25690 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Notices

2:93 CV 225 JM, was lodged on April 25,

1996 with the United States District

Court for the Northern District of

Indiana. The proposed consent decree

resolves claims against American

Chemical Service, Inc. for penalties and

injunctive relief pursuant to Section 309

of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.

§ 1319, in connection with wastewater

discharges from the American Chemical

Service facility in Griffith, Indiana to

publicly owned sewers. The proposed

consent decree requires American

Chemical Service to pay a civil penalty

of $59,500 to the United States and

$25,500 to the State. In addition, the

decree requires American Chemical

Service to undertake actions that will

bring it into compliance with the

effluent limit for toluene prescribed in

the industrial discharge permit issued to

it by the Hammond Sanitary District.

The Department of Justice will

receive, for a period of thirty (30) days

from the date of this publication,

comments relating to the proposed

consent decree. Comments should be

addressed to the Assistant Attorney

General for the Environment and

Natural Resources Division, Department

of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, and

should refer to United States v. Sanitary

District of Hammond, et al., Civil Action

No. 2:93 CV 225 JM, and the Department

of Justice Reference No. 90–5–1–1–

3308A.

The proposed consent decree may be

examined at the Office of the United

States Attorney, Northern District of

Indiana, 1001 Main Street, Suite A,

Dyer, Indiana, 46311; the Region 5

Office of the Environmental Protection

Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604–3590; and at the

Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street,

NE., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005,

202–624–0892. A copy of the proposed

consent decree may be obtained in

person or by mail from the Consent

Decree Library, 1120 G Street, NW., 4th

Floor, Washington, DC 20005. In

requesting a copy, please refer to the

referenced case and enclose a check in

the amount of $4.50 (25 cents per page

reproduction costs), payable to the

Consent Decree Library.

Joel M. Gross,

Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section,

Environment and Natural Resources Division.

[FR Doc. 96–12774 Filed 5–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Secretary

Submission for OMB Emergency

Review; Comment Request

May 17, 1996.

The Department of Labor has

submitted the following (see below)

information collection request (ICR),

utilizing emergency review procedures,

to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review and clearance in

accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (P.L. 104–13, 44

U.S.C. Chapter 35). OMB approval has

been requested by May 24, 1996. A copy

of this ICR, with applicable supporting

documentation, may be obtained by

calling the Department of Labor Acting

Departmental Clearance Officer, Theresa

M. O’Malley ((202) 219–5095).

Comments and questions about ICR

listed below should be forwarded to the

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration, Office of Management

and Budget, Room 10235, Washington,

DC 20503 ((202) 395–7316).

The Office of Management and Budget

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 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 submissions

of responses.

Agency: Occupational Safety and

Health Administration.

Title: Collection of Information from

Stakeholders, Pre-proposal, in Safety

and Health Program Standard

Rulemaking.

OMB Number: None.

Frequency: One-time.

Affected Public: Stakeholders who

wish to respond.

Number of Respondents: 150.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 45 to

90 minutes.

Total Burden Hours: 150.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):

None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/

maintaining): None.

Description: This collection of

information has been sent to

approximately 200 stakeholders

attached to a document summarizing

the provisions under consideration for

OSHA’s proposed Safety and Health

Program Standard. The collection of

information basically seeks to elicit

individual stakeholders general

comments on whether the document

and OSHA’s performance to date are

reasonable and responsive to

stakeholder’s concerns and more

specific comments on scope and

recordkeeping provisions. The purpose

of the collection of information is to

make OSHA better informed regarding

its performance in the pre-proposal

stage of this rulemaking and regarding

remaining major concerns of

stakeholders, in order for OSHA to set

an appropriate agenda for upcoming

stakeholder meetings.

Theresa M. O’Malley,

Acting Departmental Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 96–12845 Filed 5–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–26–M

Office of the Secretary

Senior Executive Service; Appointment

of a Member to the Performance

Review Board

Title 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4) provides that

Notice of the appointment of an

individual to serve as a member of the

Performance Review Board of the Senior

Executive Service shall be published in

the Federal Register.

The following individual is hereby

appointed to a three-year term on the

Department’s Performance Review

Board:

Cynthia A. Metzler

For Further Information Contact: Mr.

Larry K. Goodwin, Director of Human

Resources, Room C5526, U.S.

Department of Labor, Frances Perkins

Building, 200 Constitution Avenue,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210,

telephone: (202) 219–6551.

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 17th day

of May, 1996.

Robert B. Reich,

Secretary of Labor.

[FR Doc. 96–12862 Filed 5–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–23–M
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Notices 25691

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 UIPL

described below is published in the

Federal Register in order to inform the

public.

UIPL 14–96

Several States have requested

guidance concerning the Federal

requirements for experience rating as

they relate to Indian tribes. In order to

assure consistent treatment of Indian

tribes by the States, this UIPL sets forth

the applicable Federal law and the

Department of Labor’s interpretation of

the law. This UIPL was developed with

the assistance and advice of the Internal

Revenue Service.

Dated: May 16, 1996.

Timothy M. Barnicle,

Assistant Secretary of Labor.

Classification: UI

Correspondence Symbol: TEURL

Date: April 12, 1996.

Directive: Unemployment Insurance

Program Letter No. 14–96.

To: All State Employment Security

Agencies.

From: Mary Ann Wyrsch, Director,

Unemployment Insurance Service.

Subject: Experience Rating of Indian

Tribes.

1. Purpose. To advise States of the

application of the experience rating

requirements of Federal law to Indian tribes.

2. References. Sections 501, 1402(a)(15),

3301–3310 (the Federal Unemployment Tax

Act (FUTA)), 7701(a), 7871, and 7873(a)(2) of

the Internal Revenue Code (IRC); 25 U.S.C.

Sections 450b and 479; Revenue Rulings 56–

110, 59–354, 68–493 and 85–194; and

Unemployment Insurance Program Letters

(UIPLs) 29–83, 29–83, Change 1, 12–87 and

24–89.

3. Background. It is the Department’s

position that the granting of reimbursement

status to Indian tribes liable for the Federal

unemployment tax is consistent with the

experience rating requirements of Section

3303(a)(1), FUTA. However, some States

have nevertheless granted such Indian tribes

reimbursement status. Although

congressional action has been anticipated on

this matter for a considerable time, it does

not appear to be forthcoming. Therefore, the

Department is issuing this UIPL to assure

consistent treatment of tribes for experience

rating purposes. This UIPL also contains a

discussion concerning State jurisdiction over

the tribes.

Rescissions: None.

Expiration Date: April 30, 1997.

Unless greater specificity is required, this

UIPL will use the term ‘‘tribe’’ to describe the

Indian tribe, its tribal government as well as

other tribal governmental entities and tribal

business enterprises. Section 7701(a)(40)(A)

of the IRC defines the term ‘‘Indian tribal

government’’ to mean ‘‘the governing body of

any tribe, band, community, village, or group

of Indians, or (if applicable) Alaska natives,

which is determined by the Secretary [of the

Treasury], after consultation with the

Secretary of the Interior, to exercise

governmental functions.’’ Tribal

governments, usually called ‘‘tribal

councils,’’ frequently operate business

enterprises. ‘‘Tribe’’ is not defined in the IRC.

For purposes of the Indian SelfDetermination and Education Assistance Act,

a tribe is defined as ‘‘any Indian tribe, band,

nation or other organized group or

community * * * which is recognized as

eligible for the special programs and services

provided by the United States to Indians

because of their status as Indians.’’ 25 U.S.C.

§ 450b(e). For purposes of the Indian

Reorganization Act, a ‘‘tribe’’ refers to ‘‘any

Indian tribe, organized band, pueblo, or

Indians residing on one reservation.’’ 25

U.S.C. § 479.

4. Federal Law Requirements. Section

3301, FUTA, imposes an excise tax on every

employer (as defined in Section 3306(a)(1),

FUTA) with ‘‘respect to having individuals in

his employ * * *’’ To encourage States to

cover these services, Section 3302, FUTA,

provides for a ‘‘normal’’ and an ‘‘additional’’

credit against this tax. Also, as described

below, FUTA requires States to cover

services performed for certain entities which

are not subject to the FUTA tax and to offer

such entities a reimbursement option.

As a condition of receiving the additional

credit, Section 3303(a)(1), FUTA, requires

that State law provide that ‘‘no reduced rate

of contributions * * * is permitted to a

person (or group of persons) * * * except on

the basis of his (or their) experience with

respect to unemployment or other factors

bearing a direct relation to unemployment

risk.’’ (Emphasis added.) Therefore, except as

explained below, if an entity is a ‘‘person,’’

that entity may be assigned a reduced rate

only on the basis of its experience or other

factors bearing a direct relation to

unemployment risk (hereafter ‘‘experience’’).

If a ‘‘person’’ is assigned a rate that is not

based on experience, the State’s assignment

of rates will conflict with Federal law

requirements and all employers in the State

will lose the additional credit against the

FUTA tax.

To determine if an entity is a ‘‘person,’’

States may rely on the entity’s FUTA tax

status. Section 3306(a)(12), FUTA, defines

the term ‘‘employer’’ as, in part, ‘‘any person

* * *.’’ Only ‘‘employers’’ are liable for the

FUTA tax (Section 3301, FUTA). Thus, any

entity determined by the IRS to be an

employer subject to and liable for the FUTA

tax is a ‘‘person’’ which must be experience

rated.

However, since the term ‘‘person’’ is

broader than the term ‘‘employer,’’ it is

possible for an entity to be a ‘‘person’’ even

though it is not liable for the FUTA tax. One

way this will happen is if all the services

performed for a ‘‘person’’ are excluded from

the definition of ‘‘employment’’ in Section

3306, FUTA. Two of these exclusions are

described in paragraphs (7) and (8) of Section

3306(c):

(7) service performed in the employ of a

State, or any political subdivision thereof, or

any instrumentality of any one or more of the

foregoing which is wholly owned by one or

more States or political subdivisions; and any

service performed in the employ of any

instrumentality of one or more States or

political subdivisions to the extent that the

instrumentality is, with respect to such

service, immune under the Constitution of

the United States from the tax imposed by

section 3301;

(8) service performed in the employ of a

religious, charitable, educational or other

organization described in section 501(c)(3)

which is exempt from income tax under

section 501(a).

Since these State and local governmental

entities and nonprofit organizations are not

subject to the FUTA tax, the principal

incentive for requiring State unemployment

compensation (UC) coverage—the receipt of

the tax credits against the FUTA tax for the

individual employer—is absent. Sections

3304(a)(6) and 3309, FUTA, therefore,

require, as a condition for all employers in

a State to receive credit against the FUTA tax,

that the State cover these services. These

sections further require that States extend the

option to make ‘‘payments (in lieu of

contributions),’’ commonly called

reimbursements, based on these services. The

only way a ‘‘person’’ can qualify for

reimbursing status under a State law without

conflicting with Federal law is by meeting

one of these two exclusions.

Providing reimbursement status is viewed

by the Department as assigning a zero rate to

the ‘‘person’’ because no prospective liability

is created. (Similarly, assigning no rate is

viewed as assigning a zero rate.) Unless the

‘‘person’’ qualified for reimbursement status

as discussed in the preceding paragraph, a

conflict with Section 3303(a)(1), FUTA,

would exist since the zero rate would not be

based on experience. In addition, such a zero

rate would not be based on the three years

of experience immediately preceding the

computation date and ‘‘persons’’ would not

receive rates based on the same factors over

the same period of time. (A discussion of

these experience rating requirements is found

in UIPL 29–83 and its Change 1.)

5. Status of Tribes under Federal Law. It is

well established that the IRS and the courts

consider tribes to be ‘‘persons’’ for Federal

tax purposes. The term ‘‘person’’ is define in

Section 7701(a)(1), IRC, ‘‘to mean and

include an individual, a trust, estate,

partnership, association, company or

corporation.’’ IRS Revenue Ruling 85–194

addressed whether an Indian tribal
25692 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Notices

1Section 7871 lists 17 different provisions/

chapters of Federal law, including those addressing

charitable contributions, accident and health plans,

and bonds. Although Section 7871(a)(2) provides

that tribes will be treated as States for purposes of

four excise taxes, the FUTA tax is not mentioned.

(Section 3301, FUTA, describes the FUTA tax as an

excise tax.) The legislative history of Section 7871

is clear that the need for legislation arose because

‘‘Indian tribal governments are not treated as State

and local governments.’’ S. Rep. No. 646, 97th

Cong. 2nd. Sess. 8 (1982). Also, see Cabazon at 401.

government was a ‘‘person.’’ That ruling held

that the definition of ‘‘person’’ in Section

7701(a)(1), IRC, ‘‘is sufficiently broad to

include a governmental body.’’ See Ohio v.

Helvering, 292 U.S. 360 (1934). Therefore, the

tribal government was a ‘‘person.’’ The fact

that tribes may perform governmental

functions does not, therefore, form a basis for

excepting them from the definition of

‘‘person.’’ In fact, in cases where they are

subject to the FUTA tax, they are plainly

‘‘persons’’ under Federal law since only

‘‘persons’’ are subject to this tax.

In Revenue Ruling 56–110, the IRS

determined that a business enterprise

operated by a tribe is not an instrumentality

wholly-owned by the United States and,

therefore, is liable for the FUTA tax. Revenue

Ruling 59–354 held that a tribal council is

liable for FUTA taxes for employees of the

council and employees of tribal council

business enterprises. Revenue Ruling 68–493

held that services performed by an Indian

employee are not excepted from the FUTA

definition of employment merely because the

Indian is a ward of the United States.

Courts have upheld the IRS position that

tribes are subject to FUTA. See Matter of

Cabazon Indian Casino, 57 B.R. 398 (Bankr.

9th Cir. 1986), and Washoe Tribes v. United

States, 79–2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P97189.

Also, Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs

Reservation v. Kurtz, 691 F.2d 878 (9th Cir.

1982), established that tribes are liable for

Federal excise taxes. Under Section 3301,

FUTA, the FUTA tax is specifically defined

as an excise tax.

The FUTA liability of tribes is confirmed

by the fact that two special provisions were

deemed necessary to exempt certain tribal

services from the FUTA tax. First, an

amnesty provision was created in 1986 to

exempt service in the employ of ‘‘a qualified

Indian entity’’ from the FUTA tax for a

specific period during which the entity (that

is, the tribe) was not covered by a State UC

program. See UIPL 12–87. Second, Section

1402(a)(15) and 7873(a)(2) were added to the

IRC in 1988 to exclude from the FUTA tax

services ‘‘performed in a fishing rightsrelated activity of an Indian tribe by a

member of such tribe for another member of

such tribe or for a qualified Indian entity.’’

See UIPL 24–89.

Even though tribes perform governmental

functions, this does not mean that a tribe may

be treated as a governmental entity for FUTA

purposes. In fact, in Section 7871, IRC,

Congress has clearly delineated those

situations where a tribe may be treated as a

State for Federal tax purposes. These

purposes do not include the FUTA tax.1 The

FUTA governmental exclusion in Section

3306(c)(7) applies only to State governments

or ‘‘political subdividisons thereof.’’ In the

attached correspondence, the IRS has

confirmed that, even where tribes are

considered to be political subdivisions or

agencies of a State under State law, the tribes

remain subject to the FUTA tax in the same

way as other private employers. (The IRS

further stated that tribes would likely not be

allowed a credit against the FUTA tax for any

reimbursements made to a State’s

unemployment fund.) A State may, for UC

purposes, treat a tribe as a Section 3306(c)(7),

FUTA, entity only if the tribe is in fact such

an entity under Federal law. Merely

designating a tribe as a governmental entity

under State UC law is not sufficient; the tribe

must be a Section 3306(c)(7) entity in all

respects. The term ‘‘polical subdivision’’ is a

Federal law term; it is not affected by the

State’s use of that term.

In sum, if a tribe is subject to the FUTA

tax, it is a ‘‘person.’’ This tribe is not a

governmental entity described in Section

3306(c)(7) since such entities are exempt

from the FUTA tax. The State may not give

this tribe reimbursable status and may assign

it a reduced rate only on the basis of its

experience.

6. Status of Tribes under State Law—

Jurisdictional Issues. The provisions of FUTA

relating to taxable services do not require a

State to cover these services for UC purposes.

Instead, coverage is encouraged by granting

employers credit against the FUTA tax for

contributions paid on services covered under

State law. Since States have limited

jurisdictional rights over tribes or activities

on reservations, State UC coverage has not

always been extended to the tribes. In some

States, the continuation of coverage for tribal

services is conditioned on the tribe’s

payment of its UC benefit costs. If tribes are

not covered under State law, then they will

not be eligible for any credit against the

FUTA tax.

A leading State court decision on this

jurisdictional matter is Employment Security

Department v. the Cheyenne River Sioux

Tribe, 119 N.W.2d 285 (S.D. 1963). In this

case, South Dakota sought to collect from a

tribe contributions owed to the State’s UC

fund. The Cheyenne Court noted that the

tribal authority in certain areas results in the

existence of three forms of government

within the geographical confines of the State:

the United States of America, the State itself

and Indian tribes. In concluding that the

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe was immune

from suit, the Court decided that ‘‘unless

Congress enacts a statute authorizing, or

consenting to, actions to enforce the claimed

liability, the courts of this state have no

jurisdiction of the Tribe in this civil action.’’

The United States Supreme Court has

confirmed the States’ limited jurisdiction

over tribes. In Bryan v. Itasca County, 426

U.S. 373, 96 S.Ct. 2102 (1976), the Court held

that States may not impose a tax, in this case

a personal property tax, on Indians living on

reservations without the consent of Congress.

In White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker,

448 U.S. 136, 143, 100 S.Ct. 2578, 2583

(1980), the Court held that States could not

impose taxes on a non-tribal company

operating on a reservation. The White

Mountain opinion provided a useful

summary concerning the status of tribes:

The status of the tribes has been described

as ‘‘ ‘an anomalous one and of complex

character,’ ’’ for despite their partial

assimilation into American culture, the tribes

have retained ‘‘ ‘a semi-independent position

. . . not as States, not as nations, not as

possessed of the full attributes of sovereignty,

but as a separate people, with the power of

regulating their internal and social relations,

and thus far not brought under the laws of

the Union or the State within whose limits

they resided.’ ’’ [Citations omitted.]

At least one State mandates UC coverage of

tribes on the basis that, through Section

3305(d), FUTA, Congress has provided States

with the authority to cover services on lands

held in trust for the tribes by the Federal

government. That section provides that ‘‘[n]o

person shall be relieved from compliance

with a State unemployment compensation

law on the ground that services were

performed on land or premises owned, held,

or possessed by the United States, and any

State shall have full jurisdiction and power

to enforce the provisions of such law to the

same extent and with the same effect as

though such place were not owned, held, or

possessed by the United States.’’ The

Department has not, however, taken a

position on this.

In short, States have limited jurisdictional

authority to impose or collect a State UC tax

on tribes. However, unless this tax is

imposed by the State and paid by the tribes,

the tribes receive no credit against the FUTA

tax for which they are liable.

7. Summary. Although tribes may perform

governmental activities, this does not mean

that they are not liable for the FUTA tax. In

fact, both the IRS and the courts have

concluded that tribes are ‘‘persons’’ liable for

the tax. For employers in a State to receive

the additional credit, the State may assign

reduced rates to any ‘‘person’’ only on the

basis of experience. If a State does not assign

a rate based on experience to a FUTA liable

employer, this experience requirement is not

met. Only entities excluded from the FUTA

tax under Sections 3306(c) (7) and (8) qualify

for reimbursement status. As FUTA liable

tribes are not among those entities qualifying

for the reimbursement option, they must be

assigned a reduced rate only on the basis of

experience.

8. Action Required. State agencies should

assure that, for experience rating

purposes,tribes are treated consistent with

the Federal law requirements described

herein.

9. Inquiries. Please direct inquiries to the

appropriate Regional Office.

Attachment

Department of the Treasury

Internal Revenue Service

Washington, D.C. 20224

October 10, 1995.

Ms. Mary Ann Wyrsch,

Director, Unemployment Insurance Service,

U.S. Department of Labor, 200

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20210

Dear Ms. Wyrsch: This is in response to

your letter of August 29, 1995, to

Commissioner Richardson requesting our
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Notices 25693

views on the liability of Indian tribes under

the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA).

Your letter was forwarded to this office for

reply.

You state that the Colorado Employment

Security Act has amended their definition of

‘‘Political Subdivision,’’ for purposes of the

Employment Security Act, to include an

Indian tribe organized pursuant to the Indian

Reorganization Act of 1934. This amendment

confers on Indian tribes in Colorado the

option of either paying contributions to the

State unemployment fund or reimbursing the

State account for the amount of benefits paid

based upon service with the Tribe. You

question whether this amendment to

Colorado law and the fact that tribes have

chosen the reimbursement option changes

the status of the tribes for purposes of

determining the amount of tax due under

FUTA. As explained below, it is the position

of the Internal Revenue Service that Indian

tribes are treated in the same way as private

employers. The amendment to Colorado law

does not change our position.

In addition you ask whether Indian tribes

being treated as political subdivisions of a

State are exempt from FUTA. If tribes are

being treated as private employers, you also

ask whether the FUTA tax is reduced by any

reimbursements made by the tribes. While

we are unable to comment directly on the

Indian tribes in Colorado, we can provide the

following general information.

Section 3301 of the Internal Revenue Code

imposes on every employer a tax (the FUTA

tax) on the total wages (as defined in section

3306(b)) paid by him during the calendar

year with respect to employment (as defined

in section 3306(c)). Thus, unless the

payments are excepted from the term

‘‘wages’’ or the services performed by the

employee are excepted from the term

‘‘employment’’ such payments will be subject

to FUTA.

Section 3306(c)(7) provides an exception

from the definition of ‘‘employment,’’ for

purposes of FUTA, for service performed in

the employ of a State or political subdivision.

Section 3309 allows States to provide for

unemployment coverage for governmental

organization under the ‘‘direct

reimbursement method.’’ Under the direct

reimbursement method, a qualifying

organization is allowed to obtain state

unemployment coverage for its employees by

agreeing to reimburse the State for

unemployment benefits that are attributable

to services performed for the organization.

The reimbursement of benefits is in lieu of

paying state unemployment tax based on the

experience rate of the organization. This

provision applies to service which is

excluded from the term ‘‘employment’’ by

reason of section 3306(c)(7), which is service

performed in the employ of a State, or

political subdivision thereof.

It is the long-standing position of the

Service that American Indian tribes are not

political subdivisions or agencies of a state

for federal employment tax purposes. For

purposes of FUTA, Indian tribes and their

tribal activities are treated in the same way

as private employers. Although section 7871

of the Code provides that an Indian tribal

government is a State for certain enumerated

Internal Revenue Code purposes, these

purposes do not include federal employment

taxes. Thus, service for a tribal government

does not qualify for the exception from the

definition of ‘‘employment’’ under section

3306(c)(7). See Rev. Rul. 59–354, 1959–2 C.B.

24 and Rev. Rul. 68–493, 1968–2 C.B. 426

(copies attached).

Section 3302(a)(1) of the Code provides

that the taxpayer may, to the extent provided

in subsections (a) and (c), credit against the

tax imposed by section 3301, the amount of

contributions paid by the taxpayer into an

unemployment fund maintained during the

taxable year under the unemployment

compensation law of a State which is

certified as provided in section 3304 for the

12-month period ending on October 31 of

such year.

As stated above, for purposes of FUTA,

Indian tribes and their tribal activities are

treated in the same way as private employers.

Thus, if a tribe is not contributing to a State

unemployment fund, it would be required to

pay FUTA at the full rate. Because the

reimbursement option under section 3309 is

not available to Indian tribes, we have never

addressed the question of whether

reimbursements made to a State

unemployment fund by an Indian tribe

would reduce the amount of FUTA tax owed

by the tribe. Section 3302(a) allows a credit

for contributions paid by a taxpayer. Section

3309 allows for reimbursements in lieu of

contributions. Given this language, it appears

that Indian tribes would not be allowed a

credit for any reimbursements they made.

We hope this information is helpful. If we

can be of further assistance, please contact

Jean M. Casey of my staff at (202) 622–6040.

Sincerely yours,

Mary E. Oppenheimer,

Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of the

Associate Chief Counsel (Employee Benefits

and Exempt Organizations).

[FR Doc. 96–12751 Filed 5–27–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

Employment Standards Administration

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as

part of its continuing effort to reduce

paperwork and respondent burden,

conducts a preclearance consultation

program to provide 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

(PRA95) [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

Employment Standards Administration

is soliciting comments concerning the

proposed revision collection of FECA

Medical Report Forms: CA–7, CA–8,

CA–16b, CA–20, CA–20a, CA–1090,

CA–1303, CA–1305, CA–1306, CA–

1314, CA–1316, CA–1331, CA–1332, A–

1336, OWCP–5a, OWCP–5b, and

OWCP–5c.

A copy of the proposed information

collection request can be obtained by

contacting the office listed below in the

addressee section of this notice.

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted to the office listed in the

addressee section below on or before

July 24, 1996. 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

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 submissions

of responses.

ADDRESSEE: Mr. Rich Elman, U.S.

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution

Ave., NW., Room S–3201, Washington,

DC 20210, telephone (202) 219–6375

(this is not a toll-free number), fax 202–

219–6592.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Statute 5 USC 8101 et seq. of the

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act

provides for the payment of benefits for

wage-loss and/or for permanent

payment to a scheduled member, arising

out of a work-related injury or disease.

The CA–7 and CA–8 request

information, allowing the Office of

Workers’ Compensation Programs to

fulfill its statutory requirements for the

period of compensation claimed (e.g.,

the pay rate, dependents, earnings, dual

benefits and third party information).

The other forms in this proposed

revision collection collect medical