Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 41165 

Status: Open. 

All meetings are held at the Foreign 

Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E 

Street, NW., Washington, DC. Requests 

for information, or advance notices of 

intention to observe an open meeting, 

may be directed to: Administrative 

Officer, Foreign Claims Settlement 

Commission, 600 E Street, NW., Room 

6002, Washington, DC 20579. 

Telephone: (202) 616–6975. 

Mauricio J. Tamargo, 

Chairman. 

[FR Doc. E9–19552 Filed 8–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

Application of State-Wide Personnel 

Actions to Unemployment Insurance 

Program 

AGENCY: Employment and Training 

Administration, Labor. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Employment and 

Training Administration provided 

guidance to States explaining the 

Department’s position concerning the 

application of State-wide personnel 

actions to the unemployment 

compensation program. The original 

guidance, UIPL No. 09–98, was 

published in the Federal Register on 

February 10, 1998, as continuing 

guidance. This guidance had not been 

rescinded. However, to remind States of 

the Department’s position, on March 11, 

2009, the Department issued UIPL No. 

18–09, with UIPL No. 09–98 as an 

attachment. UIPL No. 18–09 is 

published below to inform the public 

and is available at: http://wdr.doleta.gov

/directives/attach/UIPL/UIPL18–09.pdf. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

UIPL 18–09—Application of State-Wide 

Personnel Actions, including Hiring 

Freezes, to the Unemployment 

Insurance Program 

1. Purpose. To advise states that 

Unemployment Insurance Program 

Letter (UIPL) 09–98 expresses the 

Department’s position concerning the 

application of state-wide personnel 

actions such as hiring freezes, 

shutdowns, and furloughs to the 

unemployment insurance (UI) program. 

2. References. Section 303(a)(1) of the 

Social Security Act (SSA) and UIPL 09– 

98, issued on January 12, 1998 (63 FR 

6774, 6779 (February 10, 1998)). 

3. Background. During economic 

downturns, State revenues decline 

while demands for UI services increase. 

As a result of declines in State revenues, 

States face budget constraints and some 

may impose hiring freezes or other 

personnel actions such as furloughs on 

a state-wide basis. When applied to the 

UI program, these actions will likely 

have a detrimental effect on 

unemployed workers and businesses 

and result in decreased performance 

against Federal standards. 

UIPL 09–98 expresses the 

Department’s interpretation of the 

Federal UI law requirements as applied 

to these state-wide personnel actions. In 

brief, UIPL 09–98 provides that any 

state-wide personnel action that does 

not take into account the needs of the 

UI program is not a ‘‘method of 

administration’’ for assuring the proper 

and prompt delivery of UI services 

consistent with Section 303(a)(1), SSA. 

If the UI program is not exempted from 

such state-wide actions, the UIPL 

requires States to demonstrate to the 

Department that it has adequately 

addressed the UI program’s needs. 

A copy of UIPL 09–98 is attached. 

4. Action. States are to address statewide personnel actions applied to the 

UI program consistent with UIPL 09–98. 

5. Inquiries. Inquiries should be 

directed to your Regional Office. 

6. Attachment. UIPL 09–98. 

Attachment I 

UIPL 09–98 

UIPL 09–98 was published in the 

Federal Register, Volume 63, No. 27 on 

February 10, 1998 and may be found at: 

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/

getdoc.cgi?IPaddress=frwais.

access.gpo.gov&dbname=1998_

register&docid=98–3341-filed.pdf. 

Dated: This 11th day of August, 2009. 

Jane Oates, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor, Employment 

and Training Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–19523 Filed 8–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FW–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

Federal-State Extended Unemployment 

Compensation Act of 1970— 

Temporary Changes in Extended 

Benefits 

AGENCY: Employment and Training 

Administration, Labor. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Employment and 

Training Administration (ETA) has 

provided guidance to State workforce 

agencies in response to the enactment of 

temporary changes to the extended 

benefits (EB) program as a result of 

recent Congressional enactments. 

The first guidance, issued on January 

2, 2009, as Unemployment Insurance 

Program Letter (UIPL) No. 7–09, advised 

State workforce agencies of the 

temporary change, enacted by Public 

Law 110–449, in Federal sharing for the 

first week of extended benefits (EB) 

under the Federal-State Extended 

Unemployment Compensation Act of 

1970 (FSEUCA) and is available at 

http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/ 

UIPL/UIPL7-09.pdf. 

UIPL No. 12–09, issued on February 

23, 2009, provided guidance related to 

temporary changes in the EB program as 

a result of Public Law 111–5. The UIPL 

(available at: http://wdr.doleta.gov/ 

directives/attach/UIPL/UIPL12-09.pdf) 

addressed questions related to Federal 

sharing for cost benefits, benefit 

eligibility provisions, amendments to 

State law and reporting requirements. 

On May 4, 2009, ETA issued 

additional guidance with UIPL No. 12– 

09, Change 1 (available at: http:// 

wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/UIPL/ 

UIPL12-09_ch1.pdf) to address general 

questions about the EB program, work 

search requirements, submission of 

tangible evidence, suspension of work 

search requirements, interstate claims, 

terminating disqualifications using 

work, entitlement during high 

unemployment periods, beginning and 

ending dates of EB periods, and draft 

language for the Total Unemployment 

Rate (TUR) trigger. 

These three guidance documents are 

published below to inform the public. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

UIPL No. 7–09: Federal-State Extended 

Unemployment Compensation Act of 

1970—Temporary Change in Federal 

Sharing for First Week of Extended 

Benefits 

1. Purpose. To advise States of the 

temporary change in Federal sharing for 

the first week of extended benefits (EB) 

under the Federal-State Extended 

Unemployment Compensation Act of 

1970 (FSEUCA). 

2. References. The Unemployment 

Compensation Extension Act of 2008, 

Public Law (Pub. L.) 110–449 enacted 

on November 21, 2008; FSEUCA (26 

U.S.C. 3304 note); 20 CFR 615.14; and 

Unemployment Insurance Program 

Letter No. 14–81. 

3. Background. In general, the benefit 

costs of EB, as well as certain weeks of 

‘‘regular’’ State unemployment 

compensation (known as ‘‘sharable 

regular compensation’’), are shared 

equally by the States and the Federal 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

41166 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 

government. However, Federal law 

prohibits Federal sharing of benefit 

costs for the first week of EB or the first 

week of sharable regular compensation 

if the State compensates beneficiaries 

for the first week of regular State benefit 

eligibility ‘‘at any time or under any 

circumstances.’’ See section 204(a)(2) of 

FSEUCA; 20 CFR 615.14(c)(3). As a 

result, States with no waiting week or 

States that, under certain conditions, 

pay what would otherwise be a waiting 

week are ineligible for Federal sharing 

for the first week of EB or sharable 

regular compensation. 

4. Temporary Change. Section 5 of 

Public Law 110–449 temporarily 

suspends this prohibition on Federal 

sharing of the costs of the first week of 

EB or sharable regular compensation for 

weeks of unemployment beginning after 

November 21, 2008, and ending on or 

before December 8, 2009. As a result, as 

long as States continue to meet all other 

applicable conditions in FSEUCA, all 

States qualify for Federal sharing for the 

first week of EB or sharable regular 

compensation occurring during this 

period. 

5. Action. Administrators are to 

provide this information to the 

appropriate staff. 

6. Inquiries. Direct questions to the 

appropriate Regional Office. 

UIPL No. 12–09—Extended Benefits 

Program—Temporary Changes Made by 

the Assistance for Unemployed 

Workers and Struggling Families Act 

1. Purpose. To advise States of 

temporary changes to the permanent 

Federal-State Extended Benefits (EB) 

program. 

2. References. Section 2005 of 

Division B, Title II, the Assistance for 

Unemployed Workers and Struggling 

Families Act, of Public Law 111–5, 

enacted February 17, 2009; the 

Unemployment Compensation 

Extension Act of 2008, Public Law 110– 

449; the Federal-State Extended 

Unemployment Compensation Act of 

1970 (‘‘EB law’’), 26 U.S.C. 3304(a)(11) 

note; 20 CFR Part 615; and 

Unemployment Insurance Program 

Letter (UIPL) No. 45–82 and UIPL No. 

7–09. 

3. Background. Section 2005 made 

several temporary changes to the EB 

program provided for under the EB law. 

One change is intended to encourage 

States experiencing high unemployment 

to enact the program’s optional total 

unemployment rate (TUR) trigger by 

providing that the Federal government 

will, in most cases, pay 100 percent of 

the benefit costs of EB for a specified 

period. This 100 percent reimbursement 

also applies to States triggering ‘‘on’’ 

under other EB triggers and is available 

to States that already have the TUR 

trigger in their laws. Under another 

change, States may allow additional 

individuals to qualify for EB. 

Attachment I discusses the temporary 

changes in greater detail. Attachment II 

contains the text of the EB provisions. 

4. Action. State administrators should 

distribute this advisory to appropriate 

staff. 

5. Inquiries. Questions should be 

addressed to your Regional Office. 

6. Attachments. 

Attachment I—Temporary Changes to 

Federal-State EB Program 

Attachment II—Text of Section 2005 of 

Public Law 111–5 

Attachment I 

Temporary Changes to Federal-State EB 

Program 

Federal Sharing for Benefit Costs 

1. Question: How do the changes 

made by Section 2005 affect Federal 

sharing for EB? 

Answer: With certain exceptions, the 

permanent EB law provides that onehalf of EB benefit costs will be paid by 

the Federal government. (See Section 

204(a) of the EB law and 20 CFR 

615.14.) This Federal share is also paid 

for certain weeks of regular State 

unemployment compensation known as 

‘‘sharable regular compensation.’’ (For 

purposes of this UIPL, all references to 

EB benefits include sharable regular 

compensation.) 

Section 2005 amended the EB law to 

provide that the Federal government 

will pay 100 percent of EB benefit costs 

for weeks of unemployment beginning 

after the date of enactment (that is, after 

February 17, 2009) and before January 1, 

2010. 

Q&As 3, 4, and 5 discuss three 

exceptions to this Federal sharing. Also, 

see Q&A 7 for an optional exception to 

the January 1, 2010, ending date. 

2. Question: My State was already in 

an EB period when the amendments 

were enacted. What is the first week of 

unemployment for which 100 percent 

Federal funding is available? 

Answer: The State is entitled to obtain 

100 percent of eligible EB costs for 

weeks of unemployment beginning after 

February 17, 2009. 

3. Question: How do the changes 

affect Federal sharing for the first week 

of EB? 

Answer: The permanent EB law 

prohibits Federal sharing of benefit 

costs for the first week of EB if the State 

compensates individuals for the first 

week of regular State benefit eligibility 

‘‘at any time or under any 

circumstances.’’ (See Section 

204(a)(2)(B) of the EB law and 20 CFR 

515.14(c)(3).) As explained in UIPL 7– 

09, this prohibition on Federal sharing 

of the first week of EB was suspended 

for weeks of unemployment beginning 

after November 21, 2008, and ending on 

or before December 8, 2009. 

Section 2005 extended this 

suspension through weeks of 

unemployment ending before May 30, 

2010. As a result, even if a State does 

not have a waiting week for regular 

State unemployment compensation or 

permits payment of a waiting week 

under certain circumstances, the costs 

of the first week of EB will be paid as 

follows: 

• The entire cost will be paid by the 

Federal government if the first week of 

EB begins after February 17, 2009, and 

before January 1, 2010. 

• 50 percent of the cost will be paid 

by the Federal government if the first 

week of EB begins after January 1, 2010, 

and ends before May 30, 2010. 

4. Question: How do the changes 

affect Federal sharing for amounts that 

are not rounded down? 

Answer: They have no effect. As a 

result, the prohibition on Federal 

sharing for situations where States 

round up (rather than down) remains in 

effect. For example, an individual is 

eligible for $99.50 and the State rounds 

the payment up to $100.00. For the 

period of time specified in the 

amendments, the Federal government 

will pay $99.00 while the State will pay 

the $1.00 attributable to rounding up. 

(See Section 204(a)(2)(C) of the EB law 

and 20 CFR 615.14(c)(5) regarding this 

rounding requirement.) 

5. Question: How do the changes 

affect Federal sharing for EB based on 

employment with State and local 

governments and Federally-recognized 

Indian Tribes? 

Answer: They have no effect. The EB 

law’s prohibition on Federal sharing 

based on such employment remains in 

effect. (See Section 204(a)(3) of the EB 

law and 20 CFR 615.14(c)(6).) 

Benefit Eligibility Provisions 

6. Question: What changes does 

Section 2005 permit to EB eligibility 

requirements? 

Answer: To initially qualify for EB 

under the permanent EB law, an 

individual must have at least one week 

in his/her benefit year that begins in an 

EB period. (See Section 203(c) of the EB 

law and 20 CFR 615.2(h).) For example, 

if the final week of the individual’s 

benefit year is also the first week of the 

State’s EB period, the individual will 

qualify for EB. If otherwise eligible, this 

individual may receive EB until his/her 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 41167 

EB account is exhausted or the State’s 

EB period ends. Treatment of these 

individuals is unchanged. 

Section 2005 provides for a State to, 

at its option, permit certain individuals 

to qualify for EB in cases where there is 

no overlap between the individual’s 

benefit year and the EB period. 

Specifically, the State may permit 

individuals to qualify for EB when the 

individuals have exhausted Emergency 

Unemployment Compensation (EUC08) 

during an EB period that began on or 

before the date the individual 

exhausted. For example, an individual’s 

benefit year ends during Week 7 of a 

calendar year and the individual is 

receiving EUC08, the State triggers ‘‘on’’ 

EB during Week 10, and the individual 

exhausts EUC08 during Week 13. The 

State may determine the individual to 

be eligible for EB beginning Week 14, 

because the individual exhausted all 

rights to EUC08 at Week 13 during an 

EB period. The individual may, if 

otherwise eligible, collect EB until that 

benefit is exhausted or, if earlier, the EB 

period ends. 

This option is available to States for 

weeks of unemployment beginning after 

February 17, 2009, and before January 1, 

2010. 

7. Question: Is there any phase-out for 

individuals who have established EB 

eligibility as of the January 1, 2010, end 

date? 

Answer: Yes. If an individual has 

received EB with respect to one or more 

weeks of unemployment beginning after 

February 17, 2009, and before January 1, 

2010, the State may continue to pay EB 

to the individual (if otherwise eligible) 

for weeks of unemployment ending 

before June 1, 2010. 

The Federal government will pay 100 

percent of eligible EB benefit costs 

based on such claims during this phaseout period. Note this phase-out for 

Federal sharing applies to payments to 

individuals who established EB 

eligibility (1) under the rules pertaining 

to the permanent EB program as well as 

(2) as a result of the special rule 

described in the previous Q&A. 

8. Question: Do the amendments 

affect the requirement that an individual 

must conduct a systematic and 

sustained work search? 

Answer: No. States must require EB 

claimants (with exceptions in current 

law) to conduct a systematic and 

sustained search for work, and to submit 

tangible evidence of such search, as a 

condition of being eligible for EB for a 

week. States must administer these 

work search provisions (and all other EB 

eligibility requirements) to receive 

Federal sharing under both permanent 

EB law and under the temporary 

amendments. (See Section 

202(a)(3)(A)(ii) and 20 CFR 615.8(g)(2).) 

Amendments to State Law 

9. Question. Do the provisions of 

Section 2005 require my State to amend 

its law? 

Answer: States paying EB under 

current provisions of State law will 

automatically qualify for increased 

Federal sharing. Whether a State needs 

to amend its law to trigger ‘‘on’’ using 

the optional TUR trigger, and thereby 

obtain the increased Federal payments 

under Section 2005, is a matter 

determined under State law. Draft 

language for implementing the optional 

TUR trigger is found in UIPL 45–92. 

Reporting Requirements 

10. Question. Are there any changes 

for reports required by the Department 

of Labor? 

Answer: No. However, States should 

note that, for purposes of the ETA 2112 

report (OMB No. 1205–0154), any 

payment fully funded by the Federal 

government should be reported in its 

entirety on line 38 (pertaining to the 

Federal share of EB). 

Attachment II 

Text of Section 2005 of Public Law 111– 

5 

Text of the law may be found at: 

http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/

UIPL/UIPL12-09a2.pdf. 

UIPL No. 12–09, Change 1—Extended 

Benefits Program—Temporary Changes 

Made by the Assistance for 

Unemployed Workers and Struggling 

Families Act 

1. Purpose. To respond to questions 

about the permanent Federal-State 

extended benefits (EB) program, 

including temporary changes made by 

Public Law 111–5. 

2. References. Section 2005 of 

Division B, Title II, the Assistance for 

Unemployed Workers and Struggling 

Families Act, of Public Law 111–5, 

enacted February 17, 2009; the 

Unemployment Compensation 

Extension Act of 2008, Public Law 110– 

449; the Federal-State Extended 

Unemployment Compensation Act of 

1970 (‘‘EB law’’), 26 U.S.C. 3304(a)(11) 

note; 20 CFR Part 615; Unemployment 

Insurance Program Letter (UIPL) No. 45– 

92; UIPL No. 7–09; and UIPL No. 12–09. 

3. Background. UIPL No. 12–09 

provided guidance to States on the 

provisions of Public Law 111–5 

regarding temporary changes to the EB 

program. This UIPL provides: 

• Question and Answers (Q&As) 

responding to questions received from 

States about these temporary changes 

and about permanent EB law. 

• Draft legislation that States can use 

when enacting the EB program’s 

optional total unemployment rate (TUR) 

trigger. 

Attachment I addresses the temporary 

changes and other questions in greater 

detail. Attachment II contains the draft 

language for enacting the TUR trigger. 

4. Action. State administrators should 

distribute this advisory to appropriate 

staff. 

5. Inquiries. Questions should be 

addressed to your Regional Office. 

6. Attachments. 

Attachment I—Extended Benefits—Questions 

and Answers 

Attachment II—Draft Legislation—TUR 

Trigger 

Attachment I 

Extended Benefits 

Questions and Answers 

In General 

CH 1–1. Question: Section 2005(c) of 

Public Law 111–5 includes a six-month 

phase-out of the temporary 100-percent 

Federal financing for Extended Benefits 

(EB) that the Public Law establishes. For 

individuals who received EB for a week 

of unemployment beginning before 

Friday, January 1, 2010, EB payments 

made for weeks ending before June 1, 

2010, will continue to be eligible for 

100-percent Federal financing. 

However, payments to individuals who 

first received EB for weeks of 

unemployment beginning after January 

1, 2010, would be funded through a 50- 

percent Federal share and a 50-percent 

State share. After January 1, 2010, can 

a State limit EB to only those 

individuals who were covered by full 

Federal funding? 

Answer: No. If the State is in an EB 

period, it must pay all individuals who 

qualify for EB, regardless of Federal 

sharing. Conversely, if a State is not in 

an EB period, it may not pay any EB. 

CH 1–2. Question: My State is in the 

process of adding the Total 

Unemployment Rate (TUR) trigger to its 

law. May my State law provide that the 

EB period will begin prior to the date of 

enactment? 

Answer: Assuming that the 

requirements for an EB period are met, 

nothing in Federal law or regulation 

prohibits the retroactive EB period 

described in the question. 

CH 1–3. Question: To follow-up on 

the preceding question, how will 

eligibility for any retroactive weeks be 

determined, particularly with respect to 

backdating claims and to the EB 

program’s requirement that an 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

41168 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 

individual engage in a ‘‘systematic and 

sustained’’ search for work? 

Answer: For purposes of backdating 

claims, State law applies. See 20 CFR 

615.8(a)(1). The EB work search 

requirements do not apply to retroactive 

weeks. The EB work search 

requirements only apply after 

individuals are notified in writing that 

their prospects of finding employment 

are ‘‘not good’’. See Q&A CH 1–7. 

CH 1–4. Question: Q&A 5 in UIPL No. 

12–09 states that the changes made by 

Public Law 111–5 do not affect Federal 

sharing for EB based on service 

performed in the employ of State and 

local governments and Federallyrecognized Indian Tribes. How should 

the State charge EB based on service for 

these entities? 

Answer: The answer differs for 

reimbursing employers and contributing 

employers: 

• Because Section 204(a)(3) of the EB 

law denies Federal reimbursement for 

EB based on service for State and local 

governments and Federally-recognized 

Indian Tribes, 20 CFR 615.10(b) requires 

these employers, when they elect the 

reimbursement option, to reimburse 100 

percent of these EB costs. Public Law 

111–5 does not change this result 

because it does not change the fact that 

there is no Federal reimbursement for 

these costs. 

• State law dictates whether or not 

contributory employers are charged for 

EB. (However, States must continue to 

charge contributing employers for their 

share of sharable regular compensation.) 

See 20 CFR 615.10(a). 

EB Work Search Requirements 

CH 1–5. Question: Where can I find 

more information on the EB work search 

requirements? 

Answer: Regulations governing the EB 

work search requirements, and other 

matters related to the EB program, are 

available at 20 CFR Part 615. The core 

provisions are summarized in Q&As CH 

1–6 through CH 1–14. 

CH 1–6. Question: When must 

individuals begin the EB work search? 

Answer: Individuals must begin a 

work search after the State provides 

notification that their prospects for 

obtaining work within a reasonably 

short period of time are ‘‘good’’ or ‘‘not 

good.’’ The State must provide this 

notification no later than the end of the 

week in which individuals file their first 

EB claim. Individuals whose job 

prospects are ‘‘not good’’ must be 

notified of the EB work search 

requirements at the same time. The 

work search requirements apply to the 

week following the week in which the 

individual receives such notice. See 20 

CFR 615.8(d)(1). 

CH 1–7. Question: How does the State 

determine whether an individual’s 

prospects for obtaining work within a 

reasonably short period of time are 

‘‘good’’ or ‘‘not good’’? 

Answer: State law specifies what 

constitutes a reasonably short period of 

time. See 20 CFR 615.2(o)(3). Since 

individuals claiming EB have exhausted 

regular compensation and Emergency 

Unemployment Compensation (EUC08), 

they have been unemployed for a long 

time. There is a presumption that their 

prospects of obtaining work within a 

reasonably short period of time 

generally will be considered ‘‘not good.’’ 

Individuals can rebut this presumption 

by furnishing to the State satisfactory 

evidence to the contrary. 

CH 1–8. Question: What are the work 

search requirements for an individual 

who is claiming EB? 

Answer: The answer depends on 

whether the individual’s prospects for 

obtaining work within a reasonable time 

are ‘‘good’’ or ‘‘not good.’’ Individuals 

whose prospects are ‘‘good’’ must 

conduct the same search for suitable 

work as is required of individuals 

claiming regular compensation under 

State law. Many State laws allow such 

individuals to establish eligibility if 

they limit their work search to their 

usual occupation. In other words, many 

State laws do not require individuals to 

immediately search for any kind of work 

available. 

The EB law and regulations set forth 

the work search requirements that States 

must require for individuals whose 

work prospects are ‘‘not good.’’ Taken 

together, this authority requires a 

‘‘systematic and sustained effort’’ to 

search for ‘‘suitable work’’ for each 

week of EB claimed. (See Sections 

202(a)(3)(C)–(E) of the EB law and 20 

CFR 615.8(d)(4), and 615.2(o)(8).) A 

‘‘systematic and sustained effort’’ 

means, among other things, that the 

search is ‘‘not limited to the classes of 

work or rates of pay to which the 

individual is accustomed or which 

represent the individual’s higher skills, 

and which includes all types of work 

within the individual’s physical and 

mental capabilities * * * ’’ 20 CFR 

615.2(o)(8)(iv). 

CH 1–9. Question: How do the work 

search requirements relate to 

individuals participating in a short-time 

compensation (STC) program? 

Answer: The job prospects for 

individuals participating in a STC 

program are considered ‘‘good’’ because 

they are working, although at reduced 

hours. Moreover, Section 401(d)(1) of 

Public Law 102–318 defines STC as a 

program under which, among other 

things, ‘‘eligible employees are not 

required to meet * * * work search 

requirements while collecting’’ STC. 

Thus, individuals are not required to 

seek work as a condition of receiving 

STC, regardless of whether the 

individual is claiming regular 

compensation or EB. 

Submission of Tangible Evidence 

CH 1–10. Question: What tangible 

evidence of seeking work must the 

individual submit? 

Answer: The individual must supply 

information which includes the (1) 

actions taken, (2) methods of applying 

for work, (3) type(s) of work sought, (4) 

dates and places where work was 

sought, (5) name of the employer or 

person contacted, and (6) outcome of 

the contact. See 20 CFR 615.2(o)(9). 

CH 1–11. Question: Must the 

individual actually submit the tangible 

evidence of work search to the State 

prior to the State issuing payment? 

Alternatively, may States issue payment 

based on the individual’s certification, 

via Interactive Voice Response (IVR) or 

other means, that the tangible evidence 

has been transmitted to the State? 

Answer: It is preferable that a State 

require an individual to submit the 

tangible evidence with each claim. 

However, the Department of Labor 

(Department) will permit States to make 

payment based on the individual’s 

certification that s/he has conducted the 

required work search and transmitted 

the evidence to the State. 

Section 615.8(g)(1) of 20 CFR requires 

the submission of tangible evidence of 

actively seeking work ‘‘with each 

claim,’’ suggesting that the State must 

receive the evidence at the same time as 

other claims materials. However, that 

section was drafted when simultaneous 

submittal of work-search data was more 

practical since claims were filed either 

in–person or through the mail. The 

current use of technologies such as IVR 

generally allows the States to process 

claims quickly and efficiently, but does 

not readily permit a claimant to submit 

‘‘tangible evidence,’’ that is, ‘‘a written 

record’’ (20 CFR 615.2(o)(9)), ‘‘with each 

claim.’’ Accordingly, the Department 

interprets section 615.8(g) as permitting 

a State to make payment upon the 

individual certifying, ‘‘with each 

claim,’’ that s/he has conducted the 

required work search and is submitting 

the tangible evidence. At a minimum, a 

State must periodically audit reasonable 

samples of the tangible evidence 

submitted to ensure that it has received 

these ‘‘written records’’ and that they 

are complete. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 41169 

CH 1–12. Question: Must the State 

review the tangible evidence before 

making each payment? 

Answer: No. It is not practical for 

States to review all tangible evidence 

before making payments. However, 

States must, at a minimum, periodically 

review for completeness a reasonable 

sample of such evidence after payment. 

CH 1–13. Question: How may the 

tangible evidence of an active search be 

submitted? 

Answer: No single method of 

submission is required. What is 

essential is that the individual provide 

the necessary information in a verifiable 

form. As a result, States may require 

submission through paper, on-line, IVR, 

fax, or any other method that assures the 

State obtains the information. (For audit 

purposes, the State is required to 

maintain the individuals’ responses for 

the same length of time as any written 

record(s). See 20 CFR 615.15(b).) 

Suspension of Work Search 

Requirements 

CH 1–14. Question: May a State 

suspend the EB work search 

requirement? 

Answer: The work search 

requirements for individuals whose job 

prospects are ‘‘not good’’ may be 

suspended when: 

• ‘‘[S]evere weather conditions or 

other calamity forces suspension of such 

activities by most members of the 

community.’’ (See 20 CFR 

615.2(o)(8)(vi).) High unemployment is 

not a ‘‘calamity’’ which ‘‘forces’’ 

suspension of work search. 

• Individuals are on jury duty or 

‘‘[h]ospitalized for treatment of an 

emergency or life- threatening 

condition.’’ However, such suspension 

criteria only apply when State law 

authorizes suspension for both EB and 

regular UC. (See 20 CFR 615.8(g)(3).) 

Any illnesses or disabilities not 

requiring hospitalization for the reasons 

described are not permissible reasons to 

suspend the EB work search 

requirements. 

In addition, ‘‘State law applies 

regarding whether members of labor 

organizations shall be required to seek 

nonunion work in their customary 

occupations.’’ See 20 CFR 615.8(g)(4). 

Interstate Claims 

CH 1–15. Question: Federal law limits 

EB eligibility to two weeks for certain 

individuals who file from a State that is 

not in an EB period. Does this limitation 

pertain to commuter claims? 

Answer: No. The two-week limitation 

applies only to claims filed under the 

Interstate Benefit Payment Plan (IBPP). 

Commuter claims are made by 

individuals who regularly traveled 

across a State line from home to work, 

and file for UC with the State of 

employment. Because commuter claims 

are not filed through the IBPP, the twoweek limitation does not apply. See EB 

law, Section 202(c) and 20 CFR 615.9(c). 

Terminating Disqualifications Using 

Work 

CH 1–16. Question: My State law 

provides that individuals are not 

required to return to work to terminate 

certain disqualifications. Instead, they 

must only wait a certain number of 

weeks to qualify. To be eligible for EB, 

an individual must terminate a 

disqualification using employment. 

How, in practice, does this work? 

Answer: The Department’s regulations 

provide that, for EB purposes, a State 

‘‘shall require that the individual be 

employed again subsequent to the date 

of the disqualification before it may be 

terminated.’’ (20 CFR 615.8(c)(2).) 

Under this rule, when the individual 

first files for EB, the State will apply the 

EB provisions of its UC law which 

require employment to terminate a 

disqualification. If the State finds that 

the individual has performed the 

employment required by its law prior to 

filing for EB, the disqualification will be 

terminated and initial EB eligibility may 

be established. If the State finds that 

such employment has not been 

performed, the State will issue an 

appealable determination specifying the 

amount of employment required for EB 

eligibility. 

Entitlement During High 

Unemployment Periods 

CH 1–17. Question: My State has 

triggered ‘‘off’’ the 8 percent high 

unemployment period (HUP) provided 

for under the TUR trigger. It remains 

triggered ‘‘on’’ under the 6.5 percent 

TUR trigger. How does my State treat 

individuals with remaining HUP 

entitlement? 

Answer: In general, when a State 

triggers ‘‘on’’ to a HUP, an individual’s 

maximum entitlement to EB will equal 

up to 20 weeks of benefits, as opposed 

to up to 13 weeks of benefits for ‘‘basic’’ 

EB. These additional weeks of benefits 

are payable only for weeks of 

unemployment occurring in a HUP. As 

a result, when a State triggers ‘‘on’’ a 

HUP, the State will redetermine 

amounts payable for an otherwise 

eligible individual. However, when a 

State triggers ‘‘off’’ a HUP and the 

individual has not exhausted all 

entitlement, the State must redetermine 

the individual’s remaining entitlement. 

Specifically, when a HUP triggers 

‘‘off,’’ the State must redetermine 

entitlement based upon the ‘‘basic’’ EB 

monetary determination, minus benefits 

paid. For example, if an individual first 

becomes EB-eligible during a HUP, the 

individual will initially be entitled to 20 

weeks. If the individual is paid six 

weeks and the HUP ends, the 

individual’s remaining entitlement will 

be recalculated based on the current 13- 

week maximum entitlement minus any 

weeks of EB paid. In this case, the 

individual’s remaining entitlement 

would equal seven weeks. (13¥6 = 7.) 

As another example, assume the 

above individual was paid 15 weeks of 

EB and the HUP ends. In this case, the 

individual would have no remaining 

entitlement because the individual’s 

current entitlement is capped at 13 

weeks and an amount exceeding 13 

weeks has already been paid. 

Beginning and Ending Dates of EB 

Periods 

CH 1–18. Question: When does my 

State’s EB period begin and end if it 

triggers ‘‘on’’ and ‘‘off’’ under different 

triggers? For example, my State: 

• Triggers ‘‘on’’ EB under the TUR 

trigger. 

• While still meeting the TUR trigger, 

also meets the mandatory insured 

unemployment rate (IUR) ‘‘on’’ trigger. 

• While still meeting the IUR trigger, 

stops meeting the TUR trigger. 

• Finally, stops meeting the IUR 

trigger. 

Answer: The State’s EB period will 

begin with the first week payable under 

the TUR trigger and end with the last 

week payable under the IUR trigger. In 

this case, although there are different 

triggers for determining when an EB 

period may begin and end, there is only 

one EB period. As long as EB remains 

triggered ‘‘on’’ throughout this period 

under any trigger, the EB period 

continues. (See UIPL No. 45–92.) 

The answer would be different if the 

‘‘on’’ triggers do not overlap. For 

example, if the last week payable under 

the TUR trigger is week 14 of the 

calendar year and the first week payable 

under the IUR trigger is week 15, then 

the EB period would not be continuous. 

Instead, the TUR EB period would end. 

In this case, even though the State is 

continuing to experience high 

unemployment, the State must trigger 

‘‘off’’ EB for a minimum of 13 weeks as 

required by EB law, Section 

203(b)(1)(B), and 20 CFR 625.11(d). 

CH 1–19. Question: An EB period 

based on the TUR trigger begins the 

third week following the Department’s 

EB trigger notice identifying that the 

State meets the ‘‘on’’ indicator. For the 

IUR trigger, the EB period begins the 

week immediately following the release 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

41170 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 

of the trigger notice with an ‘‘on’’ notice. 

What is the reason for this difference? 

Answer: Under Federal law, an EB 

period based on either the IUR or the 

TUR trigger begins the ‘‘third week after 

the first week for which there is a State 

‘on’ indicator.’’ (EB law, Section 

203(a)(1).) However, since the ‘‘on’’ 

indicators for the IUR and TUR triggers 

are based upon different events, the EB 

periods they trigger begin at different 

times following the trigger notices: 

• Under the IUR trigger, the week of 

the ‘‘on’’ indicator is the last week of a 

13-week period when the State’s IUR 

reaches the levels specified in law and 

regulation. (See Section 203(d)(1) of the 

EB law and 20 CFR 615.12(a).) Under 

Section 203(a)(1) of the EB law, the EB 

period begins the third week after this 

‘‘on’’ indicator week. The week that the 

EB period begins is the week after the 

trigger notice is published because the 

process proceeds as follows: 

—Week 1 is the week when individuals 

submit benefit claims for the prior 

week. That prior week will be deemed 

the ‘‘on’’ indicator week if these 

benefit claims meet the IUR trigger 

requirements. 

—Week 2 is the week the State compiles 

the benefit claims submitted during 

Week 1, the State reports its IUR to 

the Department, and the Department 

issues the EB trigger notice based on 

the State report. 

—Week 3 is the beginning of the EB 

period. 

• Under the TUR trigger, the week of 

the ‘‘on’’ indicator is the week ‘‘the 

average rate of total unemployment in 

[a] State (seasonally adjusted) for the 

period consisting of the most recent 3 

months for which data for all States are 

published’’ meets certain criteria. (EB 

law, Section 203(f)(1)(A)(i).) Thus, the 

statute ties the TUR ‘‘on’’ indicator to 

the week of publication, and the EB 

period begins the third week following 

this indicator week. As a result, for 

example, when data for the month of 

February for all States was published on 

March 27, 2009, the EB period for States 

triggering ‘‘on’’ using this data began 

April 12, 2009. 

Similarly, the end dates of EB periods 

in relation to the Department’s EB 

trigger notice depend on whether the 

State triggers ‘‘off’’ an EB period based 

on the TUR trigger or the IUR trigger. 

Attachment II 

Draft Legislation—Tur Trigger 

Discussion 

Below is suggested legislative 

language for States that choose to add a 

TUR EB trigger and make the first week 

of EB payable the week beginning 

February 22, 2009. (This is the first 

week most EB payments qualify for 100 

percent Federal sharing. The exceptions 

to 100 percent Federal sharing are 

discussed in Q&As 4 and 5 in 

Attachment I to UIPL No. 12–09.) This 

language is identical to the suggested 

provisions in UIPL No. 45–92, 

Attachment II, with two exceptions. 

First, the date provided in paragraph 

(a)(2)(C) for the start of the TUR trigger 

differs. Second, two unnecessary words 

were deleted. States that choose to 

adopt a later date should edit the dates 

as appropriate. 

States that do not want to make the 

TUR EB trigger permanent have 

requested assistance in developing two 

termination options. The first end date 

would be the last week that 100 percent 

Federal sharing is available for most EB 

payments (i.e., the last week beginning 

before January 1, 2010). The second 

would be the last week of the phase-out 

(i.e., the last week ending before June 1, 

2010). As discussed above, the phaseout allows 100 percent Federal sharing 

to continue for individuals who were 

paid EB for a week of unemployment 

ending before January 1, 2010. The 

bolded language in the draft legislation 

offers two dates, depending on when the 

State chooses to terminate the TUR 

trigger. (The earlier date relates to the 

first option; the later to the second 

option.) 

An alternative approach is based on 

the possibility that Congress will extend 

the termination dates for Federal 

sharing. Under this option, the 

expiration date is tied to the date that 

Congress selects. If the State chooses 

this approach, then, as above, it has two 

options. 

• Under the first option, EB would 

terminate the last week 100 percent 

Federal sharing is available for most EB 

payments. State law could provide that 

the EB trigger will remain in effect 

‘‘until the week ending four weeks prior 

to the last week of unemployment for 

which 100 percent Federal sharing is 

available under Section 2005(a) of 

Public Law 111–5, without regard to the 

extension of Federal sharing for certain 

claims as provided under Section 

2005(c) of such law.’’ 

• Under the second option, EB would 

terminate the last week 100 percent 

Federal sharing is available under the 

phase-out. State law could provide that 

the trigger will remain in effect ‘‘until 

the week ending four weeks prior to the 

last week of unemployment for which 

100 percent Federal sharing is available 

for any claim under Section 2005(c) of 

Public Law 111–5.’’ 

The draft language also implements 

the HUP trigger of 8 percent TUR (with 

lookback). States implementing the 

optional 6.5 percent TUR trigger must 

also implement the HUP trigger, which 

has the effect of increasing EB eligibility 

from 13 to 20 weeks. (See UIPL No. 45– 

92, Attachment 1, section I.B.2.) 

States should consider whether it is 

necessary to enact amendments 

expanding EB eligibility provisions to 

cover certain individuals who have 

exhausted EUC08, as authorized under 

Public Law 111–5. (See UIPL No. 12–09, 

Q&As 6 and 7.) States choosing to enact 

such amendments may add language 

indicating that, notwithstanding 

anything in State law, an individual’s 

eligibility period shall include any 

eligibility period provided for in section 

2005(b) of Public Law 111–5. 

Draft Language 

The draft language for legislation is 

available at: http://wdr.doleta.gov/ 

directives/attach/UIPL/UIPL12- 

09_ch1_a2acc.pdf. 

Dated: This tenth day of August, 2009. 

Jane Oates, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor, Employment 

and Training Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–19519 Filed 8–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FW–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

Notification of the Recovery and 

Reemployment Research Conference 

AGENCY: Employment and Training 

Administration, Labor. 

ACTION: Notice of the Recovery and 

Reemployment Research Conference. 

SUMMARY: The Employment and 

Training Administration will host a 

Recovery and Reemployment Research 

Conference on September 15 and 16, 

2009 at the L’Enfant Plaza Hotel in 

Washington, DC. 

Purpose and Agenda: The conference 

is designed to give the workforce 

community an opportunity to engage 

with experts and colleagues to broaden 

their understanding of critical labor 

issues and challenges in the present 

economy. This conference translates 

specific research, pilot, demonstration, 

and evaluation efforts into actionable 

strategies that can be used in the 

workforce system. The conference, from 

a research perspective, builds on the 

success of the ReEmployment Works! 

Summit and subsequent Regional 

Recovery and Reemployment Forums. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES