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
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,