24858 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment Standards Administration

Wage and Hour Division

29 CFR Part 500

RIN 1215–AA93

Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural

Worker Protection Act

AGENCY: Wage and Hour Division,

Employment Standards Administration,

Labor.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document amends the

regulations under the Migrant and

Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection

Act (MSPA) to implement statutory

changes to MSPA concerning the

relationship between workers’

compensation benefits and the benefits

available under the MSPA. The

statutory amendments to MSPA

specifically require changes in the

MSPA regulations concerning

disclosure of workers’ compensation

information and additionally require

reconsideration of the MSPA-required

transportation liability insurance. This

document also amends existing

regulations to provide for expedited

proceedings before an Administrative

Law Judge (ALJ) on actions initiated by

the Administrator of the Wage and Hour

Division to revoke, suspend, or refuse to

issue or renew a Farm Labor Contractor

Certificate of Registration, and for

expedited review by the Secretary of

Labor in such cases. Lastly, this

document amends the regulations to

indicate that the Certificate of

Registration issued to farm labor

contractors will reflect the maximum

number of farm workers authorized to

be transported.

EFFECTIVE DATES: The amendments to

the authority citation for part 500 and to

§§ 500.48, 500.121, and 500.122 are

effective on May 16, 1996. See: Dates of

Applicability below. The amendments

to §§ 500.224, 500.262, and 500.268 are

effective on July 15, 1996. The

amendments to §§ 500.75 and 500.76 are

effective on August 14, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Hancock, Office of Enforcement

Policy, Farm Labor Team, Wage and

Hour Division, Employment Standards

Administration, U.S. Department of

Labor, Room S–3510, 200 Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210;

telephone (202) 219–7605. This is not a

toll-free number. Copies of this Final

Rule in alternative formats may be

obtained by calling (202) 219–7605,

(202) 219–4634 (TDD). The alternative

formats available are large print,

electronic file on computer disk and

audio-tape.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

The paperwork requirements

contained in the proposed regulations

were submitted for review to the Office

of Management and Budget pursuant to

section 3507(d) of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995. OMB has

approved these requirements under

OMB No. 1215–0187 through April 30,

1999.

Title: Worker Information, Form WH–

516.

Summary: This Final Rule amends

sections 500.75 and 500.76 of

Regulations, 29 CFR Part 500, to require

disclosure to migrant and seasonal

agricultural workers of certain

information regarding the availability of

workers’ compensation insurance.

Need: Various sections of the Migrant

and Seasonal Agricultural Worker

Protection Act (MSPA), 29 U.S.C. 1801

et seq., require that each farm labor

contractor, agricultural employer and

agricultural association disclose in

writing the terms and conditions of

employment to: (a) migrant agricultural

workers at the time of recruitment

(section 201(a)(1)); (b) seasonal

agricultural workers, upon request, at

the time of employment (section

301(a)(1)); and (c) seasonal agricultural

workers employed through a day-haul

operation at the place of recruitment

(section 301(a)(2)). Sections 201(b) and

301(b), which relate to posting in a

conspicuous place at the place of

employment a poster provided by the

Secretary setting forth the rights and

protections afforded covered workers

under MSPA, also require that each

such employer provide to each worker

(upon request in the case of seasonal

agricultural workers) a written

statement of the terms and conditions of

employment. In addition, sections

201(g) and 301(f) require that such

information be provided in English, or

as necessary and reasonable, in a

language common to the workers, and

that the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL)

make forms available to provide such

information. Optional Form WH–516,

Worker Information, is made available

by DOL for these purposes. As an

alternative to use of the Form WH–516,

employers may disclose the terms and

conditions of employment in writing to

migrant workers (or upon request to

seasonal workers), using any other

format provided the required

information is contained within the

disclosure.

Pub. L. 104–49 provides in section 4

for the disclosure to the employee of

certain additional information regarding

workers’ compensation insurance, i.e.,

whether workers’ compensation is

provided and if so, the name of the

workers’ compensation insurance

carrier, the name of the policyholder of

such insurance, the name and the

telephone number of each person who

must be notified of an injury or death,

and the time period within which this

notice must be given. Optional Form

WH–516 has been revised to include

this new statutorily-required

information. The workers’

compensation disclosure requirement

can alternatively be met by the

employer furnishing the worker with a

photocopy of any notice regarding

workers’ compensation insurance

required by law of the State in which

such worker is employed. It is important

to note that the information on the terms

and conditions of employment required

to be disclosed (including the workers’

compensation information) is to be

disclosed to prospective employees.

Outside of an investigation context in

which the employer is specifically

requested to provide a copy of any

written disclosure made to workers, this

information is not to be forwarded to,

nor will it be maintained by, the Federal

government.

The public was invited to provide

comments regarding estimates of the

burden of the collection of information,

the information collection requirements,

and the disclosure requirements during

the comment period for the Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

published in the Federal Register on

Monday, March 18, 1996 (see 61

Federal Register No. 53, Pg. 10911–

10918). The comment period for the

NPRM ended on Wednesday, April 17,

1996. Comments were received

concerning meeting the workers’

compensation disclosure requirement

by providing a copy of any Statemandated disclosure only if it included

all the information required by the

optional DOL form. In response to these

comments, this limitation has been

deleted from the final rule as discussed

below in connection with §§ 570.75 and

570.76. The change does not, however,

affect the burden estimates.

II. Background

Public Law 104–49 amends the

Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural

Worker Protection Act (MSPA)

provisions dealing with the private right

of action, the regulatory process for

setting minimum transportation liability

insurance requirements, and disclosure

obligations to agricultural workers. The
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24859

Act requires the Secretary to reexamine

the current MSPA transportation

insurance regulations and to amend the

regulations governing disclosure. The

insurance rulemaking must be

completed and a final rule published

within 180 days of enactment, or no

later than May 13, 1996. The disclosure

regulations, while under no statutory

deadline, provide important new

information to agricultural workers and

require regulations before they become

effective. In addition, the Department

has determined that it is necessary to

modify Form WH–511 (Farm Labor

Contractor Certificate of Registration) to

reflect the seating capacity of any

vehicle(s) authorized for use in

transporting covered workers (this

modification will result in no additional

burden or data collection as the

information is already collected on

Form WH–510—the Application for a

Farm Labor Contractor Certificate of

Registration).

The final regulation gives

adjudication priority to administrative

actions denying, revoking, or

suspending a farm labor contractor

(FLC) certificate. Currently, some FLCs

continue to lawfully operate for

extended periods awaiting an

administrative hearing and final order

on a certification action. This amended

regulation establishes deadlines for

Administrative Law Judge and

Secretarial review proceedings in MSPA

certificate actions.

The Department of Labor published a

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the

Federal Register on March 18, 1996 (61

FR 10911–10918). The public comment

period on the proposed regulatory

changes closed on April 17, 1996.

III. Analysis of Comments

A. Comments to the Proposed Rule

Comments to the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPRM) were received from

27 organizations and individuals,

representing the views of 69

organizations, public officials and

individuals. Comments were received

from five growers, 12 agricultural

associations (with three organizations

endorsing other’s comments as well),

two Congressional letters on behalf of

five Members of the U.S. House of

Representatives, four farmworker

organizations (on behalf of 39

organizations and individuals), two

attorneys who have represented

farmworkers injured in traffic accidents,

one individual, one insurance trade

association, and one State government

agency.

The comments were primarily

focused on three subjects: disclosure of

the terms and conditions of workers’

compensation by providing farmworkers

with a photocopy of the State-mandated

notice; the minimum amount of vehicle

liability insurance required under

MSPA; and further elaboration on the

meaning of ‘‘actual costs’’ in

determining whether or not a ‘‘carpool’’

is subject to MSPA transportation and/

or registration obligations.

B. Summary of Comments

The comments submitted by two

growers expressed displeasure with any

insurance obligation under MSPA.

Three expressed the view that insurance

should be lowered from the current

levels.

The comments submitted by most of

the agricultural employer associations

raised certain common issues. First,

these commenters asserted that

requiring the State-mandated workers’

compensation notice to contain all the

information required in the MSPA

disclosure was not required by Pub. L.

104–49 and that the proposed

regulations should be changed to delete

this provision. Second, these

commenters contended that DOL should

retain the current MSPA insurance

regulatory structure of two classes of

vehicles, those with seating capacities of

15 and fewer and sixteen and more, and

merely lower the minimum insurance

required for each vehicle category. The

insurance trade association echoed

these views. Finally, most of the

agricultural employer associations and

organizations suggested that the

Department should further explain the

circumstances under which ‘‘carpool’’

arrangements will be considered

legitimate (therefore, outside the scope

of MSPA regulations) and when such

arrangements will be considered not to

be carpools (therefore, within the scope

of MSPA regulations).

In addition to these broad themes

running through many of the

agricultural employer associations’

comments, several commenters raised

insurance issues and suggested other

changes. Florida Citrus Mutual

suggested a $10,000 to $25,000 per seat

requirement because it would more

closely approximate insurance levels for

privately-owned noncommercial

vehicles required under State laws. The

California Grape and Tree Fruit League

recommended insurance minimums of

either $100,000 per person/$300,000 per

accident or $250,000 per person/

$500,000 per accident. The Nisei

Farmers League recommended $300,000

to $500,000 for vehicles transporting

fewer than 14 workers and $500,000 to

$1 million for those transporting 15 or

more workers. The New England Apple

Council recommended insurance

coverage based on 6 different seating

capacity categories: $500,000 for up to

10 passengers; $600,000 for 11–20;

$700,000 for 21–30; $800,000 for 31–40;

$900,000 for 41–50; and $1 million for

50 and above. The Florida Fruit and

Vegetable Association recommended

$300,000 for vehicles transporting 12 or

fewer, and $500,000 for vehicles

transporting more than 12.

Comments were submitted by four

farmworker advocacy organizations on

behalf of a number of individuals and

organizations, including labor unions,

State and county elected officials,

religious service organizations serving

farmworkers, a college professor, a trial

lawyer organization, community

organizations, and farmworker legal

services providers. These commenters

were concerned that the disclosure of

workers’ compensation information

should be complete, timely and in a

language the workers can understand

and that the minimum amount of

insurance necessary remain at the

proposed $100,000 per seat in order to

insure against reasonably foreseeable

risk. One farmworker advocate sought

clarification that transportation

advances provided to a farmworker

would not subject the farm labor

contractor, agricultural employer or

association providing the advance to the

MSPA transportation requirements. Two

attorneys with experience representing

farmworkers involved in transportation

accidents also commented in favor of

the Department’s proposed insurance

provisions.

Comments were also submitted by

five Members of the U.S. House of

Representatives and one State agency,

addressing three issues. Regarding the

Proposed Rule’s provision that the statemandated workers’ compensation poster

would not satisfy MSPA disclosure

requirements if the poster lacked

information specified in Pub. L. 104–49,

all five Members expressed the view

that the proposal was contrary to the

statutory directive. Regarding the levels

of vehicle liability insurance prescribed

in the Proposed Rule, two Members (the

Honorable Bill Goodling and Cass

Ballenger) suggested that the

Department should either devise a

different regulatory formula or set lower

minimum levels, and three Members

(the Honorable Calvin M. Dooley, Gary

A. Condit and Vic Fazio) noted

‘‘concerns that ICC insurance levels are

unnecessarily high for those in

agriculture transporting workers’’ and

urged that the MSPA regulation assure

a balance between protection of

farmworkers and affordable insurance

for transportation providers. All five
24860 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Members requested further clarification

regarding ‘‘carpooling’’. The State

agency (Virginia Department of Labor

and Industry) expressed the same views

as the Members regarding the use of the

state-mandated workers’ compensation

poster and the desire for further

‘‘carpooling’’ guidance, and suggested a

modification of the Proposed Rule’s

formula for liability insurance levels.

As further explained below, the Final

Rule has been revised to incorporate

some of the suggestions received from

the comments. First, the Rule on

workers’ compensation disclosure will

make it clear that the State-mandated

notice used by the employer does not

have to include all the MSPA-specified

information; the Rule will further

provide that if the state workers’

compensation law mandates that

supplemental information be provided

to the worker in the event of an injury,

the disclosure of such information is

required for the employer’s continued

compliance with the MSPA regulation.

Second, the liability insurance

regulation will cap insurance

requirements at $5 million regardless of

the seating capacity of the insured

vehicle. Therefore, no transporter will

be required to purchase more insurance

than under the current regulation and

most will be required to purchase less.

C. Workers’ Compensation Disclosure

Requirements

The MSPA was amended by Pub. L.

104–49 to require farm labor

contractors, agricultural employers and

agricultural associations who recruit or

hire agricultural workers subject to the

requirements of the Act to provide the

workers certain additional information

about the terms and conditions of

workers’ compensation coverage, if such

coverage is provided by the employer.

This information must be in written

form, and that disclosure document

must be given to each agricultural

worker to be retained in the event that

the information contained therein

becomes useful or necessary.

Under current regulations, the

information to be disclosed to

agricultural workers includes the place

of employment, the period of

employment, wage rate(s), crops and

activities, whether transportation or

other benefits are provided, housing and

its cost (if provided), information about

any strike, work stoppage, slowdown, or

interruption in operations, and

information about any employer charges

for goods or services provided by the

employer. The disclosures required by

MSPA, including the new workers’

compensation disclosure requirements

under Pub. L. 104–49, must be given to

each migrant agricultural worker at the

time of recruitment. If the workers’

compensation information required to

be disclosed is unavailable at the time

of recruitment, it must be disclosed to

each worker at the earliest possible time

that the information becomes available

- but in no event later than the

commencement of employment.

Seasonal agricultural workers are

entitled to the same information in the

same form upon request.

It is important to note that Pub. L.

104–49 does not alter the requirement

under MSPA that all other terms and

conditions of employment be disclosed

to covered workers at the time of

recruitment. The provision added by

Pub. L. 104–49 allowing an employer to

delay full disclosure of the required

workers’ compensation information

until it is available (but in no event later

than the commencement of

employment), applies only to the

disclosure of required workers’

compensation information.

Pub. L. 104–49 provides that migrant

agricultural workers are entitled to

receive, in writing, the name of the

workers’ compensation insurance

carrier, the name of the policy holder of

such insurance, the name and telephone

number of each person who must be

notified of an injury or death, and the

time period within which such notice

must be given. Seasonal agricultural

workers must also receive the same

workers’ compensation information in

writing if so requested by the worker(s).

This Final Rule amends §§ 500.75 and

500.76 to include these new statutorilyrequired disclosure items.

Pub. L. 104–49 provides that

information concerning workers’

compensation may be given to the

worker in one of two ways. The farm

labor contractor, agricultural employer,

or agricultural association may provide

the specified information in writing.

The March 18 NPRM provided that this

disclosure could be accomplished via

the optional written disclosure form

(Optional Form WH–516) made

available by the Department. In the

alternative, the farm labor contractor,

agricultural employer or agricultural

association may communicate the

necessary workers’ compensation

information by giving the agricultural

worker a photocopy of any notice

regarding workers’ compensation

insurance required by the law of the

State in which the worker is employed.

To remain consistent with the

underlying intent for the disclosure

requirement, the Department included

in its March 18 NPRM a proviso that

giving a copy of a State-required

workers’ compensation form (or notice)

to covered workers would be deemed to

satisfy the disclosure requirement so

long as the copy contains all of the

workers’ compensation information that

must be disclosed.

During the comment period for the

NPRM, five Members of Congress (the

Honorable Bill Goodling, Cass

Ballenger, Calvin Dooley, Gary Condit,

and Vic Fazio), the Chairman of the

Commonwealth of Virginia’s

Interagency Migrant Worker Policy

Committee (Theron J. Bell), the

American Insurance Association, and

eleven grower associations expressed

concerns about the proposed regulation

which would recognize compliance

with the workers’ compensation

disclosure requirement by providing the

worker a copy of a State-mandated

workers’ compensation poster only if

the poster contains the same workers’

compensation information specified in

Pub. L. 104–49. These commenters took

the position that the proposed

regulation was too restrictive, that it was

contrary to the language of Pub. L. 104–

49 regarding the use of State-mandated

posters, and that it should provide

employers more flexibility relative to

the disclosure of workers’ compensation

information.

Four worker advocacy groups writing

on their own and on behalf of thirty-five

other worker assistance and advocacy

groups, supported the Department’s

proposal in the NPRM regarding the

workers’ compensation information

disclosure requirements.

After careful consideration of the

comments received on the NPRM, the

Department has determined that the

plain language of the statute (Pub. L.

104–49) does not require that a Statemandated workers’ compensation notice

must contain information not already

required by the State workers’

compensation law. Accordingly, the

NPRM proposal that would have

allowed the State-mandated notice to be

used only if it contained all of the

information specified in Pub. L. 104–49

has been deleted in the Final Rule.

However, it should be noted that

although initial compliance with MSPA

disclosure requirements can be met by

providing the State-mandated notice,

many State workers’ compensation laws

require additional disclosures to the

worker if an injury occurs. If an

employer chooses to comply with the

MSPA workers’ compensation

disclosure obligations by providing the

State-mandated notice but these statemandated supplemental disclosures are

not made to a worker, the failure to do

so would constitute a failure to meet the

workers’ compensation disclosure

requirements. In such cases, in order to
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24861

remain in compliance with the MSPA

disclosure requirements in the event of

an accident or some other event that

would trigger the applicability of

workers’ compensation, the Statemandated additional disclosures must

be made by the employer. It is the

Department’s view that this

interpretation imposes no new Federal

requirements—rather, it provides

employers subject to the State’s workers’

compensation law(s) with an added

incentive to make full and accurate

disclosures of the information necessary

in order for the worker to properly file

a claim for workers’ compensation in

the event of a covered injury or illness.

D. Transportation Insurance Under

MSPA

Under the MSPA, agricultural

employers, agricultural associations,

and farm labor contractors who use or

cause to be used a vehicle to transport

agricultural workers subject to the Act

must comply with certain minimum

transportation safety requirements and

provide a minimum level of financial

security to insure against liability for

damage to persons or property of

workers or third parties. Pub. L. 104–49

amended the MSPA provision regarding

the determination of the level of

financial security to be required.

MSPA provides three means by which

farm labor contractors, agricultural

employers, or agricultural associations

may insure against liability for damage

to persons or property arising from the

ownership, operation or causing to be

operated a vehicle used to transport

agricultural workers. The security may

be in the form of (1) a vehicle liability

insurance policy that insures employees

and nonemployees; (2) a workers’

compensation policy along with a

certificate of liability insurance covering

transportation whenever nonemployees

and employees may be transported

under circumstances not covered by

workers’ compensation; or (3) the

posting of a $500,000 liability bond.

Pub. L. 104–49 required the Secretary to

re-examine the previous minimum

liability insurance requirement and

make any changes indicated by May 13,

1996.

While the Final Rule modifies only

the minimum liability insurance levels

per occurrence for such transportation,

this discussion responds to commenters’

concerns for clarification regarding the

obligations under MSPA if a farm labor

contractor, agricultural employer, or

agricultural association chooses

workers’ compensation as the primary

transportation insurance coverage for

the agricultural workers being

transported. Further, in response to

commenters and to the legislative

history of Pub. L. 104–49, which

indicates a need to reaffirm and further

explain the circumstances under which

carpooling arrangements among workers

fall outside of the scope of MSPA (Joint

Statement of Legislative Intention, Rep.

William F. Goodling, E1943, Cong. Rec.,

Oct. 13, 1995), this discussion provides

needed clarification on these issues.

1. Workers’ Compensation as Primary

Transportation Insurance

Workers’ compensation coverage is a

partial alternative to meeting

transportation liability obligations

under MSPA and the Department’s

regulations. However, workers’

compensation coverage alone does not

completely satisfy the legal obligations

under MSPA. The regulations also

require that if an employer chooses

workers’ compensation as the primary

coverage, additional liability insurance

in a specified minimum amount must

also be provided to compensate

employees and nonemployees for

property damage and bodily injuries not

covered by workers’ compensation

benefits whenever there is a possibility

that workers may be transported under

circumstances not covered by workers’

compensation insurance. Employers

who are certain that the transportation

will occur only under circumstances

covered by workers’ compensation are

not obligated to secure additional bodily

injury coverage but they do so at their

own risk. In such circumstances, the

employer would be in violation of the

MSPA insurance obligations if they

transport workers outside the scope of

workers’ compensation coverage, and

would be exposed to suits for actual

damages. The regulation at 29 CFR

500.122(c)(2) has required this

supplemental coverage since MSPA was

enacted and nothing in this Final Rule

is intended to alter this obligation.

2. Transportation Under MSPA and

Carpools

As stated previously, the legislative

history of Pub. L. 104–49 indicated a

need to reaffirm and clarify what

constitutes a legitimate carpool

arrangement among workers, which

would be beyond the scope of the MSPA

transportation requirements (including

minimum insurance obligations).

Carpooling is described in the

regulation at § 500.100(c). The NPRM

proposed no amendment to this

regulation, and it remains unchanged in

this Final Rule. However, in the

Preamble to the NPRM and in this

discussion, the Department has

provided further guidance and

clarification.

Under the regulation, carpooling is a

voluntary arrangement among workers

for transportation to and from work

using a worker’s own vehicle. The

workers may contribute to offset the

costs of the transportation to reasonably

reflect the actual costs of the

transportation. Any compensation or

other valuable consideration in excess

of the actual costs means the

transportation provider is considered a

farm labor contractor and thereby

subject to the registration and

transportation requirements of the Act

and the regulations. Likewise, any

arrangement in which a farm labor

contractor participates will not be

considered a carpool. If any agricultural

employer or association directs or

requests such transportation

arrangements or provides money or

other valuable consideration (other than

the travel advances discussed below) for

the transportation service, such an

arrangement is not a carpooling

arrangement among workers.

Several commenters responding to the

NPRM Preamble sought further

clarification of the circumstances under

which a transportation arrangement will

be considered to be a ‘‘carpool’’ beyond

the scope of MSPA regulations or, on

the other hand, when transportation

will be deemed not to be a ‘‘carpool’’

and therefore subject to MSPA

regulation.

A number of commenters raised

questions about the scope of ‘‘actual

costs’’ for purposes of determining

whether or not the transportation

arrangement is ‘‘for any money or other

valuable consideration paid or promised

to be paid,’’ and therefore potentially

subject to the farm labor contractor

provisions of the Act and regulations.

Some of the agricultural employer

advocacy organizations expressed the

view that a transportation-providing

worker operating the vehicle should be

entitled to receive remuneration from

the passengers to offset the cost of the

transportation. Some stated that the

worker should be able to receive

compensation for such transportation

related expenses as gas, oil, insurance,

vehicle depreciation, wear on tires, etc.

and still be deemed to be a carpool.

Others contended that if the driver

received no money from the farm labor

contractor, agricultural employer or

agricultural association, the amount that

was received from the passengers

should be of no legal consequence. One

commenter suggested that the driver

should be able to accept from each

passenger whatever amount the

passenger would pay for public

transportation, if public transportation

were available.
24862 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Based in the language of MSPA itself,

by definition, a farm labor contractor is

‘‘any person—other than an agricultural

employer, an agricultural association, or

an employee of an agricultural employer

or agricultural association—who, for

any money or other valuable

consideration paid or promised to be

paid, performs any farm labor

contracting activity.’’ 29 U.S.C.1802(7);

29 CFR 500.20(j). Transporting any

migrant or seasonal agricultural worker

‘‘for any money or other valuable

consideration paid or promised to be

paid’’ thus constitutes performing a

farm labor contracting activity. 29

U.S.C. 1802(6); 29 CFR 500.20(i). As

stated above, the Department’s

regulations recognize bona fide carpool

arrangements among workers, and

exempt such arrangements from

passengers, the driver must be able to

show how the charges were calculated

and that the charges are reasonable and

directly related to the transportation

provided to the carpool. Guidance

regarding making such showing may be

found in the regulations for the Fair

Labor Standards Act provision allowing

the employer to claim wage credit for

the ‘‘reasonable cost’’ of meals or

lodging furnished to employees, 29 CFR

531.3.

Another reasonable measure of actual

costs is the reimbursement rate for

federal employees who use private

automobiles for official business. The

federal government reimburses those

employees at a rate of 30 cents per mile

to compensate for gas, wear and tear,

and other costs associated with the

operation of the vehicle. If the operator

of a carpool multiplies the miles to and

from the worksite by 30 cents and

charges each occupant of the vehicle a

pro rata share of those costs, those

charges would be considered a

sufficient approximation of ‘‘actual

costs’’ to satisfy the carpooling

regulations. (See 41 CFR 301–4; 59 FR

66626, Dec. 27, 1994. Transporters

should note that the amount of

reimbursement changes periodically to

reflect changes in costs.)

Another issue raised by the

commenters concerns employer

involvement in carpooling

arrangements. A bona fide carpool is

strictly voluntary and is done for the

convenience of the workers involved,

not at the direction of an FLC,

agricultural employer or agricultural

association. An FLC, agricultural

employer or agricultural association

may indicate to workers that there is no

prohibition against carpooling if any

workers wish to make such

arrangements, and may even encourage

workers to do so.

It was suggested by one agricultural

association that encouraging carpools is

consistent with and perhaps even

required by certain pollution abatement

laws and regulations. Nothing in the

current regulations nor in this

discussion is intended to prevent

agricultural employers or associations

from encouraging agricultural workers

to carpool in order to serve the laudable

public policy goal of reducing pollution.

However, where the FLC, agricultural

employer or agricultural association

organizes or helps to organize the

carpool(s), or makes carpooling a

condition of employment, the activity is

deemed to be ‘‘causing to be

transported’’ and requires compliance

with MSPA.

All the commenters agreed with the

Department’s analysis of the ‘‘raitero’’

practice but some requested further

clarification of the employer’s

obligation, if any, when raiteros provide

transportation. Nothing in the carpool

regulation nor in the discussion of

raiteros in the Preamble to the NPRM

alters the test of employer responsibility

for transportation by third parties.

Unless the agricultural employer or

association ‘‘caused’’ the transportation

by the raiteros to occur, the agricultural

employer or association is not

responsible for the transportation.

Finally, a farmworker advocacy

organization identified another

transportation-related practice that

should be clarified. Where a farm labor

contractor, agricultural employer, or

association provides the worker a travel

advance to cover travel expenses to the

worksite, and the worker is free to

choose how to use that travel advance,

the farm labor contractor, agricultural

employer, or agricultural association

will not be deemed to have ‘‘caused’’

the transportation used by the worker

and will not be subject to MSPA with

regard to such transportation.

3. Proposed Revision to the MSPA

Minimum Transportation Liability

Insurance Regulation

Public Law 104–49 eliminated the

MSPA requirement that the liability

insurance required by the Secretary in

regulations must be at least the amount

required for the carriers of passengers

under the Interstate Commerce Act

(hereinafter referred to as ICA). Instead,

Pub. L. 104–49 requires that the liability

insurance amount is to be determined

by the Secretary through consideration

of ‘‘at least the factors set out in [MSPA

Sec. 401(b)(2)(B) regarding vehicle

safety] and similar farmworker

transportation requirements under State

law.’’ Pub. L. 104–49 further requires

the Secretary to establish insurance

levels under this law within 180 days of

enactment (i.e., no later than May 13,

1996).

The NPRM proposed to implement

the insurance provisions of Pub. L. 104–

49 by amending the MSPA minimum

liability insurance regulations to depart

from the current ICA-based structure in

favor of a more flexible regulatory

scheme. As explained in the Preamble

to the NPRM, the proposed amendment

would eliminate the current vehicle

capacity categorization found in the ICA

regulations (which may well relate to

general interstate passenger

transportation patterns) while at the

same time ensuring adequate insurance

levels to protect injured persons and

property when accidents occur. The

proposal linked the required insurance

amount to the actual capacity of each

vehicle, rather than mandating one of

two levels of insurance tied to vehicle

capacity categories of 15 and below or

16 and above. The proposal required

that the insurance be at least equal to

$100,000 for each seat in a vehicle,

instead of the current flat requirement of

$1.5 million and $5 million for each

vehicle category, respectively.

In developing the NPRM and this

Final Rule, the Department adhered to

the requirements of Pub. L. 104–49. The

Department carefully considered the

factors set out in MSPA Sec.

401(b)(2)(B). Additionally, the

Department searched for, but was

unable to find, any similar farmworker

transportation requirements under State

law; none were identified by the

commenters.

The overriding concern, as stated in

Sec. 401(b)(2)(B) of MSPA, is the

protection of the health and safety of

migrant and seasonal agricultural

workers. The legislative history of

MSPA makes clear that the

requirements to provide safe vehicles

and adequate levels of vehicle insurance

are key worker protections in the Act

(Report of the House Committee on

Education and Labor, Rept. No. 97–885,

97th Cong., 2d Sess.; 1982 U.S. Code

Cong. and Ad. News 4547 (hereinafter

referred to as Report), at 4565). The

House Education and Labor Committee

Report accompanying the original

MSPA enactment noted that ‘‘[t]he

overriding concern of the Secretary shall

be the protection of the health and

safety of the workers.’’ Id at 4565. The

Committee also noted the ‘‘* * * often

dangerous conditions under which

agricultural workers are transported.’’ Id

at 4566.

The statute directs that the Secretary

should consider a number of factors,

including type and capacity of the

vehicle and the extent to which the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24863

regulation will create an undue burden

on the regulated community, in

determining both the substantive

vehicle safety standards and the

required minimum insurance amounts.

In the NPRM, the Department sought

ways to lessen the burden on the

regulated community while still

maintaining adequate protection for

workers. By departing from the ICA’s 15

and fewer and 16 and more seating

capacity categories in favor of a more

flexible regulatory scheme, the proposal

enables the regulated community to

structure its transportation practices

without regard to the arbitrary vehicle

capacity distinction in the current

regulation, obtain insurance based on

actual practices and transportation

needs, and in most cases, to realize a per

vehicle reduction in the minimum

insurance required.

4. Data and Other Information

Considered in NPRM and Final Rule

In developing the NPRM, the

Department considered the reasonably

foreseeable risks to farmworkers from

transportation accidents. As the

Preamble explained, the Department

gathered information concerning the

incidence of fatalities and injuries, the

damages resulting from such injuries,

and the likelihood that farmworkers

would be made whole in the absence of

adequate insurance coverage. The

Department also considered whether or

not the insurance could be made more

flexible and, consistent with the

obligation to protect farmworkers,

reduce the level of required insurance.

The NPRM Preamble expressly

requested information from the

commenters concerning certain factual

matters that bear on the issues of

adequate insurance, transportation

injuries to farmworkers, and undue

burden on the regulated community.

Among the information requested was

specific information, with

documentation, evidencing the financial

burden created by the insurance

requirement; a comparison of costs

between the 1983 and 1992 insurance

requirements; information about

individual accidents and the resulting

damages; the extent to which the 1992

minimum insurance requirement

increases resulted in transporters being

unable to secure and/or afford insurance

coverage; and any similar State laws

governing farmworker transportation.

While some commenters provided

anecdotal information, and some

commenters gave general or conclusory

information without the underlying

supporting data, most of the

Department’s requests for detailed

information received no response.

In commenting on the NPRM, the

American Insurance Association

(hereinafter referred to as AIA) provided

limited information about average

claims paid for accident years 1990

through April 1994. AIA stated that the

average claim paid for the 65 bodily

injury claims included in its data

compilation for that period was $17,430.

The AIA comment did not disclose any

underlying data, such as the range of

claims paid, the geographic scope of the

data, whether or not the 65 referenced

claims were the entirety of the accidents

involving agricultural workers, the

circumstances of the accidents, and

whether or not the claims paid include

all the damages in each incident or

merely the amount paid by an insurance

carrier. The AIA summary statement

does suggest that the damages suffered

by farmworkers in accidents are

extremely high when compared to

average losses for other occupational

groups. Based on information which

AIA provided to the Department during

the development of the Proposed Rule,

the average $17,430 claim for

agricultural workers is approximately

four times higher than average claims

paid for the next highest occupational

group, truck drivers, at $4,300 per claim

paid.

AIA also provided summary

information for ‘‘a large group of risks

with severity characteristics similar to

transporters of migrant workers.’’ AIA

stated that its data show that, for the

group surveyed, the risk of loss greater

than $500,000 is less than 0.3%. AIA

did not provide the underlying data

which was summarized in this

statement, and did not describe or

identify the ‘‘large group’’ or the

‘‘severity characteristics.’’ It is therefore

difficult to discern what is being

measured and whether or how the

survey is relevant to the MSPA liability

insurance analysis. The Department

made an informal request to AIA for

clarification of this information;

apparently the survey group are

employees riding in van pools or other

employer-provided vehicles.

Farmworker advocates’ comments

also provided information concerning

risk of injury to farmworkers in

transportation accidents and the extent

of damages when accidents occur. The

comment from the Migrant Farmworker

Justice Project of Florida Legal Services

included a chart prepared by the Florida

Department of Labor and Employment

Security listing accidents involving farm

labor contractors from January 1, 1990,

through March 1996. This chart shows

that 59 accidents resulted in 48 fatalities

and 352 non-fatal injuries during this

period. Also included were media

reports on farmworker accidents and an

analysis of agricultural accidents in

Florida during 1990 by Prof. William J.

Becker of the University of Florida.

According to that study, 38% of the 39

agricultural work-related fatalities were

the result of motor vehicle accidents on

public roads.

Finally, Florida Rural Legal Services

also provided information about specific

recoveries for farmworkers represented

by FRLS, and excerpts from a data base

showing settlements and verdicts

awarded to farmers in motor vehicle

accidents. It is not clear to what extent

the information concerning farmers is

comprehensive or selective. The

settlements/verdicts ranged from $843

to $6,000,000. The 59 cases reported in

the documents resulted in average

settlements/verdicts of $381,903.62.

The Department has carefully and

fully considered the information

provided by the commenters in

response to the requests in the NPRM.

The information concerning recoveries

in specific cases involving farmworkers

and farmers, confirms the data

previously compiled by the Department

concerning the extent of loss suffered in

vehicular accidents. The information

provided by AIA was helpful but lacked

the detail or specificity to MSPAregulated transportation practices to

persuade the Department to

substantially change the insurance

proposal.

5. Regulatory Structure and Minimum

Level of Insurance

a. Delinking from the ICA vehicle

capacity structure. A number of

commenters representing agricultural

employers and one representing

insurance interests suggested that the

Department erred in proposing to delink

the MSPA transportation insurance

regulation from the ICA structure that

divides vehicles into two categories

according to seating capacity of 15 and

fewer or 16 and more. It was suggested

by these commenters that the

Department retain the ICA division and

simply lower the required minimum

insurance amount for each vehicle class.

The American Insurance Association

supported this position and further

asserted that abandoning the ICA

structure would require the insurance

industry to change the process by which

insurance companies write these

policies.

The farmworkers advocacy

organizations, the two attorneys who

have represented farmworkers in

transportation accident cases, and the

Pennsylvania Farm Bureau all

commented favorably on the proposal to

delink from the ICA two-level structure
24864 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

in favor of a structure based on

individual vehicle seating capacity. The

farmworker advocacy organizations and

the attorneys expressed the view that

the proposal struck an appropriate

balance between creating additional

flexibility for the regulated community,

reducing the required minimum

insurance amounts and associated costs,

and ensuring adequate levels of

protection in the event of an accident.

The Pennsylvania Farm Bureau

commented that the proposal was a

positive step in the ability of farmers

and farm labor contractors to control

vehicle insurance cost, even if the

savings may be modest. The Bureau also

requested clarification regarding the

insurance requirements for a

transportation provider who operates a

fleet of vehicles. In response, the

Department emphasizes that the Final

Rule establishes a minimum insurance

requirement for each vehicle used to

transport farmworkers under MSPA.

Therefore, each vehicle in a fleet would

have a separate requirement for

minimum liability insurance depending

on the vehicle’s seating capacity. For

example, a six passenger vehicle must

be insured for $600,000, a 10 passenger

vehicle for $1 million, and a 25

passenger vehicle for $2.5 million. Even

though the aggregate requirement is $4.1

million, each vehicle is insured

individually, not at the $4.1 million

aggregate amount. Under the current

two-level regulatory scheme, the same

fleet of vehicles would be required to be

insured at an aggregate of $8 million.

After having carefully considered the

comments, the Department has

concluded that the approach taken in

the Proposed Rule delinking the MSPA

regulation from the ICA two-level

structure is appropriate. The legislation

authorized the Department to reexamine

this issue and to depart from the ICA

structure but did not change the

fundamental purpose of the MSPA

transportation insurance requirement: to

protect the health and safety of

agricultural workers. The Final Rule,

which sets the minimum liability

amounts according to the actual seating

capacity of the vehicle being used, as

was proposed, provides the regulated

community with additional flexibility to

structure its transportation practices

according to its actual needs and lowers

insurance costs by eliminating the

current regulation’s mandate that

transporters purchase insurance above

the level necessary to insure against

reasonable risk of harm. The Final Rule

achieves the statutory purpose of

assuring the protection of health and

safety of agricultural workers by

establishing levels of insurance on a

per-seat standard which would afford

recovery for reasonably foreseeable

risks.

It was suggested by AIA that changing

from the ICA two-class structure to a

new structure, such as contained in the

Proposed Rule, will require insurance

companies to change their underwriting

and information systems, thereby

adding costs. AIA did not provide

information to support this assertion or

to establish what the additional costs

would be. The Department therefore

does not find this to be a sufficient

reason to reconsider the Proposed Rule.

b. The Minimum Level of Insurance.

Agricultural employers, agricultural

employer advocates and the AIA

suggested that the Proposed Rule’s

minimum insurance requirement per

seat be abandoned in favor of a flat

amount according to the class of

vehicle, 15 passengers and below or 16

and above. The overwhelming majority

of these commenters proposed $500,000

for the former and $1,000,000 for the

latter. The commenters asserted that

these amounts of insurance are

sufficient to insure for damages suffered

by farmworkers in transportation

accidents and would result in lower

premiums for transportation providers.

The AIA asserted that Congress

intended that the costs of insurance be

reduced. Other commenters echoed this

assertion. However, neither the

legislative history nor Pub. L. 104–49

requires the Department to issue a rule

based on the sole consideration of the

cost of insurance to the regulated

community. In fact, the legislation

directs the Department to consider the

factors set out in MSPA Sec.

401(b)(2)(B) concerning vehicle safety.

That section of the Act makes clear that

the overriding purpose of MSPA

transportation standards is the health

and safety of migrant and seasonal

farmworkers, and further directs that, in

determining appropriate safety and

insurance requirements, the Department

is to weigh any ‘‘undue burden’’ on

transportation providers as only one

among several factors. In addition, it

should be recognized that, regardless of

the regulatory structure adopted, it is

not within the Department’s power to

ensure the reduction of insurance

premiums, short of eliminating the

insurance requirement entirely.

After thorough consideration of the

comments, the Department has

concluded that the approach taken in

the Proposed Rule is appropriate, in that

it provides adequate protection for

agricultural workers while lowering the

minimum insurance levels (and

presumably premium costs) for most

transportation providers. The Final Rule

sets the minimum amount of insurance

not by arbitrary vehicle capacity

divisions but by the actual capacity

(thus, actual risk of loss) of each insured

vehicle. A transporter using a six

passenger vehicle would not be required

to purchase insurance in excess of its

seating capacity. Instead of the current

regulation’s $1.5 million (for vehicles

with capacities up to 15), only $600,000

in insurance would be required. The

operator of a 15 passenger vehicle has

a risk exposure over twice that of the 6

passenger vehicle, and would be

required to have proportionately higher

insurance ($1,500,000). The insurance

requirements (and presumably the

premium costs) reflect the difference in

risk exposure.

In light of available data as well as

program experience regarding the types

of vehicles commonly used to transport

agricultural workers, the Department

believes that the Final Rule will likely

result in a lower level of required

insurance for the majority of

transportation providers. By way of

illustration, under the current

regulation, a seven passenger vehicle

would require $1.5 million in insurance;

under the Final Rule that same vehicle

would require only $700,000 in

insurance. A 16 passenger bus currently

must be insured at $5 million; under the

Proposed Rule, insurance would be

lowered to $1.6 million. By any

reckoning, these examples show a

significant reduction in required

insurance. It is beyond the scope of

these regulations to mandate that

premiums for such insurance be

reduced, but it would be logical to

expect that there would be a reduction

in premiums as the amount of insurance

purchased is reduced.

Several commenters noted that the

Proposed Rule would yield higher

insurance requirements for one class of

vehicle, those with more than 50 seats.

While vehicles with seating capacity in

excess of 50 are not common, it is not

the Department’s intention to increase

the insurance requirement in this

rulemaking but rather to find

reasonable, prudent, and protective

ways to reduce minimum requirements

where possible. Therefore, the Final

Rule provides a cap of $5 million for

required insurance for any one vehicle.

Thus, no vehicle will be required to

have increased levels of insurance and

most vehicles could be insured for less

than under the current regulations.

In summary, therefore, the

Department has concluded that the

available information—taken in its

entirety and on balance—confirms the

proposal that $100,000 per seat is a

reasonable measure of adequate
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24865

insurance in MSPA transportation cases.

For the reasons stated above and for the

reasons previously discussed in the

NPRM, the Department is promulgating

a Final Rule which is the same as the

Proposed Rule except for the addition of

the $5 million cap on insurance.

E. Administrative Hearings on Denials,

Suspensions, and Revocations of Farm

Labor Contractor Certificates

The NPRM proposed to establish

expedited hearing and review

procedures for denial, suspension or

revocation of farm labor contractor

certificates. All those who commented

on this proposal, including agricultural

and farmworker advocacy organizations,

favored the proposal. The proposal will

be adopted as a Final Rule without

change.

Executive Order 12866/Section 202 of

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995

This Final Rule is not ‘‘economically

significant’’ within the meaning of

Executive Order 12866, nor does it

require a § 202 statement under the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995. However, because the rule

provides initial regulations required to

implement provisions of Public Law

104–49 and may raise novel legal or

policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, it was determined to be a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ within

the meaning of § 3(f)(4) of Executive

Order 12866. The Final Rule addresses

insurance and disclosure obligations

required under MSPA, as amended by

Public Law 104–49. In addition, the rule

revises the administrative proceedings

involving decisions to revoke, suspend,

or refuse to issue or renew Certificates

of Registration under MSPA. No

economic analysis is required because

the rule will not have a significant

economic impact. For purposes of the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Pub. L.104–4), as well as Executive

Order 12875, this rule does not include

any Federal mandate that may result in

increased expenditures of $100 million

in any one year by State, local, and

tribal governments, or by the private

sector.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

This Final Rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The rule amends current regulations at

29 CFR Part 500 to bring the regulations

into conformity with the statutory

changes made to MSPA by the

enactment of Pub. L. 104–49.

Additionally, the Final Rule amends

§§ 500.224, 500.262, and 500.268 of the

current rule to provide for expedited

administrative proceedings in matters

where the Administrator has initiated

action to revoke, suspend, or refuse to

issue or renew a farm labor contractor’s

Certificate of Registration (including

Farm Labor Contractor Employee

Certificates).

The proposed rule is likely to result

in reduced insurance premiums for

some and will not result in increases for

any transporter covered by MSPA.

Further, the Department anticipates that

the portion of the regulated community

which provides transportation, and thus

would be affected by the minimum

insurance requirements, is not

substantial in number in any event.

According to the Department’s farm

labor contractor registration data, only

975 of all registered contractors (less

than 9% of the total), provide

transportation to agricultural workers. It

is believed that a similarly small

percentage of agricultural employers

and agricultural associations provide

MSPA-covered transportation.

Furthermore, the MSPA exempts from

its coverage small agricultural

employers and associations which do

not use more than 500 man-days of

agricultural labor in a calendar quarter

during the preceding year. Therefore,

many small agricultural employers are

exempt from MSPA coverage and will

be unaffected by these regulations.

Therefore, this Final Rule is not

expected to have a ‘‘significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities’’ within the

meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, and the Department has certified to

this effect to the Chief Counsel for

Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration. Accordingly, a

regulatory flexibility analysis is not

required.

Dates of Applicability

The Secretary has determined that the

public interest requires an immediate

effective date for the regulations on

liability insurance, in order to comply

with the requirement of Public Law

104–49 directing that regulations

establishing insurance levels under

§ 401(b)(3) of the MSPA (29 U.S.C.

1841(b)(3)) be promulgated within 180

days of the date of enactment of Public

Law 104–49. Accordingly, the Secretary

for good cause finds pursuant 5 U.S.C.

§ 553(d)(3), that this rule amending

§§ 500.48, 500.121 and 500.122 of the

regulation must be effective upon

publication rather than thirty days

thereafter.

Document Preparation

This document was prepared under

the direction and control of Maria

Echaveste, Administrator, Wage and

Hour Division, Employment Standards

Administration, U.S. Department of

Labor.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 500

Administrative practice and

procedure, Agricultural associations,

Agricultural worker, Aliens, Carpooling,

Day-Haul, Farmer, Farm labor

contractor, Health, Housing, Housing

standards, Immigration, Insurance,

Investigation, Migrant agricultural

workers, Migrant labor, Motor carriers,

Motor vehicle safety, Occupational

safety and health, Penalties, Reporting

requirements, Seasonal agricultural

workers, Transportation, Wages,

Manpower training programs, Labor,

Safety.

Signed at Washington, D.C., on this 13th

day of May, 1996.

John R. Fraser

Deputy Administrator, Wage and Hour

Division.

For the reasons set forth above, 29

CFR part 500 is amended as set forth

below:

PART 500—MIGRANT AND SEASONAL

AGRICULTURAL WORKER

PROTECTION

1. The authority citation for Part 500

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: Pub. L. 97–470, 96 Stat. 2583

(29 U.S.C. 1801–1872); Secretary’s Order No.

6–84, 49 FR 32473; Sec. 210A(f), Pub. L. 99–

603, 100 Stat. 3359 (8 U.S.C. 1161(f)); and

Pub. L. No. 104–49, 109 Stat. 432 (29 U.S.C.

1821, 1831 and 1841).

2. Section 500.48 is amended by

revising paragraph (d) to read as

follows:

§ 500.48 Issuance of certificate.

* * * * *

(d) Authorize the activity of

transporting a migrant or seasonal

agricultural worker, subject to the

maximum number of workers

authorized to be transported under the

vehicle liability policy and as indicated

on the face of the Certificate of

Registration, only upon receipt of:

(1) A statement in the manner

prescribed by the Secretary identifying

each vehicle to be used, or caused to be

used, by the applicant for the

transportation of any migrant or

seasonal agricultural worker during the

period for which registration is sought;

(2) written proof that every such

vehicle which is under the applicant’s

ownership or control, is in compliance
24866 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

with the vehicle safety requirements of

the Act and these regulations; and

(3) written proof that every such

vehicle is in compliance with the

insurance requirements of the Act and

these regulations;

* * * * *

3. In § 500.75, paragraph (b)(6) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 500.75 Disclosure of information.

(b) * * *

(6) Whether state workers’

compensation or state unemployment

insurance is provided:

(i) If workers’ compensation is

provided, the required disclosure must

include the name of the workers’

compensation insurance carrier, the

name(s) of the policyholder(s), the name

and telephone number of each person

who must be notified of an injury or

death, and the time period within which

such notice must be given.

(ii) The information requirement in

paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this section may be

satisfied by giving the worker a

photocopy of any workers’

compensation notice required by State

law;.

* * * * *

4. In § 500.76, paragraph (b)(6) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 500.76 Disclosure of information.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(6) Whether state workers’

compensation or state unemployment

insurance is provided:

(i) If workers’ compensation is

provided, the required disclosure must

include the name of the workers’

compensation insurance carrier, the

name(s) of the policyholder(s), the name

and telephone number of each person

who must be notified of an injury or

death, and the time period within which

such notice must be given.

(ii) The information requirement in

paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this section may

satisfied giving the worker a photocopy

of any workers’ compensation notice

required by State law;

* * * * *

5. Section 500.121 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read

as follows:

§ 500.121 Coverage and level of insurance

required.

(a) Except where a liability bond

pursuant to § 500.124 of this part has

been approved by the Secretary, a farm

labor contractor, agricultural employer

or agricultural association shall, in order

to meet the insurance requirements in

§ 500.120, obtain a policy of vehicle

liability insurance.

(b) The amount of vehicle liability

insurance shall not be less than

$100,000 for each seat in the vehicle,

but in no event is the total insurance

required to be more than $5,000,000 for

any one vehicle. The number of seats in

the vehicle shall be determined by

reference to § 500.105(b)(3)(vi). See

§ 500.122 regarding insurance

requirements where State workers’

compensation coverage is provided.

* * * * *

§ 500.122 [Amended]

6. Section 500.122 is amended by

removing and reserving paragraph (b),

and revising paragraph (c) to read as

follows:

* * * * *

(b) [Removed and Reserved]

(c) A farm labor contractor,

agricultural employer or agricultural

association who is the employer of a

migrant or seasonal agricultural worker

may evidence the issuance of workers’

compensation insurance and passenger

insurance under paragraph (a) of this

section by obtaining and making

available upon request to the

Department of Labor:

(1) A workers’ compensation coverage

policy of insurance; and

(2) A certificate of liability insurance

covering transportation of all passengers

who are not employees and of workers

whose transportation by the employer is

not covered by workers’ compensation

insurance. See § 500.121.

* * * * *

7. Section 500.224 is amended by

redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph

(c), revising paragraph (c), and adding a

new paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 500.224 Referral to Administrative Law

Judge.

* * * * *

(b) In cases involving a denial,

suspension, or revocation of a

Certificate of Registration (Farm Labor

Contractor Certificate; Farm Labor

Contractor Employee Certificate) or

‘‘certificate action,’’ including those

cases where the farm labor contractor

has requested a hearing on civil money

penalty(ies) as well as on the certificate

action, the date of the hearing shall be

not more than sixty (60) days from the

date on which the Order of Reference is

filed. No request for postponement shall

be granted except for compelling

reasons.

(c) A copy of the Order of Reference,

together with a copy of these

regulations, shall be served by counsel

for the Secretary upon the person

requesting the hearing, in the manner

provided in 29 CFR 18.3.

8. Section 500.262 is amended by

redesignating paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e),

(f), and (g) as (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h)

respectively, and adding a new

paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 500.262 Decision and order of

Administrative Law Judge.

* * * * *

(b) In cases involving certificate

actions as described in § 500.224(b), the

Administrative Law Judge shall issue a

decision within ninety (90) calendar

days after the close of the hearing.

* * * * *

9. Section 500.268 is amended by

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 500.268 Final decision of the Secretary.

(a) The Secretary’s final Decision and

Order shall be issued within 120 days

from the notice of intent granting the

petition, except that in cases involving

the review of an Administrative Law

Judge decision in a certificate action as

described in § 500.224(b), the

Secretary’s final decision shall be issued

within ninety (90) days from the date

such notice. The Secretary’s Decision

and Order shall be served upon all

parties and the Chief Administrative

Law Judge, in person or by certified

mail.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–12261 Filed 5–15–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–27–P