[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 40 (Friday, February 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9208-9210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5002]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration


Federal-State Unemployment Compensation Program: Unemployment 
Insurance Program Letters Interpreting Federal Unemployment Insurance 
Law

    The Employment and Training Administration interprets Federal law 
requirements pertaining to unemployment compensation as part of its 
role in the administration of the Federal-State unemployment 
compensation program. These interpretations are issued in Unemployment 
Insurance Program Letters (UIPLs) to the State Employment Security 
Agencies (SESAs). The UIPLs described below are published in the 
Federal Register in order to inform the public.

UIPL 05-97

    The Department's interpretation of several Federal requirements in 
a remote claimstaking environment was issued in UIPL 35-95, dated June 
28, 1995 (published at 60 FR 55604, 11/1/96). Additional questions have 
been raised about the impact of remote initial claimstaking procedures 
on claims filed under the Interstate Arrangement for Combining 
Employment and Wages, the Unemployment Compensation for Ex-
Servicemembers program, and the Extended Benefits program. Questions 
have also been raised regarding how States can comply with the 
requirement that non-citizen claimants present documentation of a 
satisfactory immigration status in a remote claimstaking environment. 
This UIPL contains information on each of these areas.

UIPL 16-97

    This UIPL is being issued to correct several technical errors which 
the Department of Labor has identified in UIPLs 45-92, 17-95, 30-96, 
and 37-96. None of the changes make any change to the Department's 
interpretation of Federal law.

    Dated: February 21, 1997.
Timothy M. Barnicle,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.

U.S. Department of Labor

Employment and Training Administration

Washington, D.C. 20210

Classification UI

Correspondence Symbol TEUPDI

Date: December 2, 1996.

Directive: Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. 05-97
To: All State Employment Security Agencies
From: Mary Ann Wyrsch, Director, Unemployment Insurance Service
Subject: The Department of Labor's Position on Issues and Concerns 
Associated With the Utilization of Telephone and Other Electronic 
Methods of Claimstaking in the Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program.

    1. Purpose. To advise State Employment Security Agencies (SESAs) 
of the Department's interpretation of Federal statues and 
regulations relating to telephone and other electronic methods of 
claimstaking.
    2. References. Section 1137, Social Security Act (SSA); Federal-
State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act; ETA Handbooks Nos. 
384, 392, and 399; 20 CFR 614; 20 CFR 616; and Unemployment 
Insurance Program Letter (UIPL) No. 35-95.
    3. Background. The Department's interpretation of several 
Federal requirements in a remote claimstaking environment was issued 
in UIPL No. 35-95, dated June 28, 1995. However, additional 
questions have been raised about the impact of remote initial 
claimstaking procedures on claims filed under the Interstate 
Arrangement for Combining Employment and Wages (Combined Wage 
Claims), the Unemployment Compensation for Ex-Servicemembers (UCX) 
program and the Extended Benefits program. Questions also have been 
raised regarding how States can comply with the requirement that 
non-citizen claimants present documentation of a satisfactory 
immigration status in a remote claimstaking environment. This 
directive includes information on each of these areas.
    4. Presentation of Alien Documentation. Section 1137(d)(2), SSA, 
provides the following:
    If such an individual is not a citizen or national of the United 
States, there must be presented either--
    (A) Alien registration documentation or other proof of 
immigration registration from the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service that contains the individual's alien admission umber or 
alien file number * * *, or
    (B) such other documents as the State determines constitutes 
reasonable evidence indicating a satisfactory immigration status.
    UIPL No. 35-95, Section 3.A.(5) stated that ``neither sections 
1137(d)(2)(A) or (B), SSA, may be satisfied by information obtained 
by telephone (orally or IVR/VRS) or entry via a computer keyboard or 
touchscreen.''
    Upon reconsideration, the Department concludes that the 
requirement to present documentation from the Immigration and

[[Page 9209]]

Naturalization Service (INS), under Section 1137(d)(2)(A), SSA, can 
be satisfied by having the claimant ``present'' the documentation 
over the telephone by either using the keypad to enter data, or by 
reading the admission or file number from the document. This 
conclusion was made because it is unnecessary for a claims taker/
examiner to personally inspect the INS documentation in order to 
obtain from the document the alien admission or file number for 
verification through the INS.
    This change only affects how the claimant is allowed to present 
INS alien documentation in accordance with Section 1137(d)(2)(A), 
SSA. It does not otherwise affect the requirement that the SESA must 
require that each claimant, who has indicated noncitizenship status, 
establish a satisfactory immigration status in accordance with 
Section 1137(d)(2)(A), SSA. This change does not affect the 
Department's interpretation of Section 1137(d)(2)(A), SSA, as 
permitting a State to allow a claimant to submit a photostatic copy 
of the INS document(s) (containing the alien admission or file 
number) by mail or facsimile (FAX) transmission in lieu of viewing 
the original INS document(s). A photocopy or FAX of documentation 
not containing the alien admission or file number will not satisfy 
the requirements of Section 1137(d)(2)(b), SSA, because such 
documents cannot be verified through the INS. Such documents must be 
presented in person. Thus, there are three ways for a non-citizen 
claimant to ``present'' alien documentation: (1) by personally 
bringing to the claims office the original of the INS document 
containing the alien or admission numnber or other documents that 
the State determines constitutes reasonable evidence of a 
satisfactory immigration status; (2) by mailing a photocopy of, or 
FAXING, the INS document containing the admission or file number to 
the claims office; or (3) by telephoning the claims office and using 
the keypad to enter (or reading) the admission or file number from 
the INS document.
    5. Combined Wage Claim (CWC) Paying State/ UCX Wage Assignment. 
Under 20 CFR 616.6(e), the paying State for a CWC is required to be 
the State ``in which'' the claim is filed, unless the claimant is 
ineligible on the basis of combining, in which case the paying State 
is the State in which the claimant was last employed in covered 
employment and qualifies for benefits. This provision was 
promulgated in 1974, 39 Federal Register 45214 (December 31, 1974), 
in order to change the definition of the paying State to require 
that most CWC claims be filed under the intrastate program. Among 
other reasons, this change was intended to result in greater 
promptness in the payment of benefits, and cost savings (because it 
costs more to file through the Interstate Benefit Payment Plan 
(IBPP) rather than intrastate), while not adversely affecting the 
amount of benefits for which combined wage claimants qualify.
    Under 20 CFR 614.8(b)(1), UCX wages are required to be assigned 
to the State ``in which'' a first claim is filed. Thus UCX 
requirement is derived from 5 U.S.C. Section 8522, and, as noted in 
the legislative history to Public Law No. 85-848 (H.R. Rep. No. 
1887, 85th Congress, 2nd Session 7; S. Rep. No. 2375, 85th Congress, 
2nd Session 15), is designed to keep interstate claims to a minimum. 
This assures that such claims are filed as intrastate claims under 
the law of the State in which the claimant is filing. This prevents 
claimants, in an attempt to qualify for greater benefit amounts or 
avoid potential disqualifications, from filing their claims under 
the IBPP and having wages assigned or transferred to any State of 
their choice.
    In developing remote claimstaking procedures, States have 
requested an interpretation of the phrase ``in which'', for purposes 
of establishing the ``paying State'' for CWC claims and in 
determining the State of UCX wage assignment, when intrastate 
initial claims are allowed to be filed remotely by commuters from 
locations outside the State. (An intrastate claim is a claim filed 
in a State under the law of that State.) The issue, with regard to 
remote intrastate claims, is whether a remote CWC or UCX claim filed 
by a commuter is filed in the State ``in which'' the claimant is 
physically present or the State ``in which'' the claims office is 
located.
    Historically, intrastate CWC and UCX claims have been only those 
claims filed by individuals filing in-person in a facility in the 
liable/paying State. Generally, these claims are filed by 
individuals who reside, and have worked, in the State, and by 
individuals who, while residing in another State, have established a 
pattern of regularly commuting to work in the State. this latter 
category of individuals is precluded from filing against the liable 
State under the IBPP, except in cases where the State of residence 
finds that requiring such claimants to file intrastate claims in the 
State to which they normally commute to work would cause an undue 
hardship. (The use of remote claimstaking removes the hardship and 
allows all commuters to file directly with the State to which they 
normally commute.) Additionally, there are cases where some 
intrastate CWC and UCX claims are filed by individuals who neither 
reside, nor have worked, in the liable/paying State, but file their 
claims in-person in a facility in that State.
    It is the Department's position that the procedural change from 
in-person to remote claimstaking should have no effect on the 
historical treatment of intrastate claims in the determination of 
benefit eligibility or for reporting purposes. Thus, where 
intrastate claimstaking procedures require or permit a commuter to 
remotely file a CWC claim, and/or a ``first claim'' for UCX wage 
assignment purposes, with a State to which (s)he commuted, that 
State is the State ``in which'' the claim is filed. Further, an 
intrastate CWC, or intrastate ``first claim,'' that causes UCX wages 
to be assigned to the liable/paying State, may only be filed 
remotely from another State by individuals who have established a 
pattern of commuting to work in the liable/paying State.
    Additionally, to ensure that remote claimstaking procedures do 
not adversely affect other non-resident claimants who may wish to 
file a claim while in another State, UCX wages are to be assigned in 
accordance with 20 CFR 614.8(b)(1) for UCX, and the paying State 
determined in accordance with 20 CFR 616.6(e) for CWC, for any 
claimant who is physically present in the filing State at the time 
the claim is filed, without regard to the claimant's State of 
residence or mailing address. States are not authorized to impose a 
residency requirement in the application of the above-referenced 
regulations.
    6. Application of Extended Benefits (EB) Two-Week Denial 
Provision. Except for the first two weeks for which benefits are 
otherwise payable, 20 CFR 615.9(c) prohibits the payment of benefits 
pursuant to a claim filed under the IBPP from a State that is not in 
an EB period. Since this provision applies to interstate claims 
filed by individuals who reside outside the liable State, a question 
has been raised about whether or not the prohibition also applies to 
intrastate claims filed under remote claimstaking procedures by 
individuals residing outside the liable State.
    This prohibition is specific to interstate claims filed under 
the IBPP. It does not apply to any intrastate claims whether the 
claimant is a resident or non-resident of the State. Thus, a 
claimant who remotely files an intrastate claim in a State that is 
in an EB period, regardless of whether he or she resides in that 
State, is not limited to two weeks of EB under 20 CFR 615.9(c).
    7. Action Required. SESA administrators should inform 
appropriate staff of the Department's position as set forth in this 
program letter and ensure that the handling of claims filed under 
remote claimstaking procedures is consistent with this position.
    8. Inquiries. Questions should be directed to the appropriate 
Regional Office.

U.S. Department of Labor

Employment and Training Administration

Washington, D.C. 20210

Classification UI

Correspondence Symbol TEUL

    Date: February 10, 1997.

Directive: Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. 16-97
To: All State Employment Security Agencies
From: Grace A. Kilbane, Director, Unemployment Insurance Service
Subject: Technical Changes to Unemployment Insurance Program Letters 
(UIPLs).

    1. Purpose. To provide several technical changes to previously 
issued UIPLs.
    2. References. UIPL 45-92, dated August 20, 1992; UIPL 17-95, 
dated February 28, 1995; UIPL 30-96, dated August 8, 1996; and UIPL 
37-96, dated August 8, 1996.
    3. Background. The Department of Labor interprets Federal law 
requirements pertaining to UI as part of its role in the 
administration of the Federal-State UI program. These 
interpretations are issued in UIPLs. This UIPL is issued to correct 
several technical errors which the Department has identified in four 
UIPLs. No Departmental interpretation of Federal law is changed by 
this UIPL.
    4. Technical Changes.
    a. UIPL 45-92. On page 23 of the Attachment I to the UIPL, in 
the first sentence of the third full paragraph, ``new

[[Page 9210]]

subsection (t) of Section 3306, FUTA'' is changed to ``Section 
401(d)(1) of P.L. 102-318''.
    b UIPL 17-95. In Item 4.b. on page 2 of the UIPL, the word 
``voluntarily'' is substituted for ``voluntary'' in the quote of 
Section 3304(a)(18), FUTA.
    In item 4.g. on page 7, first paragraph, the phrase ``must be 
permitting the withholding Federal income tax'' is changed to read 
``and the States must be permitting the withholding of Federal 
income tax''. Also in item 4.g., the words ``voluntary holding'' in 
the second sentence of the third paragraph are changed to 
``voluntary withholding'' and the words ``as for payments'' are 
changed to ``for payments''.
    c. UIPL 30-96. In the second sentence of the footnote on page 2 
of the UIPL, ``two cases involving UC'' is changed to ``two cases 
involving UC law.'' This change is made because characterizing the 
court cases in question as ``involving UC'' may imply that they 
addressed the payment of UC. Instead, they addressed the taxing 
provisions of Federal UC law. These taxing provisions are, however, 
entwined with the issue of coverage which UIPL 30-96 addresses.
    d. UIPL 37-96. Two changes are made to the draft language on 
page 13 of the UIPL relating to the intercept of food stamp 
overissuances. In Section 1(a) the words ``child support 
obligations'' are changed to ``an uncollected overissuance of food 
stamps''. In Section (1)(c), the word ``of'' is changed to ``to''. 
Also, on page 14, in the last sentence of item 10 of the UIPL, the 
first of the two appearances of the word ``is'' is deleted.
    5. Action Required. Please alert appropriate staff of these 
technical changes. Pen and ink changes should be made to the above 
referenced UIPLs as indicated.
    6 Inquiries. Please direct inquiries to the appropriate Regional 
Office.

[FR Doc. 97-5002 Filed 2-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M