Further questions on EUC elections, eligibility and interstate claims

U.S. Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
Washington, D.C. 20210
Classification: UI/EUC
Correspondence symbol: TEUMC
Issue date: 1993-07-05
Rescissions: None
Expiration date: December 31, 1994
Directive: UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM LETTER NO. 09-92, CHANGE 5 To: ALL STATE EMPLOYMENT SECURITY AGENCIES From: BARBARA ANN FARMER, Administrator for Regional Management Subject: Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) Act of 1991, as Amended - Questions and Answers

1. Purpose. To respond to questions raised by States and Regional Offices regarding implementation of Public Law 102318.

2. References. The EUC Act of 1991, Public Law 102-164, as amended; GAL No. 4-92 and Changes 1-4 as consolidated in GAL 12-92; UIPL No. 9-92 and Changes 1, 2, 3, and 4; the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended; 20 CFR Part 615; 20 CFR Part 616; ET Handbook 392; ET(Handbook 399; ET Handbook 401; Section 5100, Part V, Employment Security Manual and UIPL No. 6-92.

3. Background. Many questions have been received from States about options available to claimants under Public Law 102-318. This change to the program letter provides to all States answers that have been given to individual State questions.

4. Action Required. State Administrators are requested to make a copy of this UIPL available to all appropriate staff.

5. Inquiries. Questions regarding this UIPL should be directed to the respective Regional Office.

6. Attachment. Questions and Answers for Clarification of P.L. 102-318

Attachment — Questions and Answers (Supplement 5) Official attachment: https://oui.doleta.gov/dmstree/uipl/uipl92/uipl_0992c5a.pdf

Attachment to UIPL No. 9-92, Change 5

Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 1991 Questions & Answers for Clarification of P.L. 102-318

EUC Monetary Entitlement

The applicable level of EUC entitlement for individuals who postpone establishing a new benefit year and the level for those who defer rights to regular benefits to elect a claim for EUC are determined differently. Section 102(b)(2)(B) of the UC Amendments of 1992 (P.L. 102-318) provide that an individual who defers regular benefits is to receive EUC in the same manner as if he/she had not been entitled to regular benefits. This means that the claimant's entitlement must represent the same level of entitlement that applied to other EUC claims filed during the period of time that the claimant was not allowed to file for EUC because of regular benefit entitlement.

On the other hand, Section 102(a), which added paragraph (f) to Section 101 of the EUC Act of 1991, simply allows individuals who were not in benefit status or whose rights to EUC were not affected by their rights to regular benefits subsequent to the exhaustion of the prior claim or the end of the prior benefit year to have the same option to elect an EUC claim prior to establishing a subsequent benefit year.

The requirement that an individual with an existing second benefit year have a remaining regular benefit balance acknowledges that some claimants affected by the definition of an "exhaustee" would not be covered by the amendment. However, it was considered to be the appropriate solution in maintaining the concept of the "applicable benefit year.

What is important to be remembered, in either case, is that the claimant's EUC entitlement based on the prior benefit year is determined minus any EUC previously paid on the basis of that prior benefit year.

The following questions pertain to the determination of EUC entitlement for individuals exercising election to postpone establishing a new benefit year "Section 102(a) of P.L.102-318).

1. Question. If an individual elects to postpone establishing a new
   benefit year to file an EUC claim, based on a prior benefit year where
   benefits were exhausted prior to July 3, 1992, is the level of EUC
   entitlement determined on the basis of what the individual would have
   been entitled to had he/she filed an EUC claim upon exhaustion of the
   prior claim?

   Answer. No. EUC claims filed under the provisions of Section 102(a) of
   P.L. 102-318 are determined at the level applicable to EUC claims at
   the time of filing, without regard to whether or not the claimant could
   have filed an EUC claim or a regular claim upon exhaustion. Since no
   claim was filed at that time, no entitlement accrues under the
   provisions of Section 102(b)(2)(B) of P.L. 102-318.

     Note: This is a different situation from that addressed in
     Question 21, page 8 of Change 4. In that case, the claimant had
     filed a regular claim at the time of the benefit year ending and
     was filing for EUC under the provisions of Section 102(b)(2)(B) of
     P.L. 102-318. The same answer applies when there was an exhaustion
     and the claimant filed a regular claim.
   

2. Question. Claimant has a prior "applicable benefit year" for EUC
   purposes. The claimant did not exhaust regular entitlement and returned
   to work prior to the benefit year ending date. The claimant now elects
   to postpone establishing a new benefit year to file for EUC. What level
   of entitlement applies?

   Answer. The level applicable at the time of the election. The claimant
   has not been denied EUC because he/she was not an "exhaustee”.

3. Question. The claimant has a prior benefit year (ending between March
   1, 1991 to date) and has not previously filed an EUC claim during the
   EUC period (11/17/91 to date). When this claimant elects to postpone
   establishing a new benefit year to file for EUC based on the prior
   benefit year, what level of entitlement applies?

   Answer. The level applicable to EUC claims filed at the time of the
   election. This claimant has not been denied an EUC claim because of the
   definition of an "exhaustee".

The following questions pertain to the determination of EUC entitlement for individuals exercising election to defer rights to regular benefits on an existing benefit year. (Section 102(b)(2)(B) of P.L. 102-318.)

1. Question. If an individual elects to defer regular benefits on a
   current claim to file a new EUC claim based on a prior benefit year, is
   the level of EUC entitlement based on what the individual would have
   been entitled to had he/she filed an EUC claim at the time of the
   effective date of the current benefit year?

   Answer. In the case of an individual who was required to establish a
   benefit year for regular benefits because he/she was not considered an
   "exhaustee" for EUC purposes, the applicable EUC benefit level is the
   greater of the level payable by the State on the effective date of the
   regular claim, or thereafter during periods that he/she was required to
   file for regular benefits, or at the time of the election.

2. Question. The claimant was previously issued an EUC determination with
   an entitlement of 26 times the WBA and was in active benefit status
   with an EUC balance at the benefit year ending date, at which time a
   new benefit year was established. During the time the claimant was
   receiving regular benefits, the maximum level of EUC payable in the
   State increased to 33 weeks. What level of entitlement applies when
   this claimant defers regular benefits to receive EUC?

   Answer. Thirty-three (33) weeks. During the period that the applicable
   level for EUC was 33 weeks, the claimant was in active benefit status
   and prevented from filing an EUC claim by the definition of an
   "exhaustee". Therefore, the claimant's entitlement is redetermined to

   the higher level minus EUC previously paid.

3. Question. The claimant has a remaining balance on an EUC claim based on
   the prior benefit year and elects to defer regular benefits to file for
   EUC. What level of entitlement applies to this claimant?

   Answer. The greater of the level applicable on the effective date of
   the prior EUC determination, the level applicable in the State for any
   week during which the claimant was in active claim status and not
   allowed to file for EUC because of regular entitlement or the level
   currently applicable to the State. The claimant's entitlement is
   redetermined to the higher level, minus any EUC previously paid.

4. Question. Prior to EUC exhaustion, the second benefit year, on which
   the claimant had deferred regular benefit rights in order to file for
   EUC based on a prior benefit year, ends and the claimant has no
   potential regular entitlement for a new benefit year. Is the claimant
   allowed to continue to receive EUC based on the prior benefit year or
   is the "applicable benefit year" for EUC the second benefit year? Is
   there a difference if the claimant has rights to a new benefit year to
   postpone?

   Answer. When the second benefit year ends, the claimant no longer has
   regular benefit rights to defer under the provisions of Section
   102(b)(2)(B) of P.L. 102-318. The claimant's rights to postpone a new
   benefit year, under the provisions of Section 102(a) of P.L. 102-318,
   provide for EUC entitlement based on the prior benefit year. Therefore,
   in either case, EUC entitlement is based on the "applicable benefit
   year" as defined in 20 CFR 615.

     Please Note: This means that in some cases the claimant will have
     no further EUC entitlement if during the base period of the second
     benefit year the claimant's earnings do not meet the "earnings
     test". When a claimant is entitled to EUC based on the second
     benefit year, that determination does not take into consideration
     EUC benefits previously paid based on the prior benefit year.
   

5. Question. A claimant has deferred regular benefit rights on a second
   benefit year to receive EUC based on a prior benefit year and the
   second benefit year ends prior to EUC exhaustion. The claimant has
   potential regular entitlement for a new benefit year. If the claimant
   elects to postpone regular entitlement, is the claimant allowed to
   continue to receive EUC based on the first benefit year?

   Answer. No. The claimant's entitlement to EUC based on the first
   "prior" benefit year ceases with the end of the benefit year of the
   claim on which regular benefits were deferred. When the second benefit
   year ends, the provisions of Section 102(a) of P.L. 102318 apply with
   respect to the claimant's options. Therefore, when the claimant
   postpones establishing a new benefit year, EUC is payable based on the
   entitlement of the most recent "prior benefit year” without regard to
   any EUC previously paid.

The following questions pertain to individuals who were ineligible for EUC benefits prior to July 3, 1992, for failure to satisfy the base period "earnings test."

1. Question. When a claimant who was ineligible for EUC prior to July 3,
   1992, because he/she failed to meet the base period earnings test,
   elects to postpone the filing of a new claim to establish a benefit
   year in order to file an EUC claim based on that prior benefit year, is
   the EUC entitlement determined based on the level payable by the State
   at the time of the prior EUC denial?

   Answer. No. In such cases, EUC entitlement is based on the level of
   benefits payable at the time the claimant elected to postpone the
   regular claim. Prior to July 3, 1992, this claimant did not have a
   valid EUC claim because of the base period earnings requirement. He/she
   was not affected by the definition of an "exhaustee."

2. Question. When a claimant who was ineligible for EUC prior to July 3,
   1992, because he/she failed to meet the base period earnings test
   elects to defer regular benefits to file an EUC claim based on that
   prior benefit year, is the EUC entitlement determined based on the
   level payable by the State at the time of the prior EUC denial?

   Answer. No. EUC entitlement is based on the level of benefits payable
   at the time the claimant elected to postpone the regular claim.
   Although the claimant in this case has been allowed the option to defer
   benefits, the benefit levels provided under the provisions of Section
   102(b)(2)(B) of P.L. 102-318 do not apply as such claimants were not
   denied EUC benefits because of regular benefit entitlement.

3. Question. Prior to July 3, 1992, the claimant(s) was ineligible for EUC
   for failure to satisfy the base period earnings test. After July 3,
   1992, such a claimant elects to postpone the filing of a claim to
   establish a new benefit year or defer regular benefits to file for EUC
   based on the prior benefit year or wants to file an EUC claim under the
   new base period earnings requirement. What level of entitlement
   applies?

   Answer. The level applicable at the time of the election. The
   claimant(s) was ineligible for EUC prior to the alternative base period
   earnings test provisions of the July 3 amendments for monetary reasons,
   not because of the definition of an "exhaustee."

The following questions pertain to Eligibility.

1. Question. When a disqualification has been issued on an EUC claim which
   was based on a prior benefit year, and the claimant has subsequently
   established a new benefit year and has been determined eligible for
   regular benefits and has a benefit balance, should the individual be
   offered an EUC election?

   Answer. Yes. However, if the individual has not satisfied the EUC
   requalifying requirement, no EUC benefits are payable. An EUC
   disqualification carries forth through the entire EUC ~period of
   eligibility" (i.e., 11/17/91 through 3/6/93).

2. Question. If a claimant was in regular benefit status for the first
   week beginning after July 3, 1992, must the individual's election to
   defer regular benefits be effective with that first week if notice of
   the election is not provided until a later date?

   Answer. Yes. The election to defer rights to regular benefits is
   effective for week of unemployment beginning after July 3, 1992. If an
   individual is in benefit status and does not elect EUC effective with
   the first week of unemployment beginning after July 3, 1992, the
   individual has elected to receive regular benefits. Therefore, no
   further election is available under Section 102(b)(2)(B) of the UC
   Amendments of 1992.

3. Question. If an individual had a benefit year ending before July 3,
   1992, with entitlement based on non-educational wage credits and prior
   to July 3 was determined ineligible because of a "between terms denial"
   on a second benefit year, does the individual have an election to file
   an EUC claim based on the prior benefit year?

   Answer. No. This individual is not an "exhaustee" under the provisions
   of 20 CFR 615 and has no rights to regular benefits to defer under the
   provisions of Section 102(b)(2)(B) of P.L. 102-318. However, if such an
   individual has no benefit year established and has rights to establish
   a new benefit year, he/she has an election under Section 102(a) of P.L.
   102-318 (Section 101(f), EUC Act).

The following questions pertain to EUC to EB transition.

1. Question. If an EB period begins after the EUC program ends for initial
   claims (March 6, 1993) and a claimant has a EUC balance, is the
   claimant allowed to continue to receive EUC, or must he/she file an EB
   claim?

   Answer. When an EB period triggers "on" in a State after March 6, 1993,
   the claimant is entitled to receive the greater of EUC or EB. If an EB
   period triggers “on" before March 6, 1993, and the claimant has EB
   entitlement, no additional EUC benefits are payable until EB exhaustion
   and the claimant's EUC account has been reduced, but not below zero, by
   the amount of EB payments paid.

2. Question. If an EB period begins during an individual's benefit year on
   the basis of which the claimant has already received EUC benefits, is
   the claimant entitled to EB based on the same benefit year?

   Answer. Yes. If a claimant has an "applicable benefit year" for EB
   purposes, entitlement to EB is determined without regard to prior EUC
   payments. EB entitlement is not reduced by EUC benefits.

The following questions pertain to Combined Wage Claims.

1. Question. States were instructed in GAL 4-92, Change 4 to discontinue
   charging transferring States for EUC benefits based on combined wage
   claims effective with payments issued on and after July 1, 1992. If a
   paying State determines that some charges to a transferring State for

   one or more of the quarters ending December 31, 1991, March 31, 1992,
   or June 30, 1992 need to be adjusted because of a prior error or
   subsequent determination, what procedure should the State follow?

   Answer. The paying State will take the necessary actions to ensure that
   EUC payments to the claimant are properly adjusted and documented. The
   paying State will take no action to notify a State of any
   redeterminations, overpayment determinations or error corrections, etc.

2. Question. For benefits paid prior to July 1, 1992, transferring States
   were responsible for accounting for drawdowns from the EUCA account to
   reimburse paying States for EUC benefits attributable to CWC claims. If
   after July 1, 1992, paying States are not required to advise
   transferring States of adjustments to EUC payments nor adjust prior
   charges, how will the transferring State adjust its EUCA drawdowns to
   reflect the correct payments?

   Answer. The documentation of the original IB-6 charges will remain in
   place to justify the transferring State's drawdown. This documentation
   will accurately reflect the transferring State's actions. The paying
   State's records will accurately reflect the payments to the claimant
   and any adjustments to the EUCA account.