19514 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Notices

Upper Sioux Reservation may begin

after that date if no additional claimants

come forward.

Dated: April 14, 1998.

Francis P. McManamon,

Departmental Consulting Archeologist,

Manager, Archeology and Ethnography

Program.

[FR Doc. 98–10326 Filed 4–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–F

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

Notice of Inventory Completion for

Native American Human Remains from

Chugachik Island and Togiak, AK in

the Possession of the Pratt Museum,

Homer, AK

AGENCY: National Park Service

ACTION: Notice

Notice is hereby given in accordance

with provisions of the Native American

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

(NAGPRA), 43 CFR 10.9, of the

completion of an inventory of human

remains in the possession of the Pratt

Museum, Homer, AK.

A detailed assessment of the human

remains was made by Pratt Museum,

University of Alaska-Anchorage, and

Alaska State Office of History and

Archaeology professional staff in

consultation with representatives of the

Chugach Alaska Corporation, Nanwalek

Village Council, Port Graham Village

Council, Seldovia Village Tribe, Cook

Inlet Region, Inc., Ninilchik Village

Traditional Council, Kenaitze Indian

Tribe, Salamatof Tribal Council, Bristol

Bay Native Corporation, and the

Traditional Council of Togiak.

Between 1966-1976, human remains

representing three individuals were

recovered from non-federal lands on

Chugachik Island in Kachemak Bay, AK

by N. Holt, A.C. Holt, and/or Sam Pratt

and donated to the Pratt Museum by

Sam Pratt. No known individuals were

identified. No associated funerary

objects are present.

Based on the apparent age of the

remains (c. 300 BC to 300 AD), these

individuals have been determined to be

Alutiiq. Based on material culture and

manner of interment, the site from

which these remains were recovered has

been identified as Kachemak Tradition.

Based on continuities of material

culture and technologies, the Kachemak

Tradition has been identified as an

antecedent of the modern Alutiiq

peoples, including Chugach Alaska

Corporation, Nanwalek Village Council,

Port Graham Village Council, Seldovia

Village Tribe, Native Village of Tatitlek,

Native Village of Chenega, and Eyak

Native Village.

In 1981, human remains representing

one individual were recovered from

non-federal lands at Togiak, AK by

Patrick and Dianne Audette who

donated them to the Pratt Museum. No

known individuals were identified. No

associated funerary objects are present.

Based on statitistical tests of cranial

measurements, this individual has been

determined to be Yup’ik. The location

where the remains were reportedly

recovered has been identified as an area

of Yup’ik occupation dating back 2,500

years based on continuties of material

culture.

Based on the above mentioned

information, officials of the Pratt

Museum have determined that,

pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2 (d)(1), the

human remains listed above represent

the physical remains of four individuals

of Native American ancestry. Officials of

the Pratt Museum have also determined

that, pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2 (e), there

is a relationship of shared group

identity which can be reasonably traced

between these Native American human

remains and the Chugach Alaska

Corporation, Nanwalek Village Council,

Port Graham Village Council, Seldovia

Village Tribe, Native Village of Tatitlek,

Native Village of Chenega, Eyak Native

Village, Bristol Bay Native Corporation,

and Traditional Council of Togiak.

This notice has been sent to officials

of the Chugach Alaska Corporation,

Nanwalek Village Council, Port Graham

Village Council, Seldovia Village Tribe,

Cook Inlet Region, Inc., Ninilchik

Village Traditional Council, Kenaitze

Indian Tribe, Salamatof Tribal Council,

Bristol Bay Native Corporation, and the

Traditional Council of Togiak.

Representatives of any other Indian tribe

that believes itself to be culturally

affiliated with these human remains

should contact Betsy Webb, Curator of

Collecctions, Pratt Museum, 3779

Bartlett Street, Homer, AK 99603;

telephone: (907) 235-8635, fax: (907)

235-2764; or email: pratt@alaska.net,

before May 20, 1998. Repatriation of the

human remains to the Chugach Alaska

Corporation, Nanwalek Village Council,

Port Graham Village Council, Seldovia

Village Tribe, Native Village of Tatitlek,

Native Village of Chenega, Eyak Native

Village, Bristol Bay Native Corporation,

and the Traditional Council of Togiak

may begin after that date if no

additional claimants come forward.

Dated: April 13, 1998.

Francis P. McManamon,

Departmental Consulting Archeologist,

Manager, Archeology and Ethnography.

[FR Doc. 98–10356 Filed 4–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–F

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Office of Special Counsel for

Immigration Related Unfair

Employment Practices

Immigration Related Employment

Discrimination Public Education

Grants

AGENCY: Office of Special Counsel for

Immigration Related Unfair

Employment Practices, Civil Rights

Division, U.S. Department of Justice.

ACTION: Notice of availability of funds

and solicitation for grant applications.

SUMMARY: The Office of Special Counsel

for Immigration Related Unfair

Employment Practices (OSC) announces

the availability of funds for grants to

conduct public education programs

about the rights afforded potential

victims of employment discrimination

and the responsibilities of employers

under the antidiscrimination provisions

of the Immigration and Nationality Act

(INA), 8 U.S.C. 1324b.

It is anticipated that a number of

grants will be competitively awarded to

applicants who can demonstrate a

capacity to design and successfully

implement public education campaigns

to combat immigration-related

employment discrimination. Grants will

range in size from $50,000 to $150,000.

OSC will accept proposals from

applicants who have access to potential

victims of discrimination or whose

experience qualifies them to educate

employers about the antidiscrimination

provisions of INA. OSC welcomes

proposals from diverse nonprofit

organizations such as local, regional or

national ethnic and immigrants’ rights

advocacy organizations, trade

associations, industry groups,

professional organizations, or other

nonprofit entities providing information

services to potential victims of

discrimination and/or employers,

including state and local government

agencies.

APPLICATION DUE DATE: 6. p.m., edt, June

4, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patita McEvoy, Public Affairs Specialist,

Office of Special Counsel for
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Notices 19515

Immigration Related Unfair

Employment Practices, 1425 New York

Ave., NW., Suite 9000, PO. Box 27728,

Washington, DC 20038–7728. Tel. (202)

616–5594, or (202) 616–5525 (TDD for

the hearing impaired).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office

of Special Counsel for Immigration

Related Unfair Employment Practices of

the Civil Rights Division of the

Department of Justice announces the

availability of funds to conduct costeffective public education programs

concerning the antidiscrimination

provisions of INA. Funds will be

awarded to selected applicants who

propose cost-effective ways of educating

employers and/or members of the

protected class, or to those who can fill

a particular need not currently being

met.

Background

The Immigration Reform and Control

Act of 1986 (IRCA), Public Law 99–603,

8 U.S.C. 1324b, et seq. and the

Immigration Act (IMMACT 90) make

hiring non-U.S. citizens without work

authorization unlawful, and require

employers to verify the identity and

work authorization of all new

employees. Employers who violate this

law are subject to sanctions, including

fines and possible criminal prosecution.

During the debate on IRCA, Congress

foresaw the possibility that employers,

fearful of sanctions, would refuse

employment to individuals simply

because they looked or sounded foreign.

Consequently, Congress enacted Section

102 of IRCA, an antidiscrimination

provision. Section 102 prohibits

employers of four or more employees

from discriminating on the basis of

citizenship status or national origin in

hiring, firing, recruitment or referral for

a fee, and prohibits employers from

engaging in document abuse in the

employment eligibility verification

process.

Citizens and certain classes of work

authorized individuals are protected

from citizenship status discrimination.

Protected non-citizens include

permanent residents who apply for

naturalization within six months of

being eligible to do so, temporary

residents under the 1986 amnesty, the

Special Agricultural Workers (SAWs) or

the Replenishment Agricultural Workers

(RAWs) programs, and refugees and

asylees. Citizens and all work

authorized individuals are protected

from discrimination on the basis of

national origin. However, this

prohibition applies only to employers

with four to fourteen employees.

National origin discrimination

complaints against employers with

fifteen or more employees remain under

the jurisdiction of the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission

pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq.

In addition, under the document

abuse provision of the law, employers

must accept all forms of work

authorization and proof of identity

allowed by the Immigration and

Naturalization Service (INS) for

completion of the Employment

Eligibility Verification (I–9) Form.

Employers may not prefer or require one

form of documentation over another for

hiring purposes. Requiring more or

specific documents to prove identity

and work authorization may constitute

document abuse.

On October 1, 1996, Congress passed

the Illegal Immigration Reform and

Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

(IIRIRA). IIRIRA will expand the

existing electronic employment

eligibility pilot programs being carried

out by the INS, and will reduce the

number of documents that employers

can accept to verify an individual’s

work eligibility. These changes are

expected to take place by October 1,

1998.

OSC is responsible for receiving and

investigating discrimination charges

and, when appropriate, filing

complaints with specially designated

administrative law judges. OSC also

initiates independent investigations of

possible Section 102 violations.

While OSC has been established a

record of vigorous enforcement, studies

by the U.S. General Accounting Office

and other sources have shown that there

is an extensive lack of knowledge on the

part of protected individuals and

employers about the antidiscrimination

provisions. Enforcement cannot be

effective if potential victims of

discrimination are not aware of their

rights. Moreover, discrimination can

never be eradicated so long as

employers are not aware of their

responsibilities.

Purpose

OSC seeks to educate both workers

and employers about their rights and

responsibilities under the

antidiscrimination provisions of INA.

Because previous grantees have

developed a wealth of materials (e.g.,

brochures, posters, booklets,

information packets, and videos) to

educate these groups, OSC has

determined that the focus of the

program should be on the actual

delivery of these materials to educate

further both potential victims and

employers. More specifically, in keeping

with the purpose of the grant program,

OSC seeks proposals that will use

existing materials effectively to educate

large numbers of workers or employers

about exercising their rights or fulfilling

their obligations under the

antidiscrimination provisions.

Program Description

The program is designed to develop

and implement cost-effective

approaches to educate potential victims

of employment discrimination about

their rights and to educate employers

about their responsibilities under INA’s

antidiscrimination provisions.

Applications may propose to educate

potential victims only, employers only,

or both in a single campaign. Program

budgets must include the travel, lodging

and other expenses necessary for at least

one, but not more than two, program

staff members to attend the mandatory

OSC grantee training (2 days) held in

Washington, DC at the beginning of the

grant period (late Autumn). Proposals

should outline the following key

elements of the program:

Part I: Targeted Population

The educational efforts under the

grant should be directed to (1) workauthorized non-citizens who are

protected individuals, since this group

is especially vulnerable to employment

discrimination; (2) those citizens who

are most likely to become victims of

employment discrimination; and/or to

(3) employers. The proposals should

define the characteristics of the work

authorized population or the employer

group(s) targeted for the educational

campaign, and the applicant’s

qualifications to reach credibly and

effectively large segments of the

campaign targets.

The proposals should also detail the

reasons for targeting each group of

protected individuals or employers by

describing particular needs or other

factors to support the selection. In

defining the campaign targets and

supporting the reasons for the selection,

applicants may use studies, surveys, or

any other sources of information of

generally accepted reliability.

Part II: Campaign Strategy

We encourage applicants to devise

effective and creative means of public

education and information

dissemination that are specifically

designed to reach the widest possible

targeted audience. Those applicants

proposing educational campaigns

addressing potential victims of

discrimination should keep in mind that

some of the traditional methods of

public communication may be less than

optimal for educating members of
19516 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Notices

national or linguistic groups that have

limited community-based support and

communication networks.

Some grantees who are conducting

citizenship campaigns, have, in the past,

combined those efforts and resources

with the INA antidiscrimination

education campaigns in order to

maximize the scope and breadth of the

project and to reach a larger number of

individuals in the targeted population.

If an applicant proposes to combine

these efforts, please discuss how the

programs will interact and how the

budgets will be administered.

Proposals should discuss the

components of the campaign strategy,

detail the reasons supporting the choice

of each component, and explain how

each component will effectively

contribute to the overall objective of

cost-effective dissemination of useful

and accurate information to a wide

audience of protected individuals or

employers. Discussions of the campaign

strategies and supporting rationale

should be clear, concise, and based on

sound evidence and reasoning.

Since there presently exists a wealth

of materials for use in educating the

public, proposals should include in

their budgets the costs for distribution

of materials received from OSC or from

current/past OSC grantees.

To the extent that applicants believe the

development of original materials

particularly suited to their campaign is

necessary, their proposal should articulate in

detail the circumstances requiring the

development of such materials. All such

materials must be approved by OSC to ensure

legal accuracy and proper emphasis prior to

production. It should be noted that proposed

revisions/translations of OSC-approved

materials must also be submitted for

clearance. All information distributed should

also include mention of the OSC as a source

of assistance, information and action, and the

correct address and telephone numbers of the

OSC (including the toll-free and TDD toll-free

numbers for the hearing impaired).

Part III: Evaluation of the Strategy

One of the central goals of this

program is determining what public

education strategies are most effective

and thus, should be included in future

public education efforts. Therefore, it is

crucial that the methods of evaluating

the campaign strategy and public

education materials and their results be

carefully detailed. A full evaluation of a

project’s effectiveness is due within 60

days of the conclusion of a campaign.

Interim evaluation/activity reports are

due quarterly throughout the grant year.

Selection Criteria

The final selection of grantees for

award will be made by the Special

Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair

Employment Practices.

A panel made up of OSC staff will

review and rate the applications and

make recommendations to the Special

Counsel regarding funding. The panel’s

results are advisory in nature and not

binding on the Special Counsel. Letters

of support, endorsement, or

recommendation are not part of the

grant application process and will not

be considered.

In determining which applications to

fund, OSC will consider the following

(based on a one-hundred point scale):

1. Program Design (50 Points)

Sound program design and costeffective strategies for educating the

targeted population are imperative.

Consequently, areas that will be closely

examined include the following:

a. Evidence of in-depth knowledge of

the goals and objectives of the project.

(15 points)

b. Selection and definition of the

target group(s) for the campaign, and the

factors that support the selection,

including special needs, and the

applicant’s qualifications to reach

effectively the target. (10 points)

c. A cost-effective campaign strategy

for educating targeted employers and/or

members of the protected class, with a

justification for the choice of strategy,

including the degree to which the

campaign has prevented immigration

related unfair employment practices and

has reached individuals with such

claims. (15 points)

d. The evaluation methods proposed

by the applicant to measure the

effectiveness of the campaign and their

precision in indicating to what degree

the campaign is successful. (10 points)

2. Administrative Capability (20 Points)

Proposals will be rated in terms of the

capability of the applicant to implement

the targeting, public education and

evaluation components of the campaign:

a. Evidence of proven ability to

provide high quality results. (10 points)

b. Evidence that the applicant can

implement the campaign, and complete

the evaluation component within the

time lines provided.

Note: OSC’s experience during previous

grant cycles has shown that a number of

applicants choose to apply as a consortium

of individual entities; or, if applying

individually, propose the use of subcontractors to undertake certain limited

functions. It is essential that these applicants

demonstrate the proven management

capability and experience to ensure that, as

lead agency, they will be directly accountable

for the successful implementation,

completion, and evaluation of the project. (10

points)

3. Staff Capability (10 Points)

Applications will be evaluated in

terms of the degree to which:

a. The duties outlined for grantfunded positions appear appropriate to

the work that will be conducted under

the award. (5 points)

b. The qualifications of the grantfunded positions appear to match the

requirements of these positions. (5

points)

Note: If the grant project manager or other

member of the professional staff is to be hired

later as part of the grant, or should there be

any change in professional staff during the

grant period, hiring is subject to review and

approval by OSC at that time.

4. Previous Experience (20 Points)

The proposals will be evaluated on

the degree to which the applicant

demonstrates that it has successfully

carried out programs or work of a

similar nature in the past.

Eligible Applicants

This grant competition is open to

nonprofit organizations and state and

local government agencies.

Grant Period and Award Amount

It is anticipated that several grants

will be awarded and will range in size

from $50,000 to $150,000.

Publication of this announcement

does not require OSC to award any

specific number of grants, or to obligate

all or any part of available funds. The

period of performance will be twelve

months from the date of the grant

award, in most cases beginning October

1, 1998.

Application Deadline

All applications must be received by

6 pm, edt, June 4, 1998, at the Office of

Special Counsel for Immigration Related

Unfair Employment Practices, U.S.

Department of Justice, 1425 New York

Ave., NW., Suite 9000, P.O. Box 27728,

Washington, D.C. 20038–7728. If sent by

regular first-class mail, please use the

P.O. Box; if using Federal Express or

priority mail, use the street address.

Applications may not be submitted via

facsimile machine.

Application Requirements

Applicants should submit an original

and two (2) copies of their completed

proposal by the deadline established

above. All submissions must contain the

following items in the order listed

below:

1. A completed and signed

Application for Federal Assistance

(Standard Form 424) and Budget

Information (Standard Form 424A).

2. OJP Form 4061/6 (Certification

Regarding Lobbying; Debarment,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Notices 19517

Suspension and Other Responsibility

Matters; and Drug-Free Workplace

Requirements).

3. A Standard Form LLL Disclosure

Form to Report Lobbying).

4. An abstract of the full proposal, not

to exceed one page.

5. A program narrative of not more

than fifteen (15) double-spaced typed

pages which includes the following:

a. A clear statement describing the

approach and strategy to be utilized to

complete the tasks identified in the

program description;

b. A clear statement of the proposed

goals and objectives, including a listing

of the major events, activities, products

and timetables for completion;

c. The proposed staffing plan (Note: If

the grant project manager or other

professional staff member is to be hired

later as part of the grant, or should there

be a change in professional staff during

the grant period, hiring is subject to

review and approval by OSC at that

time); and

d. Description of how the project will

be evaluated.

6. A proposed budget outlining all

direct and indirect costs for personnel,

fringe benefits, travel, equipment,

supplies, subcontracts, and a short

narrative justification of each budgeted

line item cost. It an indirect cost rate is

used in the budget, then a copy of a

current fully executed agreement

between the applicant and the cognizant

Federal agency must accompany the

budget.

Note: Program budgets must include the

travel, lodging and other expenses necessary

for not more than two program staff members

to attend the mandatory OSC grantee training

(2 days) held in Washington, D.C. at the

beginning of the grant period (late Autumn).

7. OJP Form 7120/1 (Accounting

System and Financial Capability

Questionnaire).

8. Copies of resumes of the

professional staff proposed in the

budget.

9. Detailed technical materials that

support or supplement the description

of the proposed effort should be

included in the appendix.

In order to facilitate handling, please

do not use covers, binders or tabs.

Application forms may be obtained by

writing or telephoning: Office of Special

Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair

Employment Practices, P.O. Box 27728,

Washington, D.C. 20038–7728. Tel.

(202) 616–5594, or (202) 616–5525 (TDD

for the hearing impaired). This

announcement will also appear on the

World Wide Web at www.usdoj.gov/crt/

osc/

Dated: April 15, 1998.

John D. Trasvin ̃ a,

Special Counsel, Office of Special Counsel

for Immigration, Related Unfair Employment

Practices.

[FR Doc. 98–10353 Filed 4–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

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 (UC) as

part of its role in the administration of

the Federal-State UC 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 07–98

Section 1137(d), Social Security Act,

directs that States require each

applicant for UC as a condition of

eligibility, to declare under penalty of

perjury whether he/she is a citizen or

national of the United States and, if not,

whether he/she is in a satisfactory

immigration status. This means an alien

must be legally authorized to work at

the time UC is claimed to meet available

for work requirements. If a claimant is

not a citizen or national, he/she must

present alien registration documentation

that the SESA can use to verify

satisfactory immigration status through

the Immigration and Naturalization

Service (INS).

A detailed explanation and

interpretation of eligibility of aliens for

UC was presented in UIPL 1–86.

Attachment III to UIPL 12–87 discussed

provisions for determining and verifying

alien status for entitlement to UC. UIPL

07–98 elaborates on the proper

procedures where the INS’s primary

verification process does not establish

satisfactory immigration status for

aliens.

Dated: April 13, 1998.

Raymond J. Uhalde,

Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor.

U.S. Department of Labor

Employment and Training Administration,

Washington, D.C. 20210

Directive: Unemployment Insurance Program

Letter No. 7–98

To: All State Employment Security Agencies

From: Grace A. Kilbane, Director,

Unemployment Insurance Service

Subject: Procedures for Verification of Alien

Status

1. Purpose. To advise State Employment

Security Agencies (SESAs) of a Departmental

interpretation of Federal statutes relating to

aliens’ eligibility for unemployment

compensation when satisfactory immigration

status is not established through the primary

verification process with the Immigration

and Naturalization Service (INS).

2. References. UIPL 1–86; UIPL 12–87;

Section 1137(d) of the Social Security Act

(SSA).

3. Background. Section 1137(d), SSA,

directs that States require each applicant for

unemployment benefits, as a condition of

eligibility, to declare under penalty of perjury

whether he/she is a citizen or national of the

United States and, if not, whether he/she is

in a satisfactory immigration status. For UI

purposes, this means an alien must be legally

authorized to work at the time benefits are

claimed to meet available for work

requirements. A claimant who is not a citizen

or national must present alien registration

documentation that the SESA can use to

verify satisfactory immigration status through

the INS.

A detailed explanation and interpretation

of eligibility of aliens for unemployment

benefits was presented in UIPL 1–86.

Attachment III to UIPL 12–87 discussed

provisions for determining and verifying

alien status for entitlement to unemployment

benefits. This directive elaborates on the

proper procedures where the INS’s primary

verification process does not establish

satisfactory immigration status for aliens.

The INS does not make determinations of

aliens’ eligibility for benefits. SESAs make

these determinations based upon information

provided by the INS. The INS has established

verification procedures through a process

known as Systematic Alien Verification for

Entitlements (SAVE). The SAVE system has

both primary (automated) and secondary

(manual) procedures for verification, as

referenced in the SSA, Sections 1137(d)(3)

and (4). The SESA initiates the primary

procedure by accessing the INS’s data base

and entering the alien registration number

(A-Number). This provides an immediate,

automated response about the alien of record.

If the data base can substantiate that the alien

is authorized to work, the response will

provide an employment eligibility statement

and identify the alien’s immigration

classification. If legal status cannot be

determined, the response from INS will

instruct the SESA to ‘‘institute secondary

verification’’ to obtain sufficient information

to make a determination. Thus, the primary

response will never indicate that the alien is