19518 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Notices

not authorized to work; this can only be

accomplished through the secondary process.

The secondary procedure consists of a

more extensive validation process, including

manual paper searches, when questions arise

during the primary procedure or when

computerized records are not found in the

SAVE data base. The secondary response

from the INS indicates whether the alien’s

documentation ‘‘appears valid’’ or ‘‘is not

valid’’ and what the alien’s immigration

status and work eligibility status are.

The SSA requires procedural safeguards to

ensure that payments to eligible aliens are

not delayed because of the verification

process. Under Section 1137(d)(4)(A), SSA,

aliens whose status has not been verified

through primary verification must be

provided a ‘‘reasonable opportunity’’ to

submit evidence of satisfactory immigration

status. The SESA ‘‘may not delay, deny,

reduce, or terminate an individual’s

eligibility for benefits’’ because of

immigration status until this reasonable

opportunity has been provided. The SSA

does not specify time limits for this

reasonable opportunity. However, UIPL 12–

87, Attachment III, I.E.2.a., provided that

‘‘[t]ime periods under State law for providing

information needed to determine eligibility

for benefits will meet the requirement for

‘reasonable opportunity’ ’’.

If, as a result of this reasonable

opportunity, an alien whose status was not

verified through primary verification submits

what the SESA ‘‘determines constitutes

reasonable evidence’’, then secondary

verification must be initiated. (Section

1137(d)(4)(B), SSA.) During secondary

verification, the SESA ‘‘may not delay, deny,

reduce, or terminate an individual’s

eligibility for benefits’’ because of

immigration status.

4. Office of Inspector General (OIG) Study.

In 1996, the Department’s OIG began studies

in four States of UI benefits paid to claimants

who had used unissued Social Security

Numbers to establish claims. Preliminary

findings revealed that SESAs had made many

payments to illegal aliens, despite the INS’s

responses via the SAVE primary verification

process that indicated mismatches between

the claimants and the legal aliens registered

with INS. The OIG discovered numerous

cases where both the names and dates-ofbirth were entirely disparate. In all such

cases investigated by the OIG, the claims

were found to be fraudulent.

5. Procedures. The findings from the OIG

study indicate a need to clarify the

procedural protections for verification of

aliens’ immigration status. A distinction

needs to be recognized between material and

non-material discrepancies with regard to the

information provided by INS’s response and

that provided by the claimant. A material

discrepancy exists when the claimant

identity is not verified by the biographical

data in the SAVE system.

A SAVE response via the primary

procedure may suggest non-material

discrepancies, e.g., transposition of numbers,

incomplete surnames when the name

includes multiple words, transposed versions

of names, name change due to recent

marriage, etc. At the discretion of the SESA,

secondary verification may be initiated

because of the questions that have arisen

from the primary response. However,

pending such verification, payments may not

be delayed on the basis of immigration status.

Also, some SAVE primary requests will be

returned without verification, i.e., neither

biographical data nor status information will

be provided, and the SESA will be instructed

to ‘‘institute secondary verification’’. In such

a situation, the SSA requires that a claimant

be given a reasonable opportunity to submit

evidence indicating satisfactory immigration

status that the SESA can use to initiate the

secondary SAVE verification process. If the

SESA receives reasonable evidence of

satisfactory immigration status, secondary

verification must be initiated. Pending such

verification, SESAs are prohibited from

delaying payments.

However, when a SAVE response via the

primary process indicates that the claimant is

not the same person as the alien registered

with INS, e.g., different name and date-ofbirth, material discrepancies exist, and one of

the following actions should be taken:

a. If the claimant acknowledges the

accuracy of the SAVE response (i.e., the filing

of a fraudulent claim), issue an immediate

denial under the appropriate State

provisions, e.g., monetary denial of base

period wages, nonmonetary denial under the

availability provision, and/or

misrepresentation.

b. If the claimant disputes the accuracy of

the SAVE response and submits ‘‘reasonable

evidence’’ indicating satisfactory

immigration status, initiate the secondary

SAVE request, and do not delay payment of

benefits.

c. If the claimant disputes the accuracy of

the SAVE response but does not submit

‘‘reasonable evidence’’ indicating satisfactory

immigration status, the SSA, Section

1137(d)(4)(A) requires that the claimant be

provided ‘‘reasonable opportunity’’ to submit

such evidence. The claimant must be

instructed to provide the evidence within

time limits established for claims filing under

State law. The SESA may not delay or deny

benefits until this reasonable opportunity has

been provided; however, for practical

purposes, this provision should have no

effect on processing the claim because

‘‘reasonable opportunity’’ should, in most

cases, transpire before the claimant certifies

for the first week. One of the following

actions should then be taken as appropriate:

• If reasonable evidence is provided,

initiate the secondary SAVE request, and do

not delay payment of benefits, or

• If reasonable evidence is not provided,

issue a denial under the SESA provisions as

in (a) above. (Reference the SSA, Section

1137(d)(5).)

On occasion, an alien applying for UI may

present immigration documentation that

appears to be counterfeit or altered. In such

instances, the SESA should initiate the

secondary verification process immediately,

in lieu of the primary process, because the

alien has not submitted the documentation

described in the SSA, Section 1137(d)(2).

Although the SESA must provide the

claimant the opportunity to present

satisfactory documentation as required by the

SSA, Section 1137(d)(4)(A), the SESA

should, if appropriate, issue an immediate

denial under the State law provision for

misrepresentation. This action does not fall

within the protections of the SSA since the

denial is for reasons related to fraud, not

immigration status.

6. Action Required. SESA Administrators

are requested to provide copies of this UIPL

to appropriate staff and ensure that effective

procedures are implemented to establish

eligibility for benefits.

7. Inquiries. Questions should be directed

to the appropriate Regional Office.

[FR Doc. 98–10288 Filed 4–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration

[Docket No. ICR–98–19]

Agency Information Collection

Activities; Proposed Collection;

Comment Request; Commercial Diving

Operations (29 CFR Part 1910,

Subpart T)

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

(PRA–95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This

program helps to ensure that requested

data can be provided in the desired

format, reporting burden (time and

financial resources) is minimized,

collection instruments are clearly

understood, and impact of collection

requirements on respondents can be

properly assessed. Currently, the

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) is soliciting

comments concerning the proposed

extension of the information collection

requirements contained in the standard

on Commercial Diving Operations (29

CFR part 1910, subpart T). The Agency

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,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Notices 19519

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.

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted on or before June 19, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments are to be

submitted to the Docket Office, Docket

No. ICR–98–19, Occupational Safety

and Health Administration, U.S.

Department of Labor, Room N–2625,

200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20210. Telephone:

(202) 219–7894. Written comments

limited to 10 pages or less in length may

also be transmitted by facsimile to (202)

219–5046.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Theda Kenney, Directorate of Safety

Standards Programs, Occupational

Safety and Health Administration, U.S.

Department of Labor, Room N–3605,

200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20210, telephone: (202)

219–8061. A copy of the referenced

information collection request is

available for inspection and copying in

the Docket Office and will be mailed to

persons who request copies by

telephoning Theda Kenney at (202) 219–

8061, extension 100, or Barbara Bielaski

at (202) 219–8076, extension 142. For

electronic copies of the Information

Collection Request on Commercial

Diving Operations, contact OSHA’s

WebPage on the Internet at http://

www.osha.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Occupational Safety and Health

Act of 1970 (the Act) authorizes the

promulgation of such health and safety

standards as are necessary or

appropriate to provide safe or healthful

employment and places of employment.

The statute specifically authorizes

information collection by employers as

necessary or appropriate for the

enforcement of the Act or for developing

information regarding the causes and

prevention of occupational injuries,

illnesses, and accidents.

In 29 CFR part 1910, Commercial

Diving Operations, the information to be

collected is designed to minimize the

possibility of a commercial diver being

injured or killed (e.g., by gas embolism,

decompression sickness) due to poor

planning. Without the records required

in the standard, necessary safeguards

that have proven extremely effective in

protecting commercial divers against

inherent and obvious hazards

underwater would be removed and, as

a result, the fatality and injury/illness

rate for this industry could rise.

Consequences of accidents in diving can

be severe due to the environment in

which divers work.

II. Current Actions

This notice requests Office of

Management and Budget (OMB)

approval of the information collection

requirements contained in the

Commercial Diving Operations

standard.

Type of Review: Extension of a

Currently Approved Collection.

Agency: U.S. Department of Labor,

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration.

Title: Commercial Diving Operations

(29 CFR part 1910, Subpart T).

OMB Number: 1218–0069.

Agency Number: Docket Number ICR–

98–19.

Affected Public: State or local

governments; Business or other forprofit.

Number of Respondents: 3,000.

Frequency: On Occasion.

Average Time per Response: 1 hour.

Estimated Total Burden Hours:

91,152.

Total Annualized Capital/Startup

Costs: $0.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of

April 1998.

Charles N. Jeffress,

Assistant Secretary, Occupational Safety and

Health Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–10285 Filed 4–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–26–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration

[Docket No. ICR–98–21]

Agency Information Collection

Activities; Proposed Collection;

Comment Request; Welding, Cutting

and Brazing (29 CFR Part 1910)

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

(PRA–95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This

program helps to ensure that requested

data can be provided in the desired

format, reporting burden (time and

financial resources) is minimized,

collection instruments are clearly

understood, and impact of collection

requirements on respondents can be

properly assessed. Currently, the

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) is soliciting

comments concerning the proposed

extension of the information collection

requirement contained in the standard

on Welding, Cutting and Brazing (29

CFR part 1910). The Agency 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.

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted on or before June 19, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments are to be

submitted to the Docket Office, Docket

No. ICR–98–21, Occupational Safety

and Health Administration, U.S.

Department of Labor, Room N–2625,

200 Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20210. Telephone:

(202) 219–7894. Written comments

limited to 10 pages or less in length may

also be transmitted by facsimile to (202)

219–5046.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Theda Kenney, Directorate of Safety

Standards Programs, Occupational

Safety and Health Administration, U.S.

Department of Labor, Room N–3605,

200 Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20210, telephone: (202)

219–8061. A copy of the referenced

information collection request is

available for inspection and copying in

the Docket Office and will be mailed to