Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 125 /Tuesday, June 30, 1998 / Notices 35611

• Evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and

• Minimize the burden of the

collection of information on those who

are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate automated,

electronic, mechanical, or other

technological collection techniques or

other forms of information technology,

e.g., permitting electronic submission of

responses.

Agency: Pension Welfare Benefits

Administration.

Title: Notice of Participants and

Beneficiaries and the Federal

Government of Electing One Percent

Increased Cost Exemption.

OMB Number: 1210–0105 (extension).

Frequency: On occasion.

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit.

Number of Respondents: 479.

Total Responses: 94,854.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 2

minutes.

Total Burden Hours: 3,162 hours.

Total annualized capital/startup

costs: 0.

Total annual costs (operating/

maintaining systems or purchasing

services): 270,000.

Description: The Mental Health Parity

Act of 1996 requires parity between the

dollar limits imposed on mental health

benefits and those imposed on medical/

surgical benefits offered by group health

plans and group health insurance

coverage offered by issuers. Plans may

be exempted from this requirement if

parity would result in an increase in

cost of at least one percent and

participants and beneficiaries and the

federal government are notified. This

information collection request covers

notifying participants and beneficiaries

and to the federal government when a

plan elects the increased cost

exemption.

Title: Calculation and Disclosure of

Documentation of Eligibility for

Exemption.

OMB Number: 1210–0106 (extension).

Frequency: On occasion.

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit.

Number of Respondents: 1,364.

Total Responses: 3,527.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 2

minutes.

Total Burden Hours: 118 hours.

Total annualized capital/startup

costs: $2,420,000.

Total annual costs (operating/

maintaining systems or purchasing

services): $10,000.

Description: The Mental Health Parity

Act of 1996 requires parity between the

dollar limits imposed on mental health

benefits and those imposed on medical/

surgical benefits offered by group health

plans and group health insurance

coverage offered by issuers. Plans may

be exempted from this requirement if

parity would result in an increase in

cost of at least one percent and

participants and beneficiaries and the

federal government are notified. Upon

receipt of the notice, participants and

beneficiaries may request and receive at

no charge a summary of the information

on which the exemptions were based.

This information collection request

covers the calculation and disclosure of

information on which the exemption

was based.

Agency: Pension and Welfare Benefits

Administration.

Title: Notice of Group Health Plan’s

Use of Transition Period, and Posting

Thereof.

OMB Number: 1210–0107 (extension).

Frequency: On occasion.

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit.

Number of Respondents: 286.

Total Responses: 286.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 2

minutes.

Total Burden Hours: 10 hours.

Total annualized capital/startup

costs: 0.

Total annual costs (operating/

maintaining systems or purchasing

services): $1,200.

Description: The Mental Health Parity

Act of 1996 requires parity between the

dollar limits imposed on mental health

benefits and those imposed on medical/

surgical benefits offered by group health

plans and group health insurance

coverage offered by issuers. Plans may

be exempted from this requirement if

parity would result in an increase in

cost of at least one percent and

participants and beneficiaries and the

federal government are notified. Plans

electing increased cost exemption

during all or part of the first quarter of

1998 under the rule’s transition

provisions must notify the federal

government and post a copy of the

notice in the workplace. This

information collection request covers

notice and posting concerning the use of

the transition period.

Todd R. Owen,

Departmental Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 98–17347 Filed 6–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–29–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Secretary

Participation by OSHA Personnel in

State Plan Enforcement Litigation

On January 21, 1998, the Office of the

Solicitor of the Department of Labor

issued a memorandum to the Assistant

Secretary for the Occupational Safety

and Health Administration (OSHA)

concerning participation by OSHA

Personnel in State Plan Enforcement

Litigation. A copy of that memorandum

is annexed hereto as an Appendix.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Miriam McD. Miller, Co-Counsel for

Administrative Law, telephone number

(202) 219–8188, ext. 135.

Signed at Washington, DC this 23rd day of

June 1998.

Ronald G. Whiting,

Deputy Solicitor of Labor for Regional

Operations.

MEMORANDUM FOR CHARLES JEFFRESS

Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety

and Health

From: Marvin Krislov, Deputy Solicitor for

National Operations

Ronald Whiting, Deputy Solicitor Regional

Operations

Subject: Participation by OSHA Personnel in

State Plan Enforcement Litigation

This is in response to requests by OSHA

for advice as to the application of the

Department of Labor regulations at 29 CFR

sec. 2.20 et seq., to participation by

employees of the Occupational Safety and

Health Administration in occupational safety

and health enforcement cases brought by

states which administer occupational safety

and health state plans approved by OSHA

under section 18 of the Occupational Safety

and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 667.

Regulations at 29 CFR § 2.20 (frequently

referred to as the ‘‘subpoena regulation’’)

provide that the appropriate Deputy Solicitor

of Labor shall instruct Departmental

employees how to respond to a request for

information or testimony in connection with

any litigation in which the U.S. Department

of Labor is not a party. The public policies

underlying the subpoena regulation include

the following: (1.) conservation of

governmental resources; (2.) minimizing

governmental involvement in controversial

matters unrelated to official business; (3.)

centralization of the dissemination of

information; (4.) avoiding the expenditure of

government time and money in aid of private

purposes. It may be of interest to you that

OSHA receives by far a greater number of
35612 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 125 /Tuesday, June 30, 1998 / Notices

testimony requests than any other agency in

the Department of Labor. Without the

subpoena regulations, OSHA’s available

personnel resources would be significantly

diminished by the testimony of its employees

in private civil suites.

The Office of the Solicitor recognizes,

however, that requests for assistance in

OSHA enforcement litigation arising under

federally-approved state plans present

different circumstances from cases involving

private litigation, due to the partnership

between federal OSHA and the states which

is created under section 18 of the OSH Act.

Like federal OSHA, states with federallyapproved plans are responsible, among other

things, for adopting and enforcing workplace

safety and health standards. Standards and

enforcement procedures under approved

state plans are required to be ‘’at least as

effective as’’ federal standards and

procedures, and in the majority of instances

are nearly identical. OSHA monitors the

operation of each state plan, and when

certain effectiveness criteria are met, state

enforcement replaces that of federal OSHA in

areas covered by the approved plan. States

receive federal OSHA matching grants of up

to 50% of the costs of administering their

approved plans. In addition, OSHA affords

technical support to its sister agencies in the

form of compliance officer training,

laboratory services, and technical assistance

in implementing new or complex standards.

In view of the shared responsibilities of

OSHA and federally-approved state plans

under the Act, requests for participation by

Department of Labor personnel in

enforcement cases arising under a federallyapproved state plan, where federal personnel

have directly participated by either taking

part in an on-site inspection or by furnishing

substantial technical assistance to the state in

the preparation of its case, will generally be

approved by the Deputy Solicitor under the

DOL subpoena regulation. In making such

decisions we will, of course, consider the

extent to which such personnel would be

available to provide evidence in a

comparable enforcement proceeding under

the federal OSH Act. Thus, for example,

federal OSHA compliance and technical

personnel will generally be made available in

contested cases to provide testimony

concerning their observations while

accompanying state inspectors, or to explain

technical issues on which they have

produced input during the development of

the state’s case. Factors such as the relevance

of the requested testimony, the competence

of the intended witness to testify on a

particular issue, and whether any privileges

might apply, may affect the availability of a

federal witness, just as it does in federal

enforcement cases. There may be other

factors which could affect approval in

individual cases. The policy outlined above

does not apply to the availability of witnesses

to provide official statements of agency

policy or render interpretations of standards

during litigation; such interpretations are

normally rendered by the agency only

through rulemaking, letters of interpretation,

in court pleadings or in other official

documents.

In summary, approval will generally be

granted for participation by OSHA staff in

contested enforcement cases under federallyapproved state plans. As discussed above we

will, of course, consider the factors present

in each individual case. This policy is based

upon the unique federal-state enforcement

scheme created by the federal OSH Act, and

does not affect the availability of DOL

personnel to testify in connection with any

other DOL-administered program. Requests

for testimony in connection with non-OSHA

related litigation, or in connection with

OSHA-related cases in which DOL is not a

party and which do not fall within the

category of cases described above, will

continue to be evaluated individually under

the criteria and procedures of 29 CFR 2.20 et

seq.

[FR Doc. 98–17309 Filed 6–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–23–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Pension and Welfare Benefits

Administration

Proposed Information Collection

Request Submitted for Public

Comment and Recommendations;

Prohibited Transaction Class

Exemption 92–6

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as

part of its continuing effort to reduce

paperwork and respondent burden,

provides the general public and Federal

agencies with an opportunity to

comment on proposed and/or

continuing collections of information in

accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA 95) 44

U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). This program

helps to ensure that requested data can

be provided in the desired format,

reporting burden (time and financial

resources) is minimized, collection

instruments are clearly understood, and

the impact of collection requirements on

respondents can be properly assessed.

Currently, the Pension and Welfare

Benefits Administration is soliciting

comments concerning the proposed

extension of a currently approved

collection of information, Prohibited

Transaction Class Exemption 92–6. A

copy of the proposed information

collection request can be obtained by

contacting the employee listed below in

the contact section of this notice.

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted on or before August 31, 1998.

The Department of Labor is

particularly interested in comments

which:

• evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility;

• evaluate the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used;

• enhance the quality, utility, and

clarify the information to be collected;

and

• minimize the burden of the

collection of information on those who

are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate automated,

electronic, mechanical, or other

technological collection techniques or

other forms of information technology,

e.g., permitting electronic submissions

of responses.

ADDRESSES: Gerald B. Lindrew,

Department of Labor, Pension and

Welfare Benefits Administration, 200

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20210, (202) 219–4782 (this is not a

toll-free number), FAX (202) 219–4745.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Prohibited Transaction Class

Exemption 92–6 exempts from the

prohibited transaction restrictions of the

Employee Retirement Income Security

Act the sale of individual life insurance

or annuity contracts by a plan to

participants, relatives of participants,

employers any of whose employees are

covered by the plan, other employee

benefit plans, owner-employees or

shareholder-employees. In the absence

of this exemption, certain aspects of

these transactions might be prohibited

by section 406 of the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act.

II. Current Actions

This existing collection of information

should be continued because without

the relief provided by this exemption,

certain aspects of these transactions

might be prohibited by the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act. The

recordkeeping requirements

incorporated within the class exemption

are intended to protect the interests of

plan participants and beneficiaries. The

exemption requires the pension plan to

inform the insured participant of a

proposed sale of a life insurance or

annuity policy to the employer, a

relative, another plan, an owneremployee, or a shareholder-employee. If

the participant elects not to purchase

the contract, the relative, the employer,

another plan, the owner-employee or

the shareholder-employee may purchase

the contract from the plan upon receipt

by the plan of written consent of the

participant. The disclosure