Additional questions and answers on 2002 temporary extended benefits

U.S. Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration Washington, D.C. 20210 Classification: UI/TEUC Correspondence symbol: OWS/DUO Date: April 15, 2002

ADVISORY: UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM LETTER NO. 18-02, Change 1 TO: ALL STATE WORKFORCE AGENCIES FROM: GRACE A. KILBANE, Administrator, Office of Workforce Security SUBJECT: Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation (TEUC) Act of 2002 - Questions and Answers RESCISSIONS: None EXPIRATION DATE: Continuing

1. Purpose. To respond to questions concerning implementation of the TEUC program.

2. References. The Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act (TEUCA) of 2002, Title II of Public Law 107-147, signed by the President on March 9, 2002; the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended; Section 233 of the Trade Act of 1974; 20 CFR Part 615; and UIPLs No. 17-02 and 18-02.

3. Background. This advisory continues the Department’s guidance concerning the TEUC program by answering questions submitted by states. The answers address specific circumstances consistent with the Department’s interpretation of the TEUCA in UIPL No. 17-02.

The questions and answers are organized by category in the same order and format as the set of questions and answers issued earlier in order to make it easier to find questions and answers of interest. Additional categories have been added.

4. Action Required. Administrators are requested to provide this advisory to the 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 Title II of Public Law 107-147.

Attachment: Questions and Answers for Clarification of Title II of Public Law 107-147

Official attachment: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2002/UIPL18-02Ch1_Attach.pdf

Questions and Answers for Clarification
                  of Title II of Public Law 107-147

1.   Administrative

     a.   Question: If state law requires a request for
redetermination before appeal of a monetary determination, is
state law followed for TEUC monetary appeals?

          Answer: Yes. UIPL No. 17-02, Implementation and
Operating Instructions, Section IV, 5.c. provides that the
provisions of state law apply to determinations pertaining to
TEUC.

     b.   Question: May an individual in continued claim
status at the time of exhaustion be automatically switched to a
TEUC claim without filing a TEUC initial claim?

          Answer: No. A TEUC initial claim must be filed that
meets the state’s requirements for claims filing.

     c.   Question: May individuals be paid TEUC for weeks of
unemployment prior to the effective date of the legislation?

          Answer: No. TEUC is payable only for weeks of
unemployment beginning after enactment of the TEUCA and the
state’s execution of a TEUC agreement with the Secretary of
Labor.

     d.   Question: My state is in an EB period and has a TEUC
agreement with the Secretary of Labor. If my state chooses to
pay EB before TEUC, are we required to pay TEUC effective March
10, 2001, to individuals who have an applicable benefit year
for TEUC, but not for EB?

          Answer: Yes. The agreement requires the state to
implement the TEUC program effective with the first week
beginning after the agreement was executed for individuals who
meet the requirements of Section 202(b) of the TEUCA.

     e.   Question:   My state is in an EB period and has a
TEUC agreement with the Secretary of Labor. If my state
chooses not to pay TEUC in lieu of EB, is my state prohibited
from paying TEUC to an individual prior to the exhaustion of
EB?

          Answer: Yes. If the state does not exercise its
option under Section 202(e) of the TEUCA to pay TEUC in lieu of

EB, the individual does not meet the requirements of Section
202(b)(2) of the TEUCA until EB is exhausted.

2.   Claimants Potentially Eligible for TEUC

     a.   Question: For purposes of Section 202(b)(4), TEUCA,
are transitional claims considered initial claims?

          Answer:   Yes.   See UIPL No. 18-02, Attachment Q and
A, 2.a.(4).

     b.   Question: My state law provides that during an EB
period, regular benefits in excess of 26 times the WBA
(sharable regular) will be denied if the individual failed to
purge a disqualifying separation through subsequent employment.
Is this individual an exhaustee for TEUC purposes?

          Answer: No. This individual is not an exhaustee
because the individual has not “received all regular compensation payable” with respect to the benefit year and does not
fall within the special rules for determining exhaustees. The
fact that regular benefits in excess of 26 times the WBA are
subject to EB eligibility requirements does not change the fact
that they are regular benefits. However, when the benefit year
ends, if the individual is not entitled to regular benefits on
a new benefit year, the individual is an exhaustee.
Additionally, since state law does not require that the
separation disqualification be purged through subsequent work
in order for the individual to qualify for regular benefits in
a subsequent benefit year, it does not carry over to the TEUC
claim.

     c.   Question: My state law provides that during an EB
period, an individual must meet the EB work search requirements
to qualify for regular benefits in excess of 26 times the WBA
(sharable regular) and imposes the EB disqualification
requiring subsequent employment to purge a disqualification.
Is an individual who is held ineligible under the EB work
search provision an exhaustee for TEUC purposes?

          Answer:   No. This individual is not an exhaustee
for the same reasons described in question and answer 2.b.
above. However, this individual is an exhaustee after the end
of the benefit year, if there is no entitlement to regular
benefits on a new benefit year. The disqualification does not
carry over to TEUC, if the state is paying TEUC in lieu of EB,
because the EB work search requirement only applies to regular
benefits in excess of 26 times the WBA and EB in accordance
with 20 CFR 615.9(a).

     d.   Question:   To be considered an “exhaustee,” must a
person have received all regular benefits, i.e., must benefits
actually have been paid on the parent claim?

          Answer: No. See UIPL No. 17-02, Implementation and
Operating Instructions, Section III.5.(b).

     e.   Question: When an individual has only a monetarily
ineligible claim on file showing a benefit year ending date
during or after the week of March 15, 2001, and there is no
record of an appeal, is this individual potentially eligible
for TEUC?

     f.   Answer:   No. Because the individual did not have
sufficient employment and/or wages to establish monetary
entitlement, there is no applicable benefit year with respect
to which the individual exhausted all rights to regular
compensation, as required by Section 202(b)(1), TEUCA.

3.   Applicable Benefit Year for TEUC Purposes

     a. Question: When an individual who otherwise meets the
eligibility requirements for TEUC has established a second
benefit year and has had his/her wage credits canceled or the
right to regular compensation totally reduced as the result of
a disqualification, is the individual entitled to TEUC based on
the prior benefit year?

          Answer: No. The “applicable benefit year” for TEUC
is the current benefit year where the disqualification has been
imposed. The TEUC monetary is determined based on the regular
benefit monetary determination prior to wage cancellation.
However, any requalifying requirement imposed by the disqualification applies to TEUC eligibility.

     b. Question: In some cases, due to the receipt of
severance pay, an individual’s eligibility for regular
compensation may be postponed or reduced. This may result in
no regular compensation being paid during the benefit year.
Even though no benefits were ever actually paid, are these
individuals considered to be “exhaustees?”

          Answer: Yes. See UIPL No. 17-02, Implementation and
Operating Instructions, Section III.5.(b).

4.   Monetary Eligibility

     a.   Question: May individuals who have their base period
wage credits canceled or who have had their regular maximum
benefit amount reduced to one week establish a TEUC claim? If
“yes,” what is the TEUC monetary based on?

          Answer: Yes. The individual’s TEUC account is based
on the original monetary determination before wage cancellation
or benefit reduction. See UIPL No. 17-02, Implementation and
Operating Instructions, Section III.5.(b)(2)(C). The rationale
for this position is that the individual’s loss of regular
compensation is the penalty. To base TEUC entitlement on a
lesser redetermined amount (such as one week) would be
tantamount to imposing a second penalty for the same
disqualifying act. Whether or not the individual is
immediately eligible for TEUC depends on the requalifying
requirements imposed by state law.

     b.   Question: If the calculation of the individual’s
TEUC monetary entitlement at 50 percent of regular monetary
entitlement results in an amount (dollars and cents) requiring
rounding, are state law rounding provisions followed?

          Answer: Yes. States are to round up or down in
accordance with their laws.

     c.   Question: My state’s formula for determining the
maximum benefit amount (MBA) for regular compensation is the
lesser of 26 times the weekly benefit amount (WBA) or one-third
of the base period wages credits. When an individual is
unemployed due to a plant closing, my state pays up to 13
additional weeks of benefits by calculating the MBA payable for
regular compensation plus the additional compensation as the
lesser of 39 times the WBA or one-half of the base period wage
credits. State law does not specifically define these benefits
as additional compensation. Are the plant closing benefits
considered additional compensation for TEUC purposes?

          Answer: Yes. These benefits meet the definition of
“additional compensation” (commonly called additional benefits)
as defined at 20 CFR 615.2(f) as benefits paid “... by reason
of other special factors....” As such, these benefits are
excluded from use in the calculation of TEUC monetary
entitlement and TEUC may be paid prior to these benefits.
Section 202(b)(2), TEUCA, does not require, as a condition of
TEUC eligibility, exhaustion of additional benefits.

5.   Base Period Employment Requirement

     a. Question: The individual’s base period employment and
wages meet the requirement of 20 weeks of full-time work or its
equivalent. The state’s formula for calculating the weekly
benefit amount allows weeks with low earnings to be excluded in
the determination of the individual’s weekly benefit amount.
Does this individual’s base period employment and earnings meet
the requirements of Section 202(d)(2)(A), TEUCA?

          Answer: Yes. Section 202(d)(2)(A), TEUCA requires
the application of Section 202(a)(5), EUCA, to the
determination of TEUC entitlement. Section 202(a)(5), EUCA,
requires an individual to have base period employment of 20
weeks of full-time work or its equivalent, as defined by state
law, to qualify. It does not require all of the employment and
wages to have been used in the determination of monetary
entitlement of the applicable benefit year.

     b.   Question: The individual has covered employment and
wages in more than one state. The individual has established a
benefit year based on wages from state A only because the base
period wages from state B do not increase the weekly or maximum
benefit amount. Therefore, no combined wage claim was
established and state A returned the wages to state B. May
state A use the information from the TC-IB4 wage transfer, that
it received from state B, as evidence of sufficient employment
and wages in the base period of its claim to satisfy the 20-
weeks-of-full-time-work requirement or its equivalent for TEUC
entitlement?

          Answer: Yes. Section 202(a)(5) of EUCA requires an
individual to have a specified amount of base period employment
and wages to qualify. It does not require all of the
employment and wages to have been used in the determination of
monetary entitlement of the applicable benefit year.

     c.   Question: The individual has existing benefit years
ending during or after the week of March 15, 2001, in more than
one state. The applicable benefit year for TEUC is in state B.
The employment and wages used in the monetary determination of
the claim in state A meet the 20-weeks-of-work or equivalent
requirement. The employment and wages used in the monetary
determination of the TEUC “applicable benefit year” in state B
do not meet the base period work requirement. May state B use
information from state A, obtained via the Interstate Inquiry
(IBIQ) or the combined wage program TC-IB4, to verify that the
individual had sufficient out-of-state covered employment and
wages in the base period of the claim in state B to satisfy the
20-weeks-of-work or equivalent requirement?

          Answer: Yes. Section 202(a)(5) of EUCA requires an
individual to have a specified amount of base period employment
and wages to qualify. It does not require all of the
employment and wages to have been used in the determination of
monetary entitlement of the applicable benefit year.

6.   Seasonality Provisions/Between Terms Denial

     a.   Question: Under my state’s seasonality provisions,
all wage credits in the base period are used to determine
monetary eligibility. However, for a seasonal worker, benefits

based on seasonal wages may be paid only during the normal
seasonal period. Is a seasonal worker, with a combination of
seasonal and non-seasonal base period employment, who has
exhausted all non-seasonal benefits and is currently ineligible
for benefits based on seasonal employment considered an
“exhaustee” for TEUC purposes?

          Answer: Yes. See UIPL No. 17-02, Implementation and
Operating Instructions, Section III.5.(b)(2)(B).

     b.   Question: Under my state’s seasonality provisions,
benefits based on seasonal wages may be paid only during the
normal seasonal period for which the seasonal wage credits were
earned. Is a seasonal worker, whose monetary determination is
based solely on seasonal wages and who is ineligible because of
the seasonality provisions, considered an “exhaustee” for TEUC
purposes?

          Answer: Yes. See UIPL No. 17-02, Implementation and
Operating Instructions, Section III.5.(b)(2)(B)

7.   TEUC EB Period/TEUC-X Determinations

     a.   Question: How are the TEUC-X EB period “on” and
“off” dates determined?

          Answer: The TEUC EB period triggers “on” and “off”
in the same manner as an EB period under EUCA. The TEUC EB
period begins with the third week beginning after the week for
which there is an “on” indicator and it ends with the ending of
the second week that begins after the week of the “on”
indicator.

The TEUC Trigger notice shows all states that are in a TEUC EB
period, which includes those in a regular EB period and those
using the 4 percent trigger. The 13-week minimum duration of
the TEUC EB period began for some states based on the 4 percent
trigger prior to the enactment of the TEUC Act because of the
way the trigger functions. If a state’s insured unemployment
rate falls below 4 percent, the TEUC EB period will end
consistent with the beginning date shown.

     b.   Question: Does the ending of the TEUC EB period
result in the ending of TEUC-X payments in a state?

          Answer: No. Once an individual has been determined
entitled to TEUC-X, the benefits are available through the end
of the TEUC program. Whether a state is in a TEUC-EB period
only affects whether the individual is entitled to an account
augmentation of TEUC-X.

     c.   Question: When an individual exhausts initial TEUC
entitlement, what determines whether the balance in the
individual’s account is augmented by an amount equal to the
amount of the initial TEUC maximum benefit amount?

          Answer: If a TEUC-X EB period is in effect during
the week of unemployment for which the final payment of initial
TEUC entitlement is made, the individual’s TEUC account is
augmented by an amount equal to the amount of the initial TEUC
MBA. When a state is not in a TEUC-X EB period during such
week, the individual is not entitled to TEUC-X.

     d.   Question: When the balance in the individual’s
original TEUC account is less than the WBA and the individual
qualifies for TEUC-X, is TEUC–X payable for that same week?

          Answer: Yes. Section 203(c)(1), TEUCA, provides
that, “if, at the time the individual’s account is exhausted,
such individual’s state is in an extended benefit period...,
then, such account shall be augmented by an amount equal to the
original amount.” [Emphasis added.] This provision provides
for automatic replenishment of the TEUC account upon
exhaustion. As a result, TEUC-X is payable for the week of
exhaustion. If the state can accomplish augmentation of the
account after payment authorization, that reduces the TEUC
balance to zero and before check writing, the TEUC payment and
the TEUC-X adjustment may be issued in a single check.

8.   Work Search/Job Service Registration/Able and Available

     a.   Question: Do state law provisions regarding able,
available and actively seeking work apply to TEUC?

          Answer: Yes. Under Section 203(a)(2), TEUCA, “the
terms and conditions of the state law which apply to claims for
regular compensation and the payment thereof” apply to TEUC.

     b.   Question: For TEUC claims, my state plans to
electronically reactivate prior work registrations and require
the same number of job contacts as on the parent claim. Are
these procedures inconsistent with any federal requirements?

          Answer: No. State law work search and employment
service registration requirements apply to TEUC eligibility.

9.   Adjudication of Issues

     a.   Question: My state adjudicates all separations from
the beginning of the base period to the time a claim is filed.
Does this provision of state law apply to TEUC claims?

          Answer: Yes. The state is expected to adjudicate
all potentially disqualifying separations preceding and during
the TEUC claim in accordance with state law applicable to
claims for regular compensation.

10.   TEUC Benefit Intercept

      No new questions.

11.   Overpayments/Prosecutions

     a. Question:    When state law does not contain an
overpayment waiver provision, states may elect to waive non-fraudulent TEUC overpayments. UIPL No. 17-02, IV.6.b.(2) lists
the following three factors that must be considered in
determining whether equity and good conscience exists.
Whether: 1) the overpayment was the result of a decision on
appeal; 2) the state gave notice that the individual may be
required to repay the overpayment in the event of a reversal of
the eligibility decision on appeal; and 3) whether recovery of
the overpayment will cause financial hardship to the
individual. Does this mean that a waiver may only be granted
if all three conditions are met?

         Answer:   No, but each factor should be considered.

     b.   Question: During the Emergency Unemployment
Compensation program during the early 1990s, states were
advised to refer fraud cases to the USDOL Office of Inspector
General (OIG) for prosecution under Section 1001 of Title 18
USC. Those cases referred were not prosecuted under the
federal statute and resulted in cases that could have been
prosecuted under state law not being prosecuted because the
statute of limitations expired before the state was notified
that federal prosecutions would not be pursued. How is USDOL
going to handle prosecution of TEUC fraud overpayment?

          Answer:   States should pursue TEUC fraud cases
consistent with the way all other state and federal claims are
handled. At this time, states should not refer individual
cases to the USDOL-OIG. However, should the state suspect any
multi-state or multi-claimant cases, these should be referred
to the OIG.

     c.   Question: If an individual has been overpaid TEUC
and the amount of the overpayment exceeds the amount remaining
in the TEUC account, may the offset percentage exceed 50
percent?

          Answer: No. The TEUCA provides that “no single
deduction” to recover a TEUC overpayment “may exceed 50 percent
of the weekly benefit amount from which the deduction is made.”

     d.   Question: Section 206(b), TEUCA, allows a state to
waive certain TEUC overpayments if it determines that the
payment of TEUC was without fault on the part of the individual
and repayment would be contrary to equity and good conscience.
UIPL No. 17-02, Implementation and Operating Instructions,
Section IV. 6.b. states that, if the state law contains waiver
provisions for regular compensation, the state provisions may
be applied to TEUC. The instructions do not require that the
waiver criteria of the state provisions must conform to the
waiver criteria set forth in UIPL No. 17-02. Additionally,
UIPL No. 18-02, TEUC - Questions and Answers, 11.a. references
the “equity and good conscience” criteria in stating that
applying a waiver is voluntary on the part of the state. Does
this mean that the state is precluded from applying its state
law waiver provision unless it conforms to the “equity and good
conscience” requirements of Section 206(b), TEUCA, and may only
elect to apply the TEUC waiver criteria as provided in UIPL No.
17-02, Implementation and Operating Instructions, Section
IV.6.b?

          Answer: No. A state is not precluded from applying
its state law waiver provisions if they are, at a minimum,
consistent with the requirements of Section 206(b), TEUCA.

      e. Question: Are states required to use only benefit
offsets to recover TEUC overpayments?

          Answer: No. A state is to use the full range of
recovery tools applicable to regular compensation. See UIPL
No. 17-02, Implementation and Operating Instructions, Section
IV.6.b.(9).

     f.   Question: When an individual has been overpaid TEUC,
is the amount of the overpayment restored to the individual’s
TEUC account at the time the overpayment determination is
issued or is it restored as it is recovered?

          Answer: The full amount of the overpayment is
restored to the individual’s account at the time the determination is issued. As a result, an individual may have an
outstanding TEUC overpayment and still be eligible for a weekly
payment, subject to the offset to recover the overpayment.

     g.   Question: My state is considering adopting an
administrative rule for waivers of TEUC overpayments. UIPL No.
17-02, Implementation and Operating Instructions, IV.6.b.(2)
sets out three factors which "shall be considered" by states in
determining whether equity and good conscience exists. The
first of these is “whether the overpayment was the result of a
decision on appeal.” Does this mean that if an overpayment is

the result of a decision on appeal, that fact alone may be
grounds for granting a waiver?

          Answer: Yes. Even though the state should consider
all of the factors, if the individual’s situation meets only
one, it may constitute grounds for waiver.

12.   Short - Time Compensation (STC) Program

     a.   Question: Since my state limits an individual's
participation in a STC program to 26 weeks, the individual
could (1) continue to work the reduced work week under the STC
plan, (2) be ineligible for STC, and (3) have a balance
remaining on the regular claim. Is this person an exhaustee
for TEUC purposes? If so, do we determine the amount payable
each week using STC criteria or regular criteria? How is the
individual’s TEUC MBA calculated?

          Answer: This individual is an exhaustee for TEUC
purposes because, even though a balance may remain on the
claim, the individual has no rights to regular compensation.
If the individual continues to work a reduced work week as
provided under the STC plan, then TEUC is to be paid under the
state law’s terms and conditions pertaining to STC. However,
if the individual no longer works the reduced work week under
the STC plan, then the state’s STC requirements will no longer
be applicable and eligibility requirements for regular
compensation apply. As a result, if a balance remains on the
regular claim, the individual is no longer an exhaustee for
TEUC purposes. The TEUC MBA is based on the MBA of regular
compensation payable to the individual during the benefit year,
even if the STC plan limits the amount payable during the STC
plan, since the claimant could be laid off and be entitled to
the total balance.

     b.   Question:   When regular benefits are paid to
individuals participating in a "work-sharing program," the
criteria for earnings deductions is based on a percentage of
the earnings instead of deducting earnings on a dollar-for-
dollar basis as we do with regular claims. Does the STC
deduction criteria apply to TEUC? If “yes,” does the state law
provision that limits the number of weeks payable also apply to
TEUC work-sharing benefits?

          Answer:   Yes, to both questions. As stated in a.
above, TEUC is to be paid under the state law’s terms and
conditions pertaining to STC.

13.   Approved Training

      No new questions.

14.   Self-Employment Assistance.
     a.   Question: In the attachment to UIPL No. 18-02, the
response to question 14.a. states that an individual may not
receive SEA allowance in lieu of any unemployment compensation
except regular compensation. It also stated that if an
individual is terminated or voluntarily left the SEA program
the individual may qualify for TEUC as an exhaustee. Does this
mean that an individual may qualify for TEUC if the state
officially terminates an individual’s participation in the SEA
program or an individual withdraws solely for purposes of
removing a barrier to qualifying for TEUC?

          Answer: Section 3306(t)(6), FUTA, provides that a
state SEA program must meet such "requirements as the Secretary
of Labor determines to be appropriate." Further, the purpose
of the SEA program is to "help speed the transition" of workers
"back into the work force." (H. R. Rep. No. 361, Part 1, 103rd
Cong. 1st Sess. 94 (1993), quoted in UIPL No. 14-94.)
Therefore, consistent with the FUTA requirements, the state
may, on its own motion, terminate an individual from its SEA
program if the individual’s efforts to establish
himself/herself in self-employment have failed. However, it
may not terminate an individual simply to qualify that
individual for TEUC.

With respect to an individual withdrawing from a SEA program
solely to qualify for TEUC: The same terms and conditions that
apply to regular compensation apply to the payment of TEUC.
Therefore, if an individual leaves the SEA program by
abandoning self-employment, the state, to determine TEUC
eligibility, will need to determine whether the individual
meets state law eligibility requirements for regular
compensation. Under state law it may be, for example, that the
leaving of the self-employment (especially if the only reason
given is to collect TEUC) itself is cause for ineligibility.

     b.   Question: Do individuals who apply for admittance
into the SEA program for the first time need to be notified
that their participation will cause them to be ineligible for
TEUC?

          Answer: No. The goal of the SEA program is that an
individual will successfully develop the ability to work in
self-employment. It is not necessary to advise new entrants
that TEUC (or EB or any other benefit extensions) would not be
available if this goal is successfully attained. If the goal
of self-employment is not realized and the individual would
otherwise be eligible under state law, the individual may be
eligible for TEUC.

15.   TEUC Effect on Trade Readjustment Assistance (TRA)

     a.   Question: If a state mistakenly pays TRA instead of
TEUC, may the state make a bookkeeping adjustment to correct
the funding source instead of establishing a TRA overpayment,
paying the individual TEUC for the same week(s), and recovering
the TRA overpayment at 50 percent of the TEUC weekly benefit?

          Answer:   Yes; the benefits paid were
mischaracterized.

     b.   Question: If an individual with an applicable
benefit year for TEUC purposes is in training and is receiving
up to 26 weeks of “additional” TRA, must TEUC be paid before
additional TRA?

          Answer: Yes. Entitlement to TEUC requires
suspension of additional TRA the same as regular TRA. After
exhaustion of TEUC, the individual may resume eligibility for
additional weeks of TRA, provided the fixed 26-consecutive
weeks period for additional TRA has not elapsed. Additional TRA
may not be paid beyond the fixed 26-consecutive weeks period.

     c.   Question: An individual has received 26 weeks of
regular benefits and 22 weeks of basic TRA prior to March 10,
2002. TRA payments are suspended and the individual receives
13 weeks of TEUC. Does a TRA overpayment exist because the
combination of regular, TRA and TEUC exceed 52 weeks of
benefits?

          Answer: No. Receipt of TEUC does not reduce the
individual’s TRA entitlement that was payable prior to the
weeks of unemployment for which TEUC was payable. In this
case, the individual was entitled to 52 weeks of TRA less any
unemployment compensation received. At the time of the TEUC
application, the individual had received a total of 48 weeks
(26 UI and 22 out of 26 TRA). TRA was suspended and the
individual received 13 weeks of TEUC. The remaining balance of
four weeks of basic TRA is reduced to zero by the TEUC payment
made for the weeks of unemployment for which TRA would have
been payable in the absence of TEUC.

Additionally, TRA does not reduce TEUC entitlement as section
233(d) of the Trade Act only relates to a reduction of Federal-State Extended Benefits (EB) entitlement, not TEUC.

     d.   Question: UIPL No. 17-02, Section III.5.(e)(1)
states that TEUC will reduce the “maximum amount of basic TRA
payable..."; does this mean that states will have to issue a
monetary redetermination of the basic TRA entitlement, or is
there a special required notice to current TRA individuals when
TRA is reduced by receipt of TEUC?

          Answer: TRA claimants must be provided with an
appealable determination that reduces or eliminates the balance
of basic TRA payable by an amount equal to TEUC paid or payable
for weeks of unemployment prior to the exhaustion of basic TRA
entitlement.

     e.   Question: If an individual has received 26 weeks of
UI and 26 weeks of basic TRA, is the individual entitled to
TEUC, if otherwise eligible?

          Answer: Yes. TRA is not deductible from TEUC.
Therefore, TEUC is payable to the individual if all other
eligibility requirements are met. TEUC does not retroactively
cause the overpayment of basic TRA paid for weeks prior to
weeks for which TEUC is payable.

16.   Reporting Requirements

     a.   Question: Does the reference to entitlement type
“code 2” for reporting on the ETA 5159 relate to the
identification and reporting of nonmonetary determinations.

          Answer: No. This code identifies TEUC data, in
field 28 as federal benefit extension, on the Liable-Agent Data
Transactions (LADT) which is the record for the weekly
interstate data exchange.

      b. Question: Do TEUC and TEUC-X benefit activity have
to be reported separately?

           Answer:   No.   There is a single TEUC program.

      c. Question: When an individual exhausts TEUC first
tier and qualifies for TEUC second tier, is the exhaustion of
the first tier reported on the TEUC ETA 5159?

          Answer: No. Exhaustion of the initial TEUC monetary
award is not a reportable exhaustion if the individual meets
the requirements to receive TEUC-X. Therefore, when the state
is in a TEUC-X period, only final payments that exhaust TEUC-X
are reportable.

      d. Question: Is a separate SF-269 required for
reporting TEUC administrative costs? If yes, when is the first
report due?

          Answer: Yes. However, no SF-269 report will be
required for the quarter ending March 31, 2002. The first
report for TEUC is due after the end of the June 30, 2002,
quarter. That report will cover the period March 9, 2002,
through June 30, 2002.

      e. Question: How will states be reimbursed for
administrative costs for the quarter ending March 31, 2002?

          Answer: Administrative costs for the quarter ending
March 31, 2002, will be reimbursed after receipt of a modified
UI-3 (Quarterly UI Contingency Report). Because of the large
increase in workload, advances for TEUC administration for the
June 2002 quarter are available. Instructions will be issued
soon.

      f. Question: Are the ETA-2112 reporting requirements in
UIPL No. 17-02, Implementation and Operating Instructions,
Section VI being changed? If yes, what are the revised
requirements?

          Answer: Yes, the reporting requirements are being
changed. All TEUC benefits will be reported on Line 39 of the
ETA 2112. TEUC payments to former employees of reimbursable
employers will not be reported on Lines 33, 34 and 35. TEUC
UCFE and UCX payments will not be reported on Lines 36 and 43.
In the “comments” section, the amount reported on Line 39
should be broken out on three lines as follows:

          (1) Regular - TEUC benefits paid to former
employees of contributory employers.

          (2) Reimbursable, Federal, and Special Contributory
- TEUC benefits paid to former employees of the federal
government (UCFE and UCX), state and local government
(contributory or non contributory) Section 501(c)(3)employers
(contributory or non contributory employers to which Section
3309(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code applies), and Indian
Tribes (contributory or non contributory.

          (3 Expired Program Transations – any residual
activity for expired federal benefit extension programs, e.g.,
recoveries of EUC overpayments.

Change 1 to UIPL No. 17-02 reflecting this change will be
issued shortly.

17.   Interstate Benefits/Combined Wage/ICON Applications

     a.   Question: For combined wage claims, are paying
states required to prepare and transmit a Report on
Determination of Combined-Wage Claim, TC-IB5 and a Statement of
Benefits Paid to Combined-Wage Individuals, TC-IB6, to
transferring states on TEUC claims?

          Answer: No. Paying states are to charge all TEUC
payments to the EUCA account. No TC-IB5s or TC-IB6s are to be
sent to the transferring states.

     b.   Question: Under interstate and combined wage
procedures, when an individual is indefinitely disqualified
under state A’s law and has sufficient employment and wages to
qualify under state B’s law, the individual is allowed to file
against state B. When an individual has existing benefit years
ending during or after the weeks of March 15, 2001, in state A
and state B and is indefinitely disqualified in state B, does
the individual have the option of filing TEUC using the claim
in state A?

          Answer: No. Only the claim in state B meets the
definition of an “applicable benefit year” for TEUC purposes.
(See UIPL No. 17-02, Implementation and Operating Instructions,
Section II, Item 4.)

     c.   Question: Under EB rules, when the liable state is
in an EB period, an individual residing in an agent state that
is not in an EB period is eligible for only two weeks of EB
payments. When the liable state elects to pay EB before TEUC,
are the individuals filing from agent states that are not in an
EB period or Canada considered exhaustees for TEUC purposes
after the two weeks of EB have been paid?

          Answer: The two-week limitation found in Section
202(c), EUCA, does not apply to claims filed from Canada. If
the state has elected to pay EB before TEUC, EB is payable to
individuals filing from Canada if they are otherwise eligible.
When an individual filing from Canada becomes an exhaustee, the
individual will qualify for TEUC if all other qualifying
requirements are satisfied.

With respect to an individual filing from an agent state that
is not in a regular EB period, that individual is an exhaustee
for TEUC purposes after the two weeks of EB are paid. If the
individual relocates to a state (agent or liable) that is in a
regular EB period and EB is again payable, the individual
ceases to be an exhaustee for TEUC purposes.

18.   Claims Filed by Aliens

     a.   Question: If an alien was eligible for UI on a
regular claim, is the alien automatically eligible for TEUC?

          Answer: No. To qualify for TEUC, the individual
must be a citizen, a non-citizen national, or a “qualified
alien.” “Qualified alien“ status must be verified through

procedures of the state agency as applied to other federal
unemployment compensation programs.

19. Application of Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services
(WPRS) to TEUC Individuals

     a.   Question: Are individuals filing for TEUC subject to
selection and/or services under the Worker Profiling and
Reemployment Services (WPRS) program?

          Answer: No. TEUC individuals do not have to be
profiled; only individuals filing new claims for regular
compensation must be profiled.

20.   TEUC Eligibility for Individual Filing From Canada

     a.   Question:    May individuals filing from Canada qualify
for TEUC?

           Answer:    Yes.   (See Q & A 17.c. above.)

21.   TEUC and Benefit Accuracy Measurement (BAM) Sampling

     a.   Question:     Are TEUC claims included in the BAM survey
population?

          Answer: No. TEUC weeks claimed or paid are not
included in the BAM paid claims or denied claims samples.
Refer to BAM State Operations Handbook, ET Handbook No. 395,
Chapter III, pp. 12-15.