[Federal Register: June 13, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 114)]
[Notices]
[Page 35429-35444]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13jn03-104]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
Workforce Security Programs: Unemployment Insurance Program
Letter Interpreting Federal Law
The Employment and Training Administration interprets federal law
requirements pertaining to unemployment compensation (UC). These
interpretations are issued in Unemployment Insurance Programs Letters
(UIPLs) to State Workforce Agencies. The UIPL described below is
published in the Federal Register in order to inform the public.
UIPL 30-02, Changes 2 and 3
UIPL 30-02, Changes 2 and 3 and their attachments provide the
states with the requirements of the Temporary Extended Unemployment
Compensation (TEUC) Act of 2002, as deemed amended by Section 4002 of
Public Law 108-11, as operating instructions and responses to questions
pertaining to the TEUC available to certain displaced airline and
airline related workers.
Dated: June 5, 2003.
Emily Stover DeRocco,
Assistant Secretary.
Employment and Training Administration Advisory System
U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210
Classification: OWS
Correspondence Symbol: DUIO
Date: April 25, 2003
Advisory: Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. 30-02, Change 2.
To: All State Workforce Agencies.
From: Cheryl Atkinson s/s, Administrator, Office of Workforce
Security.
Subject: Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation (TEUC) Act of
2002--Additional TEUC for Displaced Airline and Related Workers.
1. Purpose. To provide State Workforce Agencies (SWAs)
instructions for implementing the changes to the TEUC program
related to displaced airline and related workers.
2. References. Title II of the Job Creation and Worker
Assistance Act of 2002 (The Temporary Extended Unemployment
Compensation Act of 2002), Public Law 107-147; Public Law 108-1;
UIPL No. 30-02 dated July 5, 2002; UIPL No. 30-02, Change 1, dated
January 9, 2003; Section 4002 of Public Law 108-11, signed by the
President on April 16, 2003; Section 205 of the Federal-State
Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended; Section
233 of the Trade Act of 1974; 20 CFR Part 615; ET Handbook No. 401;
ET Handbook No. 410.
3. Summary. Section 4002 of P.L. 108-11 creates special rules
for determining TEUC eligibility for certain displaced airline and
related workers, who were separated for one of the specified reasons
from a qualifying base period employer on or after September 11,
2001. In brief, such workers will qualify for up to 39 weeks of
basic TEUC (henceforth ``TEUC-A''), plus up to 13 weeks of TEUC-X
(henceforth ``TEUC-AX''). TEUC-A is payable for weeks of
unemployment beginning with the first week beginning after April 16,
2003, through the week ending no later than December 28, 2003.
Individuals with TEUC-A or TEUC-AX balances remaining on December
28, 2003, can claim those balances during the transition period
which ends with the last week that begins on or before December 26,
2004. TEUC-A claims cannot be augmented with TEUC-AX (that is, TEUC-
AX entitlement cannot be established) during the transition period.
Rescissions: None
Expiration Date: Continuing
4. Summary of the New Provisions. For weeks of unemployment
beginning after April 16, 2003, the new provisions (see Attachment A
to this UIPL) do the following for displaced airline and related
workers:
a. Prescribes that TEUC-A is payable and monetary determinations
and redeterminations may be effective through the last week ending
before December 29, 2003;
b. Prescribes a basic TEUC-A benefit amount that is the lesser
of 150 percent of the maximum benefit amount (MBA) of regular
benefits of the parent claim or 39 times the individual's average
weekly benefit amount (AWBA);
c. Provides a TEUC-AX augmentation of \1/3\ of the basic TEUC-A
MBA for ``eligible individuals.''
d. Provides a transition period during which benefits may be
paid to each eligible individual who has ``an amount remaining'' in
his/her TEUC-A or AX account as of December 28, 2003. The transition
period ends with the last week beginning on or before December 26,
2004.
5. Interpretation. SWAs are required to continue to follow the
Department of Labor's interpretation of the TEUC Act and the
operating instructions previously published in UIPL No. 30-02, and
UIPL No. 30-02, Change 1, to guide states in administering the TEUC
program, except as changed by this advisory with respect to the
determination of eligibility for ``eligible individuals'' as defined
in Section 4002(a)(1) of Public Law 108-11.
These instructions are issued to the states and cooperating
state agencies as guidance provided by the Department in its role as
the principal in the TEUC program. As agents of the United States,
the states and cooperating state agencies may not vary from the
operating instructions without the prior approval of the Department.
The interpretations and procedures issued in this document are in
addition to those previously issued as UIPL No. 30-02, and UIPL No.
30-02, Change 1, and apply only with respect to the TEUC
determination in accordance with the provisions of Public Law 108-
11.
6. TEUC Agreements. TEUC, including TEUC-A, is administered
through voluntary agreements between states and the Department of
Labor. All states have agreements with the Secretary to administer
the TEUC program under provisions of the TEUC Act. The existing
agreements remain in effect, and no new agreements are necessary.
7. Notifications.
a. Identification and Notification of Potentially Eligible
Claimants. Implementation of the requirements of Section 4002,
Public Law 108-11, requires identification of each potentially
``eligible individual,'' including each interstate claimant. To
satisfy this requirement, SWAs must send written notification to
each individual who was laid-off from a base period employer on or
after September 11, 2001. SWAs must send immediate written
notification to each such individual who has exhausted all available
TEUC benefits from the beginning of the TEUC program. (SWAs are not
required to contact individuals whose separation was not due to a
lay-off. As discussed in item 8.b. below, these individuals are not
eligible for TEUC-A.) We provide the following draft notice:
Notice
Additional benefits are now available under the Temporary
Emergency Unemployment Compensation program for unemployed airline
and related workers.
If you are currently unemployed, you should contact us if you
worked in an airline or related industry and you believe that you
lost your job with a base period employer, at least partially, as a
result of terrorist actions of September 11, 2001, as a result of
security responses to these attacks or the closing of an airport, or
as a result of the military conflict in Iraq.
Airline and related industries are: air carriers, businesses
operating at an airport, businesses that perform additional, value-
added production processes for air carriers or businesses providing
products, supplies and services that are received or utilized by an
airline.
To distribute the workload associated with making TEUC-A nonmonetary
[[Page 35430]]
determinations and resulting monetary redeterminations, SWAs should
consider staggering notifications to such individuals who are in
current TEUC or TEUC-X benefit status, allowing sufficient time to
determine whether or not the claimant is an ``eligible individual''
for TEUC-A purposes prior to exhaustion. The notification of
claimants that are currently in regular, additional, or extended
benefit (EB) status (under the permanent EB program) can be
accomplished as a notice included with a TEUC monetary
determination.
b. Notification of Media. To assure public knowledge of this
special extension of the TEUC program for airline and related
workers, the SWA must notify appropriate news media having coverage
throughout the state and provide appropriate information on its
website.
8. Qualifying Base Period Employment. Establishing base period
employment as ``qualifying employment'' for TEUC-A purposes is
three-fold. First, the employment must have occurred ``in whole or
in part'' during the base period of the ``applicable benefit year''
for the TEUC-A claim. Second, the employment must be with the type
of employer(s) or at the location specified below. Third, the
separation from such employment, which may have occurred during the
base period or later, must be ``in whole or in part'' due to a
qualifying reason specified in `b' below.
a. Qualifying Employment. To satisfy the requirement for
``qualifying employment,'' some base period employment must be with
the type of employer(s) or at the location specified as follows:
(1) Air Carriers. Air carriers for purposes of TEUC-A are
limited to those that hold a certificate issued under chapter 411 of
title 49, United States Code, by the Federal Aviation Administration
of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Certificates issued under
this chapter include those issued for charter air carriers and all-
cargo air carriers. Attachment C provides a listing of all such
carriers.
(2) At a facility at an airport. A ``facility at an airport''
includes any employer that is physically located on the grounds of
an airport such as:
[sbull] Retail food facilities such as restaurants, bars, fast-
food shops, and popcorn stands.
[sbull] Other retail facilities such as gift shops, newsstands,
clothing stores, and kiosks.
[sbull] Hotels located on the airport grounds.
[sbull] Aircraft maintenance and service facilities.
[sbull] Parking facilities.
[sbull] Car rental facilities.
[sbull] Any other business physically located on the airport
grounds, regardless of its business activities.
A ``facility at an airport'' also includes any airline related
business which, although offsite, provides functions that are
integrally related to the operation of the airport. These include
airport parking on privately owned land, car rental services, or
aircraft maintenance and service facilities. Employment with the
same employer at a facility that does not meet this definition of
``facility at an airport'' is not ``qualifying employment'' for
purposes of TEUC-A.
(3) Supplier for an Air Carrier. A ``supplier'' is an employer
that produces component parts for, or articles and contract services
considered to be a part of the production process or services for,
an air carrier or for another supplier or upstream producer whose
supplies, products or services are received or utilized by an air
carrier and used for airline industry purposes.
Example 1: A catering service that supplies an air carrier with
food purchased from another firm is a supplier. The firm from which
the food is purchased is also a supplier because it is supplying
products to a supplier that are received by an air carrier.
Example 2: An employer manufactures commercial aircraft for air
carriers and private aircraft for individuals and non-airline
corporations. As a result of the terrorist action, the employer
suffers a loss of business in its private aircraft business. It
loses no sales to air carriers. The employer separates some workers,
including those who manufactured commercial aircraft, because of the
lost revenues. Even though the employer supplies air carriers and
even though workers who worked on those supplies were separated, the
separated workers are not eligible for TEUC-A because there is no
loss in air carrier-related business.
Example 3: A janitorial company provides services for an
aircraft manufacturer. It does not provide services to an air
carrier. Due to a loss in air carrier business, the aircraft
manufacturer no longer has a need for these janitorial services. As
a result, the janitorial company separates several workers. Even
though these workers were separated due to a loss of business by the
aircraft manufacturer that could be traced back to the air carrier,
they are not eligible for TEUC-A because they did not supply any
item or service which was used or received by an air carrier. For
eligibility, services must always extend to an air carrier.
Example 4: An accounting firm provides accounting services for a
caterer to an air carrier. The air carrier goes out of business
because of the terrorist action. The caterer closes because the air
carrier was its sole customer. The caterer's closing causes the
accounting firm to separate one of its employees who provided
services for the caterer. That individual does not have ``qualifying
employment'' because the accounting firm is not a ``supplier''
within the meaning of the statute. The accounting firm's service to
the caterer did not extend to the air carrier.
(4) Upstream Producer for an Air Carrier. An ``upstream
producer'' is an employer that ``performs additional, value-added,
production processes, including firms that perform final assembly,
finishing, or packaging of articles, for another firm.''
We are not providing an example of an ``upstream producer''
because the definition of supplier appears to cover all entities
eligible under the two definitions.
b. Qualifying Separations. To be in qualified employment the
separation from base period employment must be due--in whole or in
part--to one or more of the following reasons:
[sbull] Reductions in service by an air carrier as a result of
the terrorist actions on September 11, 2001, or a security measure
taken in response to such actions.
[sbull] A closure of an airport in the United States as a result
of the terrorist actions on September 11, 2001, or a security
measure taken in response to such actions.
[sbull] The military conflict with Iraq.
The separation from ``qualifying employment'' that establishes a
claimant as an ``eligible individual'' may occur during the base
period or lag period and does not have to be the most recent
separation when the ``applicable benefit year'' was established.
A separation from lag period only employment with a qualified
employer does not establish an individual as an ``eligible
individual.'' Also, any separation from a qualified employer due to
a voluntary quit or discharge for any reason is not a separation for
a qualifying reason; the separation must be a ``lack-of-work''
separation due to one or more of the reasons stated above.
c. Determining Whether a Claimant Has ``Qualifying Employment''
and is an ``Eligible Individual''. To determine if a claimant is an
``eligible individual'' for TEUC-A purposes, SWAs must determine if
the claimant has ``qualifying employment'' during the base period of
the ``applicable benefit year'' that was used in the monetary
determination for regular benefits. In making this determination,
SWAs will follow their usual fact-finding procedures. This will
require the SWA to contact employers to determine if the employment
was of the type, or performed at the location, specified above, and
if the reason for separation was one of the reasons specified above.
We have attached a sample form that SWAs may elect to use for this
purpose. SWAs may use an altered design as long as the required
information is solicited from the employer. Where, after reasonable
efforts to obtain information from the employer, the SWA does not
have sufficient information to make a determination, then SWAs
should evaluate the claimant's statement and follow standard
procedures for issuing nonmonetary determinations. SWAs will be
expected to preserve all documents relating to the determination for
audit purposes.
In the case of larger employers, it may be evident that the
employer is an air carrier (based on the attached listing), another
type of easily identifiable large employer, or a facility located at
an airport; it will not be necessary to verify the nature of the
base period employment in such cases. As a result, when such an
employer is identified, SWAs are encouraged, in lieu of sending a
form for each claimant, to contact the employer as soon as possible
to obtain a listing of all individuals laid-off, in whole or in
part, due to the reasons described above.
If the SWA determines that the claimant is not an ``eligible
individual'' for TEUC-A purposes, an appealable nonmonetary
determination must be issued.
9. Calculating Entitlement to TEUC-A and TEUC-AX. Once an
individual has been identified as an ``eligible individual''
qualifying for TEUC-A, the SWA will issue a monetary determination
(or redetermination as the case may be) establishing TEUC-A
eligibility. Any TEUC-
[[Page 35431]]
A balance will be payable only for weeks of unemployment beginning
after April 16, 2003.
a. TEUC-A Entitlement. TEUC-A entitlement will equal the lesser
of 150 percent of the MBA of regular benefits payable to the
individual during the benefit year or 39 times the individual's AWBA
payable during the benefit year for a week of total unemployment. If
the state includes dependents' allowances in the calculation of the
weekly benefit amount (WBA) for regular benefits, the same rule
applies to the calculation of TEUC benefits. If the state calculates
dependents' allowances separately from the WBA, the state will apply
the same rule to the TEUC determination.
If an individual has already been paid TEUC or TEUC-X, the
available TEUC-A balance will be reduced by the amount already paid
in TEUC or TEUC-X benefits. Any TEUC-X previously paid is converted
to TEUC-A and the TEUC-X determination is disregarded.
b. TEUC-AX Entitlement. The amount of TEUC-AX payable equals
one-third of the TEUC-A entitlement. This means TEUC-AX is payable
up to 13 times the WBA. Whether an individual qualifies for TEUC-AX
will be determined by using the same criteria that apply to TEUC-X.
Specifically, an individual must exhaust TEUC-A during an EB or
TEUC-X period as authorized by the TEUC Act.
10. Transition Payments. TEUC-A and TEUC-AX continue to be
payable to individuals with a balance in their TEUC account as of
December 28, 2003, during the transition period which ends with the
last week beginning on or before December 26, 2004.
11. Reporting TEUC-A and TEUC-AX Activity. TEUC-A and TEUC-AX
activity is reportable under the existing TEUC reporting
requirements for the ETA 207, ETA 218, ETA 227, ETA 539, ETA 2112,
ETA 5130 and ETA 5159. Please note that form ETA 2112 has changed
recently. Previously, TEUC payment totals had been reported on line
39. The totals are now reportable on line 41. For reporting
purposes, no separation of TEUC-A and AX from other TEUC program
activity is required, with the following exception: States are to
report the total number of newly qualified TEUC-A claimants
determined during the month in the comments section of the TEUC ETA
5159 report. This total should be the sum of new TEUC-A
determinations for recent exhaustees (of regular, additional or
extended benefits, as appropriate) plus the redeterminations of
existing or previously exhausted TEUC/TEUC-X claims.
The separate financial status report (Standard Form 269) for
administrative grants and costs associated with the TEUC program is
to include costs associated with this extension related to displaced
airline and related workers (TEUC-A and TEUC-AX).
12. Administrative Funding. The payment of TEUC-A and TEUC-AX
will involve an increase in claims activity and one-time
implementation costs.
a. Claims. The UI-3 report will compile workload data from the
TEUC versions of the ETA 5159, ETA 207, and ETA 5130. In addition,
SWAs should enter the number of monetary redeterminations in column
(a) of line 12, and a minutes per unit value of 05.000 in column
(b).
b. Implementation Supplemental Budget Requests (SBRs). SWAs may
submit an SBR for reimbursement of TEUC-A implementation costs. SBRs
should be limited to one-time costs for the items listed below that
are attributable to implementation of TEUC-A:
(1) Forms and supplies (e.g., printed notices mailed to exhaustees)
(2) Computer programming
(3) Training and travel
(4) Public notices on television, radio, or in the newspapers
(5) Overhead related only to the above
Calculations for costs of SWA staff and contractors should be shown
in accordance with the SBR instructions in ET Handbook No. 336.
Costs for SWA staff should be included only if they are for overtime
or if the positions were back-filled.
13. OMB Approval. The reporting instructions for the TEUC
program have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under OMB Approval No. 1205-0433, expiration date December 31,
2004. However, OMB approval is being sought for approval of the
burden hours associated with the request for employer information
that is necessary for determining eligibility for TEUC-A. ETA will
notify states upon OMB approval.
14. Action Required. Administrators are requested to provide
this information and instructions to the appropriate staff.
15. Inquiries. Direct questions to the appropriate regional
office.
16. Attachment A: Text of Section 4002, Public Law 108-11 \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Attachment A is available in the
www.workforcesecurity.doleta.gov Web site under Directives/
Advisories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment B: Questions and Answers
Attachment C: List of Certified Air Carriers
Attachment D: Sample Employer Notice
Attachment B to UIPL No. 30-02, Change 2--Questions and Answers
1. Administrative
a. Question: Are new agreements between the state and the
Department of Labor necessary for this extension?
Answer: No. The existing agreement remains in effect.
b. Question: What is the first week payable under this extension
for TEUC-A?
Answer: The first week payable is the first week which begins
after April 16, 2003.
c. Question: What is an ``air carrier'' for purposes of TEUC-A?
Answer: A qualifying air carrier is ``an air carrier that holds
a certificate issued under chapter 411 of title 49, U.S.C.'' That
section provides that an air carrier may provide air transportation
only if it holds a certificate issued under chapter 411.
Certificates may be issued for charter air carriers and all-cargo
air transportations. See Attachment C for a listing of all certified
air carriers.
d. Question: How will states determine if the individual has
``qualifying employment?''
Answer: Unlike other emergency extensions, including the basic
TEUC program, for TEUC-A it will be necessary to verify whether at
least one base period employer provided qualifying employment. We
have prepared and attached a draft form that SWAs may elect to use
in contacting employers (See Attachment D).
The employer's failure to respond to the notice does not absolve
the agency from the responsibility to pursue the necessary
information to verify the qualifying employment. The claimant's
statement may be evaluated if the employer does not respond, but the
state must meet the same standards required for any nonmonetary
determination as stated in the Secretary of Labor's ``Standards for
Claim Determinations'', Part V of the Employment Security Manual.
This includes gathering evidentiary facts rather than conclusions,
giving the claimant a reasonable opportunity to provide information
when requested to do so, and obtaining the information promptly so
that benefits will not be unduly delayed.
2. Claimants Potentially Eligible for TEUC Benefits Under This
Extension
a. Question: What is the universe of claimants who are
potentially eligible for TEUC-A under this extension?
Answer: All claimants that meet the definition of ``eligible
individual'' as defined by Public Law 108-11 and otherwise meet the
requirements for a TEUC benefit extension.
b. Question: Does the extended period for which TEUC-A is
payable apply to all TEUC claims?
Answer: No. Only TEUC-A and TEUC-AX are payable during the
extended period ending with the last week beginning on or before
December 26, 2004.
c. Question: Does an individual who was separated from a
certified air carrier prior to September 11, 2001, satisfy the
definition of an ``eligible individual''?
Answer: No. The definition of an ``eligible individual''
includes a requirement that the individual's regular benefits for
the ``applicable benefit year'' be partially or wholly based on
``qualifying employment.'' To be deemed ``qualifying employment,''
the separation from such employment must have occurred on or after
September 11, 2001 because of: (1) reductions in service by an air
carrier as a result of a terrorist attack on the United States on
September 11, 2001, or security measure taken in response to such
attack; (2) a closure of an airport in the United States as a result
of such terrorist action or security measure; or (3) a military
conflict with Iraq that has been authorized by Congress.
d. Question: Does an individual who satisfies the definition of
``eligible individual'' but who exhausted TEUC in June 2002 and is
still unemployed potentially qualify for benefits under this
extension?
Answer: Yes.
e. Question: Does an ``eligible individual'' with intervening
employment since separation from ``qualifying employment'' who does
not qualify for a new regular claim, based on the intervening
employment, continue to meet the definition of an
[[Page 35432]]
``eligible individual'' for purposes of this extension?
Answer: Yes.
f. Question: Does an individual who is separated from an air
carrier or from otherwise qualifying airline related employment but
whose regular benefits were not based, in whole or in part, on such
employment, meet the definition of an ``eligible individual'' for
purposes of TEUC-A?
Answer: No. To meet the definition of an ``eligible individual''
for purposes of TEUC-A, the claimant's regular benefits must have
been based, in whole or in part, on ``qualifying employment.'' In
the case described, there is no ``qualifying employment'' in the
base period.
3. Applicable Benefit Year for Airline and Related Workers TEUC
Extension Purposes
a. Question: Does an individual with a prior benefit year, where
regular benefits were based on ``qualifying employment,'' who is
eligible for regular benefits in a subsequent benefit year have the
option to receive TEUC-A based on the first benefit year?
Answer: No. An individual with existing entitlement to regular
compensation is not an exhaustee for TEUC-A purposes.
4. Monetary Eligibility
a. Question: What is the maximum amount of TEUC-A benefits
available to an ``eligible individual?''
Answer: Basic TEUC-A entitlement for ``eligible individuals''
will be determined as the lesser of 150 percent of the MBA of
regular benefits payable to the individual during the benefit year
or 39 times the individual's AWBA payable during the benefit year
for a week of total unemployment. If the state includes dependents'
allowances in the calculation of the weekly benefit amount (WBA) for
regular benefits, the same rule applies to the calculation of TEUC-A
benefits. If the state calculates dependents' allowances separate
from the WBA, the state will apply the same rule to the
determination for TEUC-A.
The TEUC-A account of an individual exhausting basic TEUC-A with
payment for a week of unemployment beginning after April 16, 2003,
and during an extended benefit (EB) period or TEUC-X period in the
state, will be augmented by an amount equal to one-third (\1/3\) of
the basic TEUC-A amount.
b. Question: When an ``eligible individual'' is in current claim
status with an existing basic TEUC or TEUC-X balance what should the
state do?
Answer: The SWA will issue a TEUC-A monetary redetermination to
each ``eligible individual'' who has an existing TEUC balance, as of
the effective date of TEUC-A, in an amount that is the lesser of 150
percent of the regular benefit MBA or 39 times the AWBA. All TEUC
benefits, including TEUC-X, previously paid will reduce the
available basic TEUC-A balance available. The available balance
attributable to the redetermination is payable for weeks of
unemployment beginning after April 16, 2003. Any TEUC-X previously
paid becomes basic TEUC-A payments under the redetermination.
c. Question: When an ``eligible individual'' has exhausted basic
TEUC prior to the effective date of this extension, what should the
state do other than providing notification of the extension?
Answer: When this claimant files an additional or reopened
claim, the SWA will issue a basic TEUC-A monetary redetermination in
an amount that is the lesser of 150 percent of the regular benefit
MBA or 39 times the AWBA. All TEUC benefits previously paid will
reduce the available TEUC-A balance available. The basic TEUC-A
balance available as a result of the redetermination is payable for
weeks of unemployment beginning after April 16, 2003.
d. Question: When an ``eligible individual'' has exhausted TEUC-
X prior to the effective date of this extension, what should the
state do other than providing notification of the extension?
Answer: When this claimant files an additional or reopened
claim, the SWA will issue a TEUC-A monetary redetermination in the
amount of the lesser of 150 percent of the regular benefit MBA
benefit amount or 39 times the AWBA effective for weeks of
unemployment beginning after April 16, 2003. All basic TEUC and
TEUC-X benefits previously paid will reduce the available TEUC-A
balance available and are considered basic TEUC-A payments. The
basic TEUC-A balance available as a result of the redetermination is
payable for weeks of unemployment beginning after April 16, 2003.
e. Question: Can TEUC-AX augmentations continue to be made
during the transition period?
Answer: No.
f. Question: Can a new TEUC-A monetary determination be issued
effective for a week ending on or after December 29, 2003?
Answer: No.
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
[[Page 35433]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13JN03.000
[[Page 35434]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13JN03.001
[[Page 35435]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13JN03.002
[[Page 35436]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13JN03.003
[[Page 35437]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13JN03.004
[[Page 35438]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13JN03.005
[[Page 35439]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13JN03.006
BILLING CODE 4510-30-C
Employment and Training Administration Advisory System
U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. 20210
Classification: OWS
Correspondence symbol: DUIO
Date: May 7, 2003
Advisory: Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. 30-02, Change 3.
To: All State Workforce Agencies.
[[Page 35440]]
From: Cheryl Atkinson s/s, Administrator, Office of Workforce
Security.
Subject: Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation (TEUC) Act of
2002--Additional TEUC for Displaced Airline and Related Workers.
1. Purpose. To respond to questions concerning implementation of
the TEUC extension for displaced airline and related workers.
2. References. Title II of the Job Creation and Worker
Assistance Act of 2002 (The Temporary Extended Unemployment
Compensation Act of 2002), Public Law 107-147, signed by the
President on March 9, 2002; Public Law 108-1, signed by the
President on January 8, 2003; UIPL No. 30-02 dated July 5, 2002;
UIPL No. 30-02, Change 1 dated January 9, 2003; UIPL No. 30-02,
Change 2 dated April 25, 2003; Section 4002 of Public Law 108-11,
signed by the President on April 16, 2003; Section 205 of the
Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as
amended; Section 233 of the Trade Act of 1974; 20 CFR Part 615; ET
Handbook No. 401; ET Handbook No. 410.
3. Background. This advisory continues the Department's guidance
concerning the TEUC program extension for airline and related
workers (hereafter referred to as TEUC-A) by answering questions
submitted by states. The answers address specific circumstances
consistent with the Department's interpretation of Section 4002 of
Public Law 108-11 which creates special rules for determining
eligibility for TEUC-A. Please note: There is a typographical error
in Attachment A to UIPL No. 30-02, Change 2, page 3. Section (3)
ADDITIONAL WEEKS OF BENEFITS, (B) should read as follows: ``in
subsection (c)(1), by inserting ``\1/3\ of'' after ``equal to''.
Rescissions: None
Expiration Date: Continuing.
The attached questions and answers are organized by category in
order to make it easier to find questions and answers of interest.
4. Action Required. Administrators are requested to provide this
advisory to appropriate staff and ensure adherence to the guidance.
5. Inquiries. Inquiries should be directed to your Regional
Office.
6. Attachment. Questions and Answers for Clarification of
Section 4002 of Public Law 108-11.
Attachment to UIPL No. 30-02, Change 3--Questions and Answers
for Clarification of Section 4002, of Public Law 108-11
1. Administrative
a. Question: Item 7.a. of UIPL No. 30-02, Change 2, indicates
that ``To satisfy this requirement, State Workforce Agencies (SWAs)
must send written notifications to each individual who was laid off
from a base period employer on or after September 11, 2001. SWAs
must send immediate written notification to each such individual who
has exhausted all available TEUC benefits from the beginning of the
TEUC program.'' Shouldn't a notice be sent to anyone laid off after
September 11, 2001, regardless of whether he/she exhausted TEUC?
Answer: No. If a claimant's most recent separation from each
base period employer was prior to September 11, 2001, written notice
is not sent because the claimant is not eligible for TEUC-A. Written
notices must be sent to individuals who were laid off from a base
period employer on or after September 11, 2001, and who are
exhaustees for TEUC purposes, because whether or not they exhausted
TEUC, they are potentially eligible for TEUC-A. The statement
pertaining to immediate notification of TEUC exhaustees was intended
to identify potentially eligible claimants that should be notified
quickly because they may still be unemployed and without benefits.
Other potentially eligible claimants that must be provided written
notice as soon as possible are those claimants laid off by a base
period employer after September 11, 2001, that have a remaining
balance on their TEUC claim. These claimants are generally in
benefit status or have returned to work and are not in need of an
immediate TEUC-A determination in order to have benefits available.
b. Question: For TEUC or TEUC-X exhaustees, are initial claims
required to initiate a determination of TEUC-A eligibility?
Answer: Yes, depending on each individual claimant's situation,
e.g., quarter change, benefit year ending, intervening employment,
etc. The state must follow the same procedures as apply when there
is a break or quarter change during the TEUC claim. The state must
determine if the claimant still meets the basic requirements for
TEUC.
c. Question: Must states determine if an individual has
``qualifying employment'' prior to making any TEUC-A payments? If
so, should they allow their standard time for employers to respond?
Answer: Yes to both questions. Until the state has determined
that the claimant is an ``eligible individual,'' no TEUC-A account
may be established. However, if the claimant has not previously
received a TEUC determination, the state must issue a TEUC
determination and make payments pending redetermination to TEUC-A,
if appropriate. Employers are to be given the same amount of time to
respond to the request for information as they are normally given
under state law.
d. Question: If a claimant is currently in basic TEUC status,
must the state automatically commence converting the individual to
TEUC-A?
Answer: No. Claims may not be automatically converted to TEUC-A.
The state must first determine if the claimant is an ``eligible
individual'' for TEUC-A purposes. Potentially eligible claimants
receiving basic TEUC or TEUC-X must be advised of the TEUC-A option.
States should advise claimants in current claim status of the TEUC-A
option early enough to allow for the TEUC-A determination to be made
before the claimant exhausts to prevent an interruption of payments
to TEUC-A eligible claimants.
e. Question: Do all base period employers need to be notified or
just the employer that the claimant identifies as being in
``qualifying employment?''
Answer: In general, each base period employer from which the
claimant was laid off on or after September 11, 2001, must be
contacted because the state may not issue an ineligible
determination without establishing that the claimant does not have
``qualifying employment.'' However, in cases where the claimant
appears on a qualified employer's list of individuals that were
separated for one of the qualifying reasons, there is no need to
contact other employers because the state has sufficient information
to determine that the claimant is an ``eligible individual.''
f. Question: An individual is about to exhaust regular benefits
and the state is prepared to notify the individual of the TEUC
program. Because the individual will be eligible for basic TEUC, is
it necessary to immediately investigate the claimant's eligibility
for TEUC-A?
Answer: No. However, states should notify individuals of the
TEUC-A option at the time of the TEUC initial claim in order to
identify claims needing TEUC-A determinations. Notice of TEUC-A
should be given no later than at the time of the issuance of the
basic TEUC monetary determination. This notice will provide enough
time for a TEUC-A determination before exhaustion of TEUC to avoid
interruptions in payments to TEUC-A eligible claimants.
Upon finding that the individual is eligible for TEUC-A, the
state will redetermine the claim to TEUC-A and report a
redetermination in the comments section of the ETA 5159 as a TEUC-A
redetermination.
g. Question: What is the last date that a new TEUC-A claim can
be effective?
Answer: The last week for which a TEUC-A determination can be
effective is the week that ends prior to December 29, 2003. That is
the week ending December 27, 2003, for all states except New York
where it is December 28, 2003.
h. Question: What is the last week for which TEUC-A can be paid?
Answer: The last week a TEUC-A claim can be paid is the last
week beginning on or before December 26, 2004. That is the week
beginning December 26, 2004, for all states except New York where it
is December 20, 2004.
2. Applicable Benefit Year for TEUC-A Purposes
a. Question: If an individual has received TEUC based on a prior
benefit year and has also received TEUC based on a subsequent
benefit year that is redetermined to TEUC-A, must the amounts of
TEUC previously paid for both TEUC claims be deducted to establish
the remaining TEUC-A balance?
Answer: No. Only the TEUC benefits paid based on the same
benefit year as the TEUC-A claim are deductible.
b. Question: An individual who has a TEUC-A claim is determined
eligible for regular benefits for a new benefit year. Upon
exhaustion of the regular benefits based on the new benefit year,
may the claimant elect to receive TEUC-A based on the prior claim
instead of the most recent benefit year?
Answer: No. The determination of TEUC-A eligibility must be
based on the ``applicable benefit year,'' which in the scenario
cited above is the most recent
[[Page 35441]]
benefit year. Also, whether or not the claimant is an ``eligible
individual'' for TEUC-A purposes must be based on the base period
employment for the ``applicable benefit year'' and the associated
separation(s).
3. Monetary Eligibility
a. Question: An individual has two base period employers.
Employment with one employer is ``qualifying employment,'' while
employment with the other is not. Which employment is the
individual's monetary eligibility based on?
Answer: The TEUC-A monetary calculation formula uses other
factors and is not based on the amount of the base period wages from
``qualifying employment.'' TEUC-A monetary entitlement is based on
the calculation of the lesser of 150 percent of the regular benefit
maximum benefit amount (MBA) or 39 times the average weekly benefit
amount (AWBA).
b. Question: TEUC-A benefits are applicable only to weeks
beginning on or after the date of enactment, but all TEUC and TEUC-X
benefits previously paid are to be deducted from the TEUC-A
calculated MBA to create the TEUC-A account balance. Some TEUC and/
or TEUC-X weeks claimed prior to enactment of Public Law 108-11 may
not be paid until after the TEUC-A account balance has been
established. May these weeks be paid from the balance available in
the TEUC-A account?
Answer: Yes. The amount paid for all TEUC and TEUC-X compensable
weeks is deductible from the redetermined TEUC-A MBA. When the
payments are issued is immaterial. However, the MBA payable as TEUC
and TEUC-X for weeks of unemployment ending prior to April 16, 2003,
may not exceed the original TEUC amount of the lesser of 50 percent
of the MBA or 13 times the AWBA, plus an additional amount up to 13
times the AWBA in high unemployment states. Therefore, after the
TEUC-A determination is made, if there are weeks of unemployment
prior to the first week beginning after April 16, 2003, for which
the claimant is determined eligible, payments can be made but only
up to the MBA payable for TEUC (and TEUC-X, if applicable).
c. Question: The claimant has exhausted TEUC in a state that has
not been and is not in an extended benefit (EB) or TEUC-X period.
What is the MBA payable based on a TEUC-A determination?
Answer: The TEUC-A monetary determination is calculated at the
lesser of 150 percent of the MBA of the regular claim or 39 times
the AWBA minus the TEUC previously paid based on the ``applicable
benefit year,'' creating a TEUC-A balance payable of up to 26 times
the AWBA. If the claimant exhausts TEUC-A while the state is in an
EB or TEUC-X period, the claimant's account will be augmented by an
amount equal to \1/3\ of the TEUC-A MBA, thereby creating a TEUC-AX
balance.
d. Question: The claimant has exhausted TEUC and TEUC-X in a
state that is currently not in an EB or TEUC-X period. What is the
MBA payable based on a TEUC-A determination?
Answer: The TEUC-A monetary is calculated at the lesser of 150
percent of the MBA of the regular claim or 39 times the AWBA minus
the TEUC and TEUC-X previously paid based on the ``applicable
benefit year,'' creating a balance payable of up to 13 times the
AWBA. If the claimant exhausts TEUC-A while the state is in an EB or
TEUC-X period, the claimant's account will be augmented by an amount
equal to \1/3\ of the TEUC-A MBA, thereby creating a TEUC-X balance.
e. Question: The claimant has exhausted TEUC and TEUC-X in a
state that is currently in an extended benefit or TEUC-X period.
What is the MBA payable based on a TEUC-A determination?
Answer: The TEUC-A monetary determination is calculated at the
lesser of 150 percent of the MBA of the regular claim or 39 times
the AWBA minus the TEUC and TEUC-X previously paid based on the
``applicable benefit year,'' creating a TEUC-A balance of up to 13
times the AWBA. If the claimant exhausts TEUC-A after the state's EB
or TEUC-X period has triggered ``off,'' no additional TEUC-A
benefits are payable. If the claimant exhausts while the state is in
an EB or TEUC-X period, the claimant's account will be augmented by
an amount equal to 1/3 of the TEUC-A MBA, thereby creating a TEUC-X
balance.
4. Base Period Twenty--Weeks of Work Requirement
a. Question: To be eligible for TEUC-A, must the individual's
``qualifying employment'' in the base period meet the 20 weeks of
full-time work or the equivalent in insured wages requirement?
Answer: No. The claimant's total base period employment and
wages must meet the ``20 weeks of work'' requirement.
5. Determining if an Individual Is an ``Eligible Individual'' for
TEUC-A Purposes
a. Question: The individual had ``qualifying employment'' during
the base period of the prior benefit year. The new benefit year has
no ``qualifying employment.'' Is this individual an ``eligible
individual?''
Answer: No. For purposes of determining TEUC, and therefore
TEUC-A eligibility, the ``applicable benefit year'' is the current
or most recent benefit year. (See UIPL No. 30-02, pages II-1 and
III-2.)
b. Question: The state has completed its TEUC-A fact-finding and
is ready to issue a determination. What type of determination should
be issued?
Answer: If the state determines an individual is eligible for
TEUC-A, the state will issue or document an eligible nonmonetary
determination and issue a TEUC-A monetary determination or
redetermination, as appropriate. If the state determines an
individual is ineligible for TEUC-A, the state will issue an
ineligible nonmonetary determination only. In either case, the
nonmonetary determination is reportable under ``Miscellaneous'' on
the TEUC ETA 207 report.
c. Question: The individual had no ``qualifying employment'' in
the base period, but did have ``qualifying employment'' in the lag
period. Is this individual an ``eligible individual?'
Answer: No. In order for a claimant to be determined an
``eligible individual'' for TEUC-A purposes, ``qualifying
employment'' must have been used in the determination of regular
compensation for the ``applicable benefit year.''
d. Question: Do claimants have appeal rights if determined not
eligible for TEUC-A?
Answer: Yes. States must provide the same appeal rights provided
for determinations for regular benefits.
e. Question: Is a monetary determination notice sufficient to
advise claimants they are not eligible for TEUC-A?
Answer: No. An appealable nonmonetary determination is required
if a claimant is determined ineligible for TEUC-A.
f. Question: Since employers are being contacted to determine
``qualifying employment,'' are they interested parties to the
determination?
Answer: No. Employers are not interested parties because their
accounts are not potentially chargeable for TEUC-A.
g. Question: After issuing an eligible determination, the state
receives late information from an employer that contradicts the
claimant's statement. Is the state required to issue a
redetermination or does the state follow its regular procedures?
Answer: Late information received from the employer must be
considered. If it supports a denial of benefits, a redetermination
must be issued. This procedure may differ from state law provisions
prohibiting the use of information received after a decision has
been issued. Such state provisions are intended to penalize an
employer who has not complied with state law provisions concerning
employer response. However, the employer is not an interested party
to a TEUC-A determination and these state provisions must not be
applied.
6. Determining if the Employment is ``Qualifying Employment''
a. Question: Qualifying separations include those due to
``military conflict with Iraq.'' Must separations due to the
``military conflict with Iraq'' be related to employment with a
certified air carrier, employment at a facility at an airport, or
employment with an upstream producer or supplier for an air carrier?
Answer: Yes. The separation has to be from employment with a
certified air carrier, employment at a facility at an airport, or
employment with an upstream producer or supplier for a certified air
carrier. A separation due ``in whole or in part'' to the military
conflict with Iraq is a qualifying separation for purposes of
establishing ``qualifying employment.''
b. Question: Eight thousand servicemembers from a local military
base were sent to Iraq. Are the local businesses that have suffered
a loss of business due to the deployment considered to have provided
``qualifying employment'' or is that designation limited to airline-
related employment?
Answer: The designation ``qualifying employment'' is limited to
airline-related employment from which the individual was
[[Page 35442]]
separated for a qualifying reason. Therefore, employment with a non-
airline related employers who have suffered a loss of business due
to the deployment of large number of military servicemembers from
the community is not ``qualifying employment.''
c. Question: If the claimant's regular benefit entitlement is
determined using an alternate base period, are the normally lag
period wages that are used in the determination ``qualifying
employment'' if all other conditions are met?
Answer: Yes. If regular entitlement is determined using the
alternate base period, that is the base period for purposes of
determining ``qualifying employment.''
d. Question: During the base period, the claimant was employed
with an air carrier and was separated for a nonqualifying reason.
Subsequent to establishing the ``applicable benefit year,'' the
claimant returned to work with that employer and was separated for a
qualifying reason. Would this separation establish the base period
employment as ``qualifying employment?'
Answer: Yes. The qualifying separation does not have to occur
during the base period. In most cases it will probably occur during
the lag period.
e. Question: The term ``qualifying employment'' as expressed in
the law provides that separation from the employment must be due
``in whole or in part'' to one of three conditions. Is it possible
that an individual can have employment with more than one base
period employer that can be considered qualifying employment?
Answer: Yes.
f. Question: There are several hotels ``offsite'' along the main
road of the airport. Would these hotels qualify as hotels at the
facility?
Answer: No. Employment with a hotel that is not physically
located on the grounds of the airport and that does not provide
functions that are integrally related to the operation of the
airport, is not ``employment at a facility at an airport.'' A
``facility at an airport'' includes any facility that is physically
located on the grounds of an airport or those offsite businesses/
facilities that provide functions that are integrally related to the
operation of the airport. An offsite hotel may be convenient, but it
is not ``integrally related to the operation of the airport.''
g. Question: A hotel located offsite near an airport had a
contract with a certified air carrier to supply a certain number of
rooms each night for airline personnel. Due to a reduction in the
air carrier's flights, the contract with the hotel was canceled.
Does the hotel meet the definition of a ``supplier'' for TEUC-A
purposes?
Answer: Yes. This hotel is a ``supplier'' that provided services
to a certified air carrier.
h. Question: An individual worked as a security screener at an
airport. In response to the terrorist actions of September 11, 2001,
this function was transferred to the newly created federal
Transportation Security Administration (TSA). The individual was not
hired by the TSA and is, as a result, now unemployed. Is this a
qualifying reason for separation for TEUC-A purposes?
Answer: No. The above individual worked at a facility at an
airport and was separated from employment due to a security measure
taken in response to the terrorist actions of September 11, 2001.
However, to have ``qualifying employment,'' the individual must have
been separated because of reductions in service by an air carrier or
the closure of an airport in the United States. This did not occur
under the scenario described. Rather, the individual was separated
because the TSA took over security at the airport.
i. Question: The claimant has a qualifying employer during the
base period and a qualifying separation from that employer. The
claimant is subsequently reemployed by the employer and has a
disqualifying separation. Is this claimant's first separation from
this employer a qualifying separation for TEUC-A purposes?
Answer: No. The definition of an ``eligible individual''
requires the individual to be separated from ``qualifying
employment.'' The determination that base period employment
constitutes ``qualifying employment'' includes a determination that
the claimant was separated from the base period employment for a
qualifying reason. In this case, although this claimant was
separated after September 11, 2001, for a qualifying reason, when
the employer recalled the claimant, the claimant was no longer
separated from this employer. The claimant's subsequent separation
from this base period employer is not for one of the three
qualifying reasons.
j. Question: The claimant has base period employment with two
potentially qualifying employers. One employer laid the individual
off after September 11, 2001, for a qualifying reason; the other
employer fired the claimant after September 11, 2001, for gross
misconduct. Does this claimant have a qualifying separation, and is
he/she eligible for TEUC-A?
Answer: Whether this claimant is ``eligible'' to receive TEUC-A
depends on whether he/she has requalified if there was a misconduct
disqualification. However, this claimant has ``qualifying
employment'' and meets the definition of ``eligible individual'' for
TEUC-A monetary determination purposes because he/she is separated
from a base period employment for a qualifying reason. This
situation is different from the individual with two separations from
the same employer in that the non-qualifying separation from one
base period employer does not nullify the qualifying separation from
another base period employer. The issue is not whether the
claimant's separation from his/her most recent potentially
qualifying employment is qualifying, it is whether the claimant has
``qualifying employment,'' and this claimant does. However, to
receive TEUC-A benefits, the individual must still meet all other
eligibility requirements. Therefore, if the claimant has been
disqualified, no TEUC-A is payable until the claimant has
requalified.
k. Question: The claimant worked at an airport construction site
building a parking ramp or remodeling a building. Would this
employment be considered ``employment at a facility at an airport?''
Answer: Yes. Although the employer's office may have been
located offsite, the claimant's employment at the construction site
on the airport grounds constitutes ``employment at a facility at an
airport.'' However, in order for the claimant to be an ``eligible
individual,'' he/she must have been laid off from work at the
airport construction site for one of the three qualifying reasons.
l. Question: Is a company that makes and supplies parts to an
aircraft manufacturer that sells airplanes to a certified air
carrier a ``supplier'' for purposes of TEUC-A?
Answer: Yes, because the air carrier is certified. However, to
satisfy the definition of ``qualifying employment,'' the separation
from the base period employment must be for a qualifying reason.
m. Question: Is a company that is contracted to install phones
or computer equipment at an airport considered a ``supplier'' for an
air carrier?
Answer: Yes, if the contract is with a certified air carrier.
Also, the individual(s) installing the equipment on the airport
grounds is performing services ``at a facility at an airport.''
Therefore, the employment satisfies the definition of ``qualifying
employment'' if the separation was for one of the three qualifying
reasons.
n. Question: A foreign air carrier has suffered a loss in
business associated with the terrorist actions of September 11,
2001, and has laid off workers at airports throughout the United
States. Does this employer meet the definition of an ``air carrier''
for purposes of TEUC-A?
Answer: No. An ``air carrier'' for purposes of TEUC-A is defined
as ``an air carrier that holds a certificate issued under chapter
411 of title 49, United States Code.'' We have been advised by the
Federal Aviation Administration that foreign air carriers are not
issued such certificates. However, if this employer is located at an
airport, then services performed for it at the airport represent
``employment at a facility at the airport.'' To qualify, however,
the individual must have a qualifying separation. Because the
reduction in service was not by a certified air carrier, the layoff
must be due to one of the other two qualifying reasons, i.e., due to
an airport closure as a result of the terrorist actions of September
11, 2001, or due to the military conflict in Iraq.
o. Question: Due to a drop in business after the terrorist
actions of September 11, 2001, a foreign air carrier cancels its
contract with the local caterer whose sole contract was with this
air carrier. The caterer goes out of business, laying off all of its
workers. Does the caterer meet the definition of an ``upstream
producer'' or ``supplier'' for TEUC-A purposes?
Answer: No. The caterer does not meet the definition of
``supplier'' because the products and services were not provided to
a qualifying ``air carrier'' as defined in section 4002(a)(3) of
Public Law 108-11.
p. Question: A manufacturer or supplier of private aircraft
exclusively to individuals and non-airline related businesses laid
off workers after the terrorist actions on September 11, 2001, when
sales of the private aircraft were reduced. Does this constitute
``qualifying employment'' for purposes of TEUC-A?
[[Page 35443]]
Answer: No. Section 4002(a)(3) of Public Law 108-11 is clear in
its definition of an ``air carrier'' for purposes of TEUC-A.
Therefore, if the reduction in business is not due to reduction in
service by a certified air carrier, the employment does not meet the
definition of ``qualifying employment.''
q. Question: The TSA announced that later this year it will cut
11% of the security screeners at the nation's airports. Does this
employment at airports with the TSA constitute ``qualifying
employment'' for TEUC-A purposes?
Answer: No. These layoffs are not due to a qualifying reason for
separation, i.e., layoffs due to a reduction in service by the
certified air carrier due to the September 11, 2001, terrorist
actions or security measures taken in response thereto; closure of
an airport for that reason; or the military conflict with Iraq.
r. Question: The meaning of the term ``qualifying employment''
includes ``employment at a facility at an airport.'' What is an
airport?
Answer: Title 49, Section 40102(g) of the United States Code
defines ``airport'' as ``a landing area used regularly by aircraft
for receiving or discharging passengers or cargo.''
7. Determining if the Separation Is a Qualifying Separation
a. Question: The claimant worked in employment with a supplier
of services utilized by a certified air carrier and was disqualified
for a voluntary quit at the time the benefit year was established.
On appeal, the determination was reversed because the employer
failed to appear and the claimant maintained that the separation was
due to a lay-off for lack of work. The claimant has now filed for
TEUC-A and the employer has responded to the TEUC-A request for
information stating that the claimant was not separated for a
qualifying reason. How is this determination handled?
Answer: Determining whether or not the claimant's separation was
for a qualifying reason for TEUC-A purposes is not the issue that
was previously determined. Here, the appellate body found that the
lay-off was for lack of work. The state need only determine for
TEUC-A qualifying purposes if the lack of work was for a qualifying
reason. A determination that the claimant was not laid off for one
of the TEUC-A qualifying reasons does not contradict the appellate
decision.
b. Question: States are required to determine if the claimant is
an ``eligible individual'' for TEUC-A purposes. Making this
determination involves determining if the claimant's base period
employment used in the monetary determination for regular benefits
meets the definition of ``qualifying employment'' which includes a
determination of whether or not the claimant was separated for a
qualifying reason. What section of law does the state cite in its
nonmonetary determination and where are these determinations
reported on the TEUC ETA 207?
Answer: The state should cite Section 4002(a) of Public Law 108-
11. The nonmonetary determination is reportable as ``Miscellaneous''
in column 17, line 202 of the ETA 207 TEUC report. (See Items 14.c.
and d.)
c. Question: Information provided by the employer indicates that
the employment is ``qualifying employment,'' but the state has
reason to doubt the accuracy of this information. Is the state
required to accept the employer's statement?
Answer: No. However, the state must have credible information to
refute the employer's assertion and to support a determination of
TEUC-A ineligibility.
d. Question: State National Guard and Air National Guard members
were activated by the state and deployed to guard the airports. Does
their deactivation constitute a ``qualifying separation'' for TEUC-A
purposes?
Answer: No. The deactivation of the State National Guard and Air
National Guard was not due to a qualifying reason for separation,
i.e., layoffs due to a reduction in service by the certified air
carrier due to the September 11 terrorist actions or security
measures taken in response thereto; closure of an airport for the
same reason(s); or the military conflict with Iraq.
e. Question: State National Guard and Air National Guard members
were activated and deployed by the federal government during the
military conflict with Iraq. Does their deactivation constitute a
qualifying separation for TEUC-A purposes?
Answer: No. The federal government cannot be construed as a
certified air carrier, a facility at an airport, or a supplier to a
certified air carrier. Nor is the federal government a ``firm.''
These are the terms used in the TEUC-A provisions to describe the
employer or type of employment that potentially constitute
``qualifying employment.'' Because military service to the
government is not potentially ``qualifying employment,'' the reason
for separation is not a potentially qualifying separation.
f. Question: Military reservists were activated and deployed due
to the military conflict with Iraq. When they are unable to return
to their previous employment with an air carrier, employment at a
facility at an airport, or with an upstream producer or supplier for
an air carrier for one of the qualifying reasons for separation, are
they considered to be separated from ``qualifying employment'' for
TEUC-A purposes?
Answer: Yes. Such reservists' inability to return to their prior
employer/employment for a reason that satisfies the requirements of
Section 4002(a)(2)(A) of P.L. 108-11, constitutes a ``qualifying
separation'' from that employer. If that employment was used in the
determination of eligibility for regular benefits, it constitutes
``qualifying employment'' for TEUC-A purposes.
g. Question: Would individuals who worked as travel agents or
reservation agents who in whole or in part book passengers for
certified air carrier flights be considered as ``suppliers'' or
employees of ``suppliers'' for TEUC-A purposes?
Answer: Yes. Travel and reservation agents/agencies perform
written or implied contract services for certified air carriers by
booking passengers' flights. If travel agents did not book the
certified air carrier's flights, the certified air carriers
themselves would be required to book the flights. Thus, these agents
supply services to certified air carriers. If their separation is
for a qualifying reason, they have ``qualifying employment.''
8. Adjudication of Issues Arising Subsequent to ``Qualifying
Employment''
a. Question: An ``eligible individual'' has had subsequent
employment since the ``qualifying employment'' and is terminated
from the subsequent employment for a disqualifying reason. Does this
affect the individual's eligibility for TEUC-A?
Answer: Maybe. When an individual has been determined to be an
``eligible individual'' for TEUC-A purposes, that determination only
means that the individual is entitled to a monetary determination
using the formula that applies to TEUC-A. To receive TEUC-A
benefits, the individual must still meet all other eligibility
requirements. Therefore, if the claimant has been disqualified, no
TEUC-A is payable until the claimant has requalified.
9. Interstate Benefits/Combined Wage/ICON Applications
a. Question: How will ``eligible individuals'' be identified by
the paying state if potentially ``qualifying employment'' on a
combined-wage claim is from a transferring state?
Answer: If the claimant responds to a notice of potential
eligibility to TEUC-A, the request for information will be sent
directly to the employer in the other state. If the employer is an
obvious ``large employer'' (such as a certified air carrier) that
may have already provided the transferring state with information
about the claimant, the paying state may instead arrange to check
with the transferring state.
b. Question: A claimant has employment in more than one state
and has base period employment that would satisfy the definition of
``qualifying employment.'' However, it was not used in the monetary
determination of the regular claim because the claimant was eligible
for the maximum benefit amount payable under the liable state's law
without filing a combined wage claim (CWC). Does this claimant have
``qualifying employment'' for TEUC-A purposes?
Answer: Under the TEUC-A law, an ``eligible individual'' is one
whose eligibility for TEUC ``is or would be based on the exhaustion
of regular compensation under state law, entitlement to which was
based in whole or in part on qualifying employment performed during
such individual's base period.'' The language ``would be'' permits
consideration of employment, for purposes of determining qualifying
employment, that the individual chose to exclude from base period
employment under a CWC.
10. TEUC-A Eligibility for Individual Filing From Canada
a. Question: May individuals filing from Canada qualify for
TEUC-A?
Answer: Yes, if they meet the definition of an ``eligible
individual.''
11. TEUC-A Effect on Trade Readjustment Assistance (TRA)
a. Question: Original TEUC benefits were deducted from
claimants' ``basic'' TRA entitlement. Is TEUC-A also deductible from
TRA entitlement?
[[Page 35444]]
Answer: Yes. The same rules apply.
12. Short-Time Compensation Program
a. Question: Employers opted to participate in the state's
short-time compensation (or worksharing program) or otherwise
reduced workers' hours in lieu of lay offs. Would these situations
be considered ``qualifying separations'' for TEUC-A purposes?
Answer: Yes, if the reduction in work hours or weeks by a
qualifying employer was caused by one of the three qualifying
reasons.
13. TEUC-A Benefit Funding
a. Question: Will TEUC-A be funded separately from TEUC?
Answer: No.
14. Reporting Requirements
a. Question: How will TEUC-A and AX claims and benefit activity
be reported?
Answer: See the reporting instructions in UIPL 30-02, Change 2,
Item 11.
b. Question: Must TEUC-A benefit activity be reported separately
from other TEUC activity?
Answer: No. TEUC, TEUC-X, TEUC-A and TEUC-AX are all reported
together on the TEUC reports. However, states are to report a
breakout in the comments section of the ETA 5159 of the number of
TEUC-A determinations and redeterminations. See reporting
instructions in UIPL No. 30-02, Change 2, Item 11.
c. Question: Will nonmonetary determinations of ``eligible
individuals'' for TEUC-A be reported on the ETA 207 as countable
determinations?
Answer: Yes.
d. Question: Does the outcome of the ``eligible individual''
nonmonetary determination (eligible/not eligible) affect what type
of issue is reported on the ETA TEUC-A 207 and would it be reported
the same on all reports?
Answer: Whether or not the claimant is an ``eligible
individual'' is a nonseparation nonmonetary determination reportable
in the miscellaneous column of the TEUC-A ETA 207 regardless of the
outcome of the determination. The TEUC-A ETA 207 is the only report
where TEUC nonmonetary determinations will be reported.
e. Question: Is a separate SF-269 required for reporting TEUC-A
administrative costs?
Answer: No. There is only one TEUC program. The TEUC-A and AX
costs are included on the SF 269 for the TEUC program.
[FR Doc. 03-14857 Filed 6-12-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P