account does not exceed certain limits.

Agency: Occupational Safety and

Health Administration.

Title: Personal Protective Equipment

for Shipyard Employment (29 CFR 1915,

Subpart 1).

OMB Number: 1218–0 new.

Frequency: As needed.

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

or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents: 500.

Estimated Time Per Respondent:

varies (1 hour to 17.8 hours).

Total Burden Hours: 1,540.

Total Annualized capital/startup

costs: 0.

Total annual costs (operating/

maintaining systems or purchasing

services): 0.

Description: These requirements are

intended to reduce hazards to

employees through the use of personal

protective equipment (PPE). They

establish procedures for assessing the

workplace to identify where PPE is

needed, provide for training in PPE, and

set minimum requirements for PPE.

Theresa M. O’Malley,

Departmental Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–5004 Filed 2–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–23–M

Employment and Training

Administration

Federal-State Unemployment

Compensation Program:

Unemployment Insurance Program

Letters Interpreting Federal

Unemployment Insurance Law

The Employment and Training

Administration interprets Federal law

requirements pertaining to

unemployment compensation as part of

its role in the administration of the

Federal-State unemployment

compensation program. These

interpretations are issued in

Unemployment Insurance Program

Letters (UIPLs) to the State Employment

Security Agencies (SESAs). The UIPLs

described below are published in the

Federal Register in order to inform the

public.

UIPL 05–97

The Department’s interpretation of

several Federal requirements in a

remote claimstaking environment was

issued in UIPL 35–95, dated June 28,

1995 (published at 60 FR 55604, 11/1/

96). Additional questions have been

raised about the impact of remote initial

claimstaking procedures on claims filed

under the Interstate Arrangement for

Combining Employment and Wages, the

Unemployment Compensation for ExServicemembers program, and the

Extended Benefits program. Questions

have also been raised regarding how

States can comply with the requirement

that non-citizen claimants present

documentation of a satisfactory

immigration status in a remote

claimstaking environment. This UIPL

contains information on each of these

areas.

UIPL 16–97

This UIPL is being issued to correct

several technical errors which the

Department of Labor has identified in

UIPLs 45–92, 17–95, 30–96, and 37–96.

None of the changes make any change

to the Department’s interpretation of

Federal law.

Dated: February 21, 1997.

Timothy M. Barnicle,

Assistant Secretary of Labor.

U.S. Department of Labor

Employment and Training Administration

Washington, D.C. 20210

Classification UI

Correspondence Symbol TEUPDI

Date: December 2, 1996.

Directive: Unemployment Insurance Program

Letter No. 05–97

To: All State Employment Security Agencies

From: Mary Ann Wyrsch, Director,

Unemployment Insurance Service

Subject: The Department of Labor’s Position

on Issues and Concerns Associated With the

Utilization of Telephone and Other

Electronic Methods of Claimstaking in the

Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program.

1. Purpose. To advise State Employment

Security Agencies (SESAs) of the

Department’s interpretation of Federal

statues and regulations relating to telephone

and other electronic methods of claimstaking.

2. References. Section 1137, Social

Security Act (SSA); Federal-State Extended

Unemployment Compensation Act; ETA

Handbooks Nos. 384, 392, and 399; 20 CFR

614; 20 CFR 616; and Unemployment

Insurance Program Letter (UIPL) No. 35–95.

3. Background. The Department’s

interpretation of several Federal

requirements in a remote claimstaking

environment was issued in UIPL No. 35–95,

dated June 28, 1995. However, additional

questions have been raised about the impact

of remote initial claimstaking procedures on

claims filed under the Interstate Arrangement

for Combining Employment and Wages

(Combined Wage Claims), the

Unemployment Compensation for ExServicemembers (UCX) program and the

Extended Benefits program. Questions also

have been raised regarding how States can

comply with the requirement that non-citizen

claimants present documentation of a

satisfactory immigration status in a remote

claimstaking environment. This directive

includes information on each of these areas.

4. Presentation of Alien Documentation.

Section 1137(d)(2), SSA, provides the

following:

If such an individual is not a citizen or

national of the United States, there must be

presented either—

(A) Alien registration documentation or

other proof of immigration registration from

the Immigration and Naturalization Service

that contains the individual’s alien

admission umber or alien file number * * *,

or

(B) such other documents as the State

determines constitutes reasonable evidence

indicating a satisfactory immigration status.

UIPL No. 35–95, Section 3.A.(5) stated that

‘‘neither sections 1137(d)(2)(A) or (B), SSA,

may be satisfied by information obtained by

telephone (orally or IVR/VRS) or entry via a

computer keyboard or touchscreen.’’

Upon reconsideration, the Department

concludes that the requirement to present

documentation from the Immigration and
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 1997 / Notices 9209

Naturalization Service (INS), under Section

1137(d)(2)(A), SSA, can be satisfied by

having the claimant ‘‘present’’ the

documentation over the telephone by either

using the keypad to enter data, or by reading

the admission or file number from the

document. This conclusion was made

because it is unnecessary for a claims taker/

examiner to personally inspect the INS

documentation in order to obtain from the

document the alien admission or file number

for verification through the INS.

This change only affects how the claimant

is allowed to present INS alien

documentation in accordance with Section

1137(d)(2)(A), SSA. It does not otherwise

affect the requirement that the SESA must

require that each claimant, who has indicated

noncitizenship status, establish a satisfactory

immigration status in accordance with

Section 1137(d)(2)(A), SSA. This change does

not affect the Department’s interpretation of

Section 1137(d)(2)(A), SSA, as permitting a

State to allow a claimant to submit a

photostatic copy of the INS document(s)

(containing the alien admission or file

number) by mail or facsimile (FAX)

transmission in lieu of viewing the original

INS document(s). A photocopy or FAX of

documentation not containing the alien

admission or file number will not satisfy the

requirements of Section 1137(d)(2)(b), SSA,

because such documents cannot be verified

through the INS. Such documents must be

presented in person. Thus, there are three

ways for a non-citizen claimant to ‘‘present’’

alien documentation: (1) by personally

bringing to the claims office the original of

the INS document containing the alien or

admission numnber or other documents that

the State determines constitutes reasonable

evidence of a satisfactory immigration status;

(2) by mailing a photocopy of, or FAXING,

the INS document containing the admission

or file number to the claims office; or (3) by

telephoning the claims office and using the

keypad to enter (or reading) the admission or

file number from the INS document.

5. Combined Wage Claim (CWC) Paying

State/ UCX Wage Assignment. Under 20 CFR

616.6(e), the paying State for a CWC is

required to be the State ‘‘in which’’ the claim

is filed, unless the claimant is ineligible on

the basis of combining, in which case the

paying State is the State in which the

claimant was last employed in covered

employment and qualifies for benefits. This

provision was promulgated in 1974, 39

Federal Register 45214 (December 31, 1974),

in order to change the definition of the

paying State to require that most CWC claims

be filed under the intrastate program. Among

other reasons, this change was intended to

result in greater promptness in the payment

of benefits, and cost savings (because it costs

more to file through the Interstate Benefit

Payment Plan (IBPP) rather than intrastate),

while not adversely affecting the amount of

benefits for which combined wage claimants

qualify.

Under 20 CFR 614.8(b)(1), UCX wages are

required to be assigned to the State ‘‘in

which’’ a first claim is filed. Thus UCX

requirement is derived from 5 U.S.C. Section

8522, and, as noted in the legislative history

to Public Law No. 85–848 (H.R. Rep. No.

1887, 85th Congress, 2nd Session 7; S. Rep.

No. 2375, 85th Congress, 2nd Session 15), is

designed to keep interstate claims to a

minimum. This assures that such claims are

filed as intrastate claims under the law of the

State in which the claimant is filing. This

prevents claimants, in an attempt to qualify

for greater benefit amounts or avoid potential

disqualifications, from filing their claims

under the IBPP and having wages assigned or

transferred to any State of their choice.

In developing remote claimstaking

procedures, States have requested an

interpretation of the phrase ‘‘in which’’, for

purposes of establishing the ‘‘paying State’’

for CWC claims and in determining the State

of UCX wage assignment, when intrastate

initial claims are allowed to be filed remotely

by commuters from locations outside the

State. (An intrastate claim is a claim filed in

a State under the law of that State.) The

issue, with regard to remote intrastate claims,

is whether a remote CWC or UCX claim filed

by a commuter is filed in the State ‘‘in

which’’ the claimant is physically present or

the State ‘‘in which’’ the claims office is

located.

Historically, intrastate CWC and UCX

claims have been only those claims filed by

individuals filing in-person in a facility in

the liable/paying State. Generally, these

claims are filed by individuals who reside,

and have worked, in the State, and by

individuals who, while residing in another

State, have established a pattern of regularly

commuting to work in the State. this latter

category of individuals is precluded from

filing against the liable State under the IBPP,

except in cases where the State of residence

finds that requiring such claimants to file

intrastate claims in the State to which they

normally commute to work would cause an

undue hardship. (The use of remote

claimstaking removes the hardship and

allows all commuters to file directly with the

State to which they normally commute.)

Additionally, there are cases where some

intrastate CWC and UCX claims are filed by

individuals who neither reside, nor have

worked, in the liable/paying State, but file

their claims in-person in a facility in that

State.

It is the Department’s position that the

procedural change from in-person to remote

claimstaking should have no effect on the

historical treatment of intrastate claims in the

determination of benefit eligibility or for

reporting purposes. Thus, where intrastate

claimstaking procedures require or permit a

commuter to remotely file a CWC claim, and/

or a ‘‘first claim’’ for UCX wage assignment

purposes, with a State to which (s)he

commuted, that State is the State ‘‘in which’’

the claim is filed. Further, an intrastate CWC,

or intrastate ‘‘first claim,’’ that causes UCX

wages to be assigned to the liable/paying

State, may only be filed remotely from

another State by individuals who have

established a pattern of commuting to work

in the liable/paying State.

Additionally, to ensure that remote

claimstaking procedures do not adversely

affect other non-resident claimants who may

wish to file a claim while in another State,

UCX wages are to be assigned in accordance

with 20 CFR 614.8(b)(1) for UCX, and the

paying State determined in accordance with

20 CFR 616.6(e) for CWC, for any claimant

who is physically present in the filing State

at the time the claim is filed, without regard

to the claimant’s State of residence or mailing

address. States are not authorized to impose

a residency requirement in the application of

the above-referenced regulations.

6. Application of Extended Benefits (EB)

Two-Week Denial Provision. Except for the

first two weeks for which benefits are

otherwise payable, 20 CFR 615.9(c) prohibits

the payment of benefits pursuant to a claim

filed under the IBPP from a State that is not

in an EB period. Since this provision applies

to interstate claims filed by individuals who

reside outside the liable State, a question has

been raised about whether or not the

prohibition also applies to intrastate claims

filed under remote claimstaking procedures

by individuals residing outside the liable

State.

This prohibition is specific to interstate

claims filed under the IBPP. It does not apply

to any intrastate claims whether the claimant

is a resident or non-resident of the State.

Thus, a claimant who remotely files an

intrastate claim in a State that is in an EB

period, regardless of whether he or she

resides in that State, is not limited to two

weeks of EB under 20 CFR 615.9(c).

7. Action Required. SESA administrators

should inform appropriate staff of the

Department’s position as set forth in this

program letter and ensure that the handling

of claims filed under remote claimstaking

procedures is consistent with this position.

8. Inquiries. Questions should be directed

to the appropriate Regional Office.

U.S. Department of Labor

Employment and Training Administration

Washington, D.C. 20210

Classification UI

Correspondence Symbol TEUL

Date: February 10, 1997.

Directive: Unemployment Insurance Program

Letter No. 16–97

To: All State Employment Security Agencies

From: Grace A. Kilbane, Director,

Unemployment Insurance Service

Subject: Technical Changes to

Unemployment Insurance Program

Letters (UIPLs).

1. Purpose. To provide several technical

changes to previously issued UIPLs.

2. References. UIPL 45–92, dated August

20, 1992; UIPL 17–95, dated February 28,

1995; UIPL 30–96, dated August 8, 1996; and

UIPL 37–96, dated August 8, 1996.

3. Background. The Department of Labor

interprets Federal law requirements

pertaining to UI as part of its role in the

administration of the Federal-State UI

program. These interpretations are issued in

UIPLs. This UIPL is issued to correct several

technical errors which the Department has

identified in four UIPLs. No Departmental

interpretation of Federal law is changed by

this UIPL.

4. Technical Changes.

a. UIPL 45–92. On page 23 of the

Attachment I to the UIPL, in the first

sentence of the third full paragraph, ‘‘new
9210 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 1997 / Notices

subsection (t) of Section 3306, FUTA’’ is

changed to ‘‘Section 401(d)(1) of P.L. 102–

318’’.

b UIPL 17–95. In Item 4.b. on page 2 of the

UIPL, the word ‘‘voluntarily’’ is substituted

for ‘‘voluntary’’ in the quote of Section

3304(a)(18), FUTA.

In item 4.g. on page 7, first paragraph, the

phrase ‘‘must be permitting the withholding

Federal income tax’’ is changed to read ‘‘and

the States must be permitting the

withholding of Federal income tax’’. Also in

item 4.g., the words ‘‘voluntary holding’’ in

the second sentence of the third paragraph

are changed to ‘‘voluntary withholding’’ and

the words ‘‘as for payments’’ are changed to

‘‘for payments’’.

c. UIPL 30–96. In the second sentence of

the footnote on page 2 of the UIPL, ‘‘two

cases involving UC’’ is changed to ‘‘two cases

involving UC law.’’ This change is made

because characterizing the court cases in

question as ‘‘involving UC’’ may imply that

they addressed the payment of UC. Instead,

they addressed the taxing provisions of

Federal UC law. These taxing provisions are,

however, entwined with the issue of coverage

which UIPL 30–96 addresses.

d. UIPL 37–96. Two changes are made to

the draft language on page 13 of the UIPL

relating to the intercept of food stamp

overissuances. In Section 1(a) the words

‘‘child support obligations’’ are changed to

‘‘an uncollected overissuance of food

stamps’’. In Section (1)(c), the word ‘‘of’’ is

changed to ‘‘to’’. Also, on page 14, in the last

sentence of item 10 of the UIPL, the first of

the two appearances of the word ‘‘is’’ is

deleted.

5. Action Required. Please alert appropriate

staff of these technical changes. Pen and ink

changes should be made to the above

referenced UIPLs as indicated.

6 Inquiries. Please direct inquiries to the

appropriate Regional Office.

[FR Doc. 97–5002 Filed 2–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

Employment Standards Administration

Wage and Hour Division

Minimum Wages for Federal and

Federally Assisted Construction;

General Wage Determination Decisions

General wage determination decisions

of the Secretary of Labor are issued in

accordance with applicable law and are

based on the information obtained by

the Department of Labor from its study

of local wage conditions and data made

available from other sources. They

specify the basic hourly wage rates and

fringe benefits which are determined to

be prevailing for the described classes of

laborers and mechanics employed on

construction projects of a similar

character and in the localities specified

therein.

The determinations in these decisions

of prevailing rates and fringe benefits

have been made in accordance with 29

CFR Part 1, by authority of the Secretary

of Labor pursuant to the provisions of

the Davis-Bacon Act of March 3, 1931,

as amended (46 Stat. 1494, as amended,

40 U.S.C. 276a) and of other Federal

statutes referred to in 29 CFR Part 1,

Appendix, as well as such additional

statutes as may from time to time be

enacted containing provisions for the

payment of wages determined to be

prevailing by the Secretary of Labor in

accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act.

The prevailing rates and fringe benefits

determined in these decisions shall, in

accordance with the provisions of the

foregoing statutes, constitute the

minimum wages payable on Federal and

federally assisted construction projects

to laborers and mechanics of the

specified classes engaged on contract

work of the character and in the

localities described therein.

Good cause is hereby found for not

utilizing notice and public comment

procedure thereon prior to the issuance

of these determinations as prescribed in

5 U.S.C. 553 and not providing for delay

in the effective date as prescribed in that

section, because the necessity to issue

current construction industry wage

determinations frequently and in large

volume causes procedures to be

impractical and contrary to the public

interest.

General wage determination

decisions, and modifications and

supersedes decisions thereto, contain no

expiration dates and are effective from

their date of notice in the Federal

Register, or on the date written notice

is received by the agency, whichever is

earlier. These decisions are to be used

in accordance with the provisions of 29

CFR Parts 1 and 5. Accordingly, the

applicable decision, together with any

modifications issued, must be made a

part of every contract for performance of

the described work within the

geographic area indicated as required by

an applicable Federal prevailing wage

law and 29 CFR Part 5. The wage rates

and fringe benefits, notice of which is

published herein, and which are

contained in the Government Printing

Office (GPO) document entitled

‘‘General Wage Determinations Issued

Under The Davis-Bacon and Related

Acts,’’ shall be the minimum paid by

contractors and subcontractors to

laborers and mechanics.

Any person, organization, or

governmental agency having an interest

in the rates determined as prevailing is

encouraged to submit wage rate and

fringe benefit information for

consideration by the Department.

Further information and selfexplanatory forms for the purpose of

submitting this data may be obtained by

writing to the U.S. Department of Labor,

Employment Standards Administration,

Wage and Hour Division, Division of

Wage Determinations, 200 Constitution

Avenue, NW., Room S–3014,

Washington, DC 20210.

New general Wage Determination

Decisions

The number of the decisions added to

the Government Printing Office

document entitled ‘‘General Wage

Determinations Issued Under the DavisBacon and related Acts’’ are listed by

Volume and States:

Volume III

South Carolina

SC970035 (Feb. 28, 1997)

SC970036 (Feb. 28, 1997)

Modifications to General Wage

Determination Decisions

The number of decisions listed in the

Government Printing Office document

entitled ‘‘General Wage Determinations

Issued Under the Davis-Bacon and

Related Acts’’ being modified are listed

by Volume and State. Dates of

publications in the Federal Register are

in parentheses following the decisions

being modified.

Volume I

New Jersey

NJ970002 (Feb. 14, 1997)

NJ970003 (Feb. 14, 1997)

NJ970004 (Feb. 14, 1997)

NJ970005 (Feb. 14, 1997)

NJ970007 (Feb. 14, 1997)

NJ970011 (Feb. 14, 1997)

NJ970013 (Feb. 14, 1997)

NJ970015 (Feb. 14, 1997)

Volume II

None

Volume III

Alabama

AL970007 (Feb. 14, 1997)

AL970008 (Feb. 14, 1997)

AL970052 (Feb. 14, 1997)

Volume IV

Illinois

IL970001 (Feb. 14, 1997)

IL970002 (Feb. 14, 1997)

IL970003 (Feb. 14, 1997)

IL970006 (Feb. 14, 1997)

IL970008 (Feb. 14, 1997)

IL970009 (Feb. 14, 1997)

IL970010 (Feb. 14, 1997)

IL970012 (Feb. 14, 1997)

IL970016 (Feb. 14, 1997)

IL970023 (Feb. 14, 1997)

IL970026 (Feb. 14, 1997)

IL970053 (Feb. 14, 1997)

IL970055 (Feb. 14, 1997)

IL970065 (Feb. 14, 1997)

Indiana

IN970001 (Feb. 14, 1997)

IN970002 (Feb. 14, 1997)

IN970003 (Feb. 14, 1997)

IN970004 (Feb. 14, 1997)