57764 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

REVISIONS TO IFR ALTITUDES & CHANGEOVER POINT—Continued 

[Amendment 528, Effective Date September 15, 2016] 

From To MEA 

§ 95.6499 VOR Federal Airway V499 Is Amended To Read in Part 

Lancaster, PA VORTAC ............................................................... Binghamton, NY VORTAC .......................................................... 4500 

§ 95.6578 VOR Federal Airway V578 Is Amended To Read in Part 

Pecan, GA VORTAC ..................................................................... Tift Myers, GA VOR ..................................................................... *2500 

*2300–MOCA.

§ 95.6579 VOR Federal Airway V579 Is Amended To Read in Part 

Viola, FL FIX ................................................................................. Sarasota, FL VORTAC ................................................................ *3000 

*1600–MOCA.

§ 95.6440 Alaska VOR Federal Airway V440 Is Amended To Read in Part 

Nome, AK VOR/DME .................................................................... *Golos, AK FIX ............................................................................ 3000 

*4500–MRA.

*Golos, AK FIX .............................................................................. Unalakleet, AK VOR/DME ........................................................... 3000 

*4500–MRA.

Unalakleet, AK VOR/DME ............................................................ Yucon, AK FIX.

W BND 4600.

E BND 8000.

From To 

Changeover points 

Distance From 

§ 95.8003 VOR Federal Airway Changeover Point Airway Segment Alaska V440 Is Amended To Add Changeover Point 

Nome, AK VOR/DME .................................................................... Unalakleet, AK VOR/DME ................................... 45 Nome 

[FR Doc. 2016–20292 Filed 8–23–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

20 CFR Part 615 

RIN 1205–AB62 

Federal-State Unemployment 

Compensation Program; Implementing 

the Total Unemployment Rate as an 

Extended Benefits Indicator and 

Amending for Technical Corrections; 

Final Rule 

AGENCY: Employment and Training 

Administration, Labor. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Employment and 

Training Administration (ETA) of the 

U.S. Department of Labor (Department) 

issues this final rule to implement 

statutory amendments to the Extended 

Benefits (EB) program, which pays extra 

weeks of unemployment compensation 

during periods of high unemployment 

in a State. Specifically, this final rule 

codifies a methodology for computing 

the Total Unemployment Rate (TUR) 

indicator which is an optional indicator 

used to measure unemployment in a 

State. Also, the final rule makes 

technical corrections to the current 

regulations and corrects minor mistakes. 

DATES: This rule is effective October 24, 

2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gay 

Gilbert, Administrator, Office of 

Unemployment Insurance, Employment 

and Training Administration, (202) 693– 

3029 (this is not a toll-free number) or 

1–877–889–5627 (TTY). Individuals 

with hearing or speech impairments 

may access the telephone number above 

via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal 

Information Relay Service at (800) 877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

a. ETA issues this final rule to 

implement statutory amendments to the 

EB program, which pays extra weeks of 

unemployment compensation during 

periods of high unemployment in a 

State. Specifically, this final rule 

codifies a methodology for computing 

the TUR indicator, which is an optional 

indicator used to measure 

unemployment in a State. Also, the final 

rule makes technical corrections to the 

current regulations and corrects minor 

mistakes. 

b. The Unemployment Compensation 

Amendments of 1992, Public Law 102– 

318, added Section 203(f), EUCA, to 

provide for an optional alternative 

indicator that States may use to trigger 

‘‘on’’ EB based on the TUR. That 

indicator requires that, for the most 

recent 3 months for which data for all 

States is published, the average TUR in 

the State (seasonally adjusted) for the 

most recent 3-month period equals or 

exceeds 6.5 percent and the average 

TUR in the State (seasonally adjusted) 

equals or exceeds 110 percent of the 

average TUR for either or both of the 

corresponding 3-month periods in the 2 

preceding calendar years (look-back). 

The 1992 amendments also provided for 

a calculation of a ‘‘high unemployment 

period’’ when the TUR in a State equals 

or exceeds 8 percent and meets the 110- 

percent look-back described above, 

permitting the payment of additional 

weeks of EB. Section 203(f)(3), EUCA, 

provides that ‘‘determinations of the 

rate of total unemployment in any State 

for any period . . . shall be made by the 

Secretary.’’ An EB period ends when the 

State no longer meets any of the ‘‘on’’ 

triggers provided for in State law. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 57765 

II. Summary of the Major Provisions of 

the Regulatory Action in Question 

To conform the regulations to current 

practice, the Department is issuing this 

final rule to describe how the TUR 

indicators are computed for purposes of 

determining whether a State meets the 

110 percent look-back requirements. 

The final rule regulations at 20 CFR 615 

implement the provisions of EUCA 

relating to the insured unemployment 

rate (IUR) indicators, including how 

they will be computed. The regulation, 

at 20 CFR 615.12, explains the IUR 

triggers and how the rates are computed. 

Until this final rule, the regulation did 

not address the TUR indicator although 

the Department issued UIPLs No. 45–92 

and No. 16–11, respectively, addressing 

the TUR indicator and its computation. 

Because of these differences in the 

calculation of the insured and total 

unemployment rates, the appropriate 

methodology for computing the lookback percentage for the TUR indicator is 

to switch from truncation at the second 

decimal place, which is used for 

calculating the IUR indicator, to 

rounding to the second decimal place. 

III. Costs and Benefits 

This rule has not been designated an 

economically significant rule under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. 

However, the Department provides an 

analysis of the impact of the final rule, 

including a costs and benefits analysis 

under Executive Order 13563, in the 

Administrative Section of this final rule. 

This costs and benefits analysis was 

conducted for the proposed rule. Since 

the Department made no changes in the 

final rule, a new analysis was not 

conducted. 

The Preamble to this final rule is 

organized as follows: 

I. Background—provides a brief description 

of the development of the final rule. 

II. Review of the Final Rule—analyzes 

comments and summarizes and 

discusses changes to the Federal-State 

Unemployment Compensation Program. 

III. Administrative Information—sets forth 

the applicable regulatory requirements. 

I. Background 

An understanding of the basic 

elements that comprise the mechanisms 

used to determine if EB is payable in a 

State is necessary to appreciate the 

dynamics of the EB program. EB 

programs can be triggered by two 

different measures for unemployment: 

The IUR and TUR. The table below 

compares the characteristics of each. 

Characteristics IUR TUR 

Type of Data ....................................................... Administrative ................................................... Sample. 

Definition ............................................................. Continued Claims/Covered Employment ......... Unemployed/Employed+Unemployed. 

Seasonally Adjusted ........................................... No ..................................................................... Yes. 

Data Source ....................................................... States ............................................................... Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Collection Frequency .......................................... Weekly ............................................................. Monthly. 

Trigger Value Computation ................................ 13-Week Moving Average ............................... 3-Month Moving Average. 

EB is payable in a State only during 

an EB period of unusually high 

unemployment in the State. Section 203 

of the Federal-State Extended 

Unemployment Compensation Act of 

1970 (EUCA), Public Law 91–373, 

provides methods for determining 

whether a State’s current 

unemployment situation qualifies as an 

EB period. EB periods are determined 

by ‘‘on’’ and ‘‘off’’ indicators (commonly 

referred to as triggers) in the State. 

Section 203(d), EUCA, provides for an 

‘‘on’’ indicator based on the IUR. The 

IUR is computed weekly by the States 

using administrative data on State 

unemployment compensation claims 

filed and the total population of 

employed individuals covered by 

unemployment insurance. States trigger 

‘‘on’’ EB if the IUR trigger value for the 

most recent 13-week period equals or 

exceeds 5 percent and equals or exceeds 

120 percent of the average of such 

trigger values for the corresponding 13- 

week period ending in each of the 

preceding 2 calendar years. The 

calculation of the relationship between 

the current rate and prior 2 years’ rates 

is commonly referred to as the ‘‘lookback.’’ 

The Unemployment Compensation 

Amendments of 1992, Public Law 102– 

318, added Section 203(f), EUCA, to 

provide for an optional alternative 

indicator that States may use to trigger 

‘‘on’’ EB based on the TUR. That 

indicator requires that, for the most 

recent 3 months for which data for all 

States is published, the average TUR in 

the State (seasonally adjusted) for the 

most recent 3-month period equals or 

exceeds 6.5 percent and the average 

TUR in the State (seasonally adjusted) 

equals or exceeds 110 percent of the 

average TUR for either or both of the 

corresponding 3-month periods in the 2 

preceding calendar years (look-back). 

The 1992 amendments also provided for 

a calculation of a ‘‘high unemployment 

period’’ when the TUR in a State equals 

or exceeds 8 percent and meets the 110 

percent look-back described above, 

permitting the payment of additional 

weeks of EB. Section 203(f)(3), EUCA, 

provides that ‘‘determinations of the 

rate of total unemployment in any State 

for any period . . . shall be made by the 

Secretary.’’ An EB period ends when the 

State no longer meets any of the ‘‘on’’ 

triggers provided for in State law. 

Regulations at 20 CFR part 615 

implement the provisions of EUCA 

relating to the IUR indicators, including 

how they will be computed. The 

regulation at 20 CFR 615.12 explains the 

IUR triggers and how the rates are 

computed. The regulation does not 

address the TUR indicator although the 

Department issued UIPLs No. 45–92 and 

No. 16–11, respectively, addressing the 

TUR indicator and its computation. To 

conform the regulations to current 

practice, the Department is issuing this 

final rule to describe how the TUR 

indicators are computed for purposes of 

determining whether a State meets the 

110 percent look-back requirements. 

In the absence of explicit guidance 

and regulation, the Department 

previously adapted a portion of the 

existing guidance for the IUR look-back 

as a basis for calculating the TUR lookback. Specifically, in computing the 

look-back percentage for the TUR trigger 

the procedure for determining the 

number of significant digits from the 

resulting fraction followed 20 CFR 

615.12(c)(3). 

The TUR indicator uses total 

unemployment rates determined by the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). These 

rates are measured using sampled data 

and therefore are imprecise due to 

sampling error. In order to ensure that 

the TUR indicator is measured with 

more consistency to similar measures, 

and to the extent possible, a more 

accurate measure, the Department has 

determined that an appropriate 

methodology for computing the lookback on the TUR indicator is to switch 

from truncation to rounding to the 

nearest hundredth, or second decimal 

place. Additionally, rounding, rather 

than truncating, is consistent with BLS 

practices in treating the TUR data. UIPL 

No. 16–11, dated May 20, 2011, 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

57766 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

informed the State Workforce Agencies 

(SWAs) that the full effect of this new 

rounding procedure was implemented 

retroactive to April 16, 2011. 

General 

Section 3304(a)(11) of the Federal 

Unemployment Tax Act (26 U.S.C. 3301 

et seq.) (FUTA) requires, as a condition 

of employers in States receiving credits 

against the Federal unemployment tax, 

that the States’ unemployment 

compensation laws provide for the 

payment of extended unemployment 

compensation during periods of high 

unemployment to eligible individuals. 

EUCA established the EB Program by 

which, if certain conditions are met in 

a State under its law, extended 

unemployment compensation is 

provided to workers in the State who 

have exhausted their regular 

compensation during a period of high 

unemployment referred to as an EB 

period. EUCA provides methods for 

determining whether an EB period 

exists in the State. These methods are 

referred to as ‘‘on’’ or ‘‘off’’ indicators. 

There were two ‘‘on’’ and ‘‘off’’ 

indicators in existence before the 

enactment of the UC Amendments. 

These indicators were based on the IUR. 

The IUR indicator’s trigger value is, 

under section 203(e) of EUCA, the ratio 

of the average number of unemployment 

claims filed in a State during the most 

recent 13 weeks to the average monthly 

number of employed individuals 

covered by UC in that State during the 

first four of the last six completed 

calendar quarters. The first indicator has 

two conditions which must be met and 

is required to be in State law. Under 

section 203(d) of EUCA, the EB Program 

is activated if a State’s IUR trigger value 

(first condition) is at least 5 percent 

(referred to as the regular IUR trigger 

threshold with ‘‘look-back’’), and is at 

least 120 percent of the average of the 

trigger values in the prior 2 years for the 

corresponding 13-week calendar periods 

(second condition). The second 

condition—that the most recent 13-week 

period must be at least 120 percent of 

the average of the corresponding periods 

in the last 2 years—is commonly 

referred to as the ‘‘look-back’’ provision. 

(The Tax Relief, Unemployment 

Insurance Reauthorization, and Job 

Creation Act of 2010, Public Law 111– 

312, allowed States to temporarily 

modify provisions in their EB laws to 

use the prior 3 years in applying the 

look-back.) The look-back provision 

supports activation of a State’s EB 

Program only when the current 

unemployment rate is both high and 

increasing, which indicates that the 

State’s labor market is worsening and 

additional compensation is warranted. 

Under the second indicator, which is an 

option for a State, section 203(d) of 

EUCA provides the EB Program may be 

triggered ‘‘on’’ with an IUR trigger value 

of at least 6 percent regardless of its 

relation to the IUR trigger values in the 

preceding 2 years. The 6 percent value 

is referred to as the regular IUR trigger 

threshold without look-back. 

Alternative Indicator 

Because the IUR indicator failed to 

trigger many States ‘‘on’’ to the EB 

Program during the recession of the 

early 1990s, the UC Amendments 

amended the EUCA to permit States to 

adopt an alternative, more labor market 

sensitive, indicator based on the TUR to 

trigger ‘‘on’’ and ‘‘off’’ the EB Program. 

Specifically, paragraph (f) of section 203 

of EUCA provides for a TUR indicator 

comprised of a Trigger Value and lookback provision. The Trigger Value for 

this indicator is the 3-month average of 

seasonally adjusted TURs for the most 

recent 3 months for which data for all 

States is published. The regular TUR 

trigger threshold is 6.5 percent. The 

look-back provision requires that the 

Trigger Value equals or exceeds 110 

percent of the TUR Trigger Values for 

either or both of the corresponding 3- 

month periods in the 2 preceding 

calendar years. The TUR Trigger Value 

is determined by the Department based 

on data from BLS. 

As with the IUR indicator, the lookback provision ensures that the State’s 

TUR Trigger Value is both high and 

increasing, indicating that the State’s 

labor market is worsening and 

additional compensation is warranted. 

A State will trigger ‘‘off’’ its EB Program 

when either the TUR Trigger Value falls 

below 6.5 percent, or the requirements 

pertaining to the look-back provision are 

not satisfied. 

Regardless of whether a State’s EB 

Program is triggered ‘‘on’’ based on the 

IUR or TUR indicators, sections 

203(d)(2) and 203(f)(1)(B) of EUCA 

provide that the EB period is triggered 

‘‘off’ when the conditions supporting 

the activation of the EB Program are no 

longer satisfied. Additionally, when the 

program triggers ‘‘on’’ or ‘‘off’’ EB 

payments, it must remain in the new 

status (‘‘on’’ or ‘‘off’’ EB payments) for 

a minimum of 13 weeks regardless of 

changes in future trigger values. 

The Department implemented EUCA’s 

provisions on the IUR indicator at 20 

CFR part 615, published in 53 FR 27928, 

Jul. 25, 1988. The Department 

implemented the alternative TUR 

indicator provided by the UC 

Amendments through guidance on 

August 31, 1993 (UIPL No. 45–92). The 

Department now incorporates the TUR 

indicator into regulations. 

Payments of Additional Weeks of 

Extended Benefits 

The UC Amendments provided that 

States electing to use the new TUR 

indicator must also provide for the 

payment of additional weeks of EB 

during a ‘‘high unemployment period’’ 

that occurs during an EB period. These 

additional weeks of EB are available if 

State law provides for the use of the 

alternative TUR indicator. 

Consistent with EUCA § 203(b)(1), no 

EB period or high unemployment period 

may begin in any State by reason of a 

State ‘‘on’’ indicator before the 13-week 

minimum status period expires after the 

ending of a prior EB period with respect 

to such State. Conversely, no EB period 

or high unemployment period may end 

in any State by reason of a State ‘‘off’’ 

indicator before the 13-week minimum 

status period expires after the beginning 

of an EB period with respect to such 

State. 

EUCA originally provided for the 

establishment of an EB account, and the 

amount in the account is the least of one 

of three amounts which is payable for 

regular extended compensation. The UC 

amendments added a new paragraph to 

section 202(b) of EUCA that increases 

the amount in these accounts during a 

high unemployment period. The 

amount payable in a high 

unemployment period is equal to 

whichever of the following is the least 

and is referred to as ‘‘high 

unemployment extended 

compensation’’: 

—80 percent (as opposed to 50 percent 

in a ‘‘normal’’ EB period) of the total 

amount of regular UC (including 

dependent’s allowances) payable to 

the individual during the benefit year; 

—20 (as opposed to 13) times the 

individual’s weekly benefit amount; 

or 

—46 (as opposed to 39) times the 

individual’s weekly benefit amount, 

reduced by the regular UC paid (or 

deemed paid) during the benefit year. 

The term ‘‘high unemployment 

period’’ is defined in Section 

202(b)(3)(B), EUCA, as any period 

during which an EB Program would be 

in effect if the TUR indicator equaled or 

exceeded 8 percent and the TUR 

indicator equals or exceeds 110 percent 

of the TUR indicators for either or both 

the corresponding 3-month periods in 

the 2 previous calendar years. 

Whether a high unemployment period 

exists in a State for a particular week is 

determined in accordance with 

provisions of State law implementing 

sections 202(b)(3) and 203(f) of EUCA 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 57767 

and the seasonally adjusted TUR 

indicator determined by BLS. When this 

determination is made, the State follows 

the requirements of sections 203(a) and 

(b) of EUCA for determining the first 

and last week for which high 

unemployment EB is payable. 

Specifically, a high unemployment EB 

period begins on the first day of the 

third calendar week after the TUR 

indicator requirements are satisfied, and 

ends on the last day of the third week 

after the first week for which the TUR 

indicator requirements are not met. 

However, as stated above, no EB period 

or high unemployment period may 

begin in any State by reason of a State 

‘‘on’’ indicator before the 13-week 

minimum status period expires after the 

ending of a prior EB period with respect 

to such State. 

Alternative Indicator Rounding 

Methodology 

Before April 16, 2011, in absence of 

explicit statutory guidance and 

regulation, the Department adapted a 

portion of the requirement (in 20 CFR 

615.12) for calculating the look-back 

percentage for the IUR indicator as a 

basis for determining the significant 

number of digits from the look-back 

percentage for the TUR indicator. 

Specifically, the quotient is computed to 

two decimal places and multiplied by 

100 with all numbers to the right of the 

decimal point being dropped (known as 

‘‘truncation’’). The result is expressed as 

a percentage. 

The UC Amendments provide for a 

State to trigger ‘‘on’’ EB using the TURs 

determined by BLS. As discussed above, 

because the TUR indicator uses 

unemployment rates determined by BLS 

using sampled data, the rates are 

imprecise due to sampling error. In 

order to ensure that the TUR indicator 

is measured with more consistency to 

similar measures, and to the extent 

possible, a more accurate measure, the 

Department has determined that an 

appropriate methodology for computing 

the look-back on the TUR indicator is to 

switch from truncation to rounding to 

the nearest hundredth. In contrast, the 

IUR indicator values are computed from 

administrative data and thus represent 

the full universe. Because of these 

differences in the calculation of the 

insured and total unemployment rates, 

on May 20, 2011 the Department 

announced, in UIPL No. 16–11, that an 

appropriate methodology for computing 

the look-back percentage for the TUR 

indicator is to switch from truncation at 

the second decimal place to rounding to 

the second decimal place. 

UIPL No. 16–11 informed States of the 

new rounding methodology the 

Department now employs when 

computing the current trigger rate as a 

percent of the comparable trigger rates 

in prior years for the TUR indicator. 

Since TURs have been rounded, an 

expression of a ratio of two TURs must 

also be rounded. 

On a monthly basis, the 3-month 

average of the seasonally adjusted TUR 

is divided by the same measure for the 

corresponding 3 months in each of the 

applicable 2 prior years. The resulting 

decimal fraction is then rounded to the 

hundredths place (the second digit to 

the right of the decimal place). The 

resulting number is multiplied by 100, 

reported as an integer, and compared to 

the statutory threshold to determine if 

the State triggers ‘‘on’’ EB. UIPL No. 16– 

11 informed the SWAs that the full 

effect of this new rounding procedure 

was implemented retroactive to April 

16, 2011. 

II. Review of the Final Rule 

The Department published the Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on the 

subject of this final rule in the Federal 

Register on October 27, 2014 at 79 FR 

63859. The NPRM had a 60-day public 

comment period and allowed for the 

submission of comments by hand 

delivery or U.S. Mail or by electronic 

submission at www.regulations.gov. 

At the close of the 60-day public 

comment period at midnight on 

December 26, 2014, the Department had 

received one public comment. After a 

careful analysis of the comment, which 

was posted on www.regulations.gov, the 

Department determined that the 

comment did not raise any substantive 

issues that required a response in the 

final rule. In addition, the Department 

received no requests for extensions of 

the public comment period. 

Therefore, because the Department 

did not receive any comments that 

required a response on the NPRM, this 

final rule adopts the regulation as 

proposed, with minor technical 

corrections explained below. 

The final rule updates 20 CFR part 

615 so that it includes the TUR 

indicator. In addition, the final rule 

updates Part 615 to incorporate the 

rounding method adopted for the lookback. Also, the final rule makes 

technical amendments to this part to 

update its provisions since the last 

regulatory revision and to correct minor 

errors in the text of the existing 

regulations. 

However, since the NPRM 

publication, the Department discovered 

that minor technical corrections were 

needed. A non-substantive technical 

addition of a phrase was made in the 

definition of ‘‘Department’’ in § 615.2 to 

acknowledge that a Secretary’s Order 

delegating authority to ETA can be 

superseded. A non-substantive technical 

addition was made in the definition of 

‘‘Extended compensation’’ in § 615.2 to 

clarify that ‘‘extended benefits’’ can be 

used interchangeably with ‘‘extended 

compensation.’’ Non-substantive 

deletions were made, in the definition 

of ‘‘Extended unemployment 

compensation’’ in § 615.2, of paragraphs 

(3) and (4). Paragraph (3) of § 615.2 in 

the NPRM was deleted because it 

redundantly repeats the substance in 

paragraph (1) of that section. Paragraph 

(4) of § 615.2 was deleted because it was 

placed in this location of the NPRM 

erroneously, simply as a typographical 

error. 

For ease of reading § 615.2, the 

definitions in this section have been 

printed in their entirety. The following 

definitions are unchanged with the 

exception of changing Act to EUCA 

where appropriate: Additional 

compensation; And; Applicable State; 

Applicable State law; Average weekly 

benefit amount; Base period; Benefit 

structure; Benefit year; Claim filed in 

any State under the interstate benefit 

payment plan; Compensation and 

unemployment compensation; Date; 

Employed; Gross average weekly 

remuneration; Hospitalized for 

treatment of an emergency or lifethreatening condition; Individual’s 

capabilities; Jury duty; Reasonably short 

period; Regular compensation; 

Secretary; State; State agency; State law; 

systematic and sustained effort; 

Tangible evidence; and Week of 

unemployment. Also, an ‘‘s’’ was 

removed from the word ‘‘mean’’ in the 

definition of ‘‘Employed,’’ and since the 

paragraph designations were removed in 

order to reorder the definitions 

alphabetically, the phrase ‘‘(n)(2) of this 

section’’ was replaced with ‘‘(2) of this 

definition’’ in paragraph (1), and the 

phrase ‘‘(n)(1) of this section’’ was 

replaced with ‘‘(1) of this definition’’ in 

paragraph (2) in the definition of ‘‘Week 

of unemployment.’’ 

Paragraph (a) of § 615.7 in the NPRM 

was revised in the final rule to delete 

the following language— 

Removing the term ‘‘Extended Benefits’’ 

wherever it appears and replacing it with the 

term ‘‘Extended compensation’’ throughout. 

This is no longer necessary since a 

technical correction was made in the 

definition of ‘‘Extended compensation’’ 

in § 615.2 to clarify that ‘‘extended 

benefits’’ can be used interchangeably 

with ‘‘extended compensation.’’ 

Non-substantive deletions were made 

in paragraph (d) of § 615.11, which 

discusses the limitations in an extended 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

57768 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

benefit period. The paragraph was 

revised to delete from the NPRM 

language which reads— 

extended benefit period or high 

unemployment period may begin in any State 

by reason of a State ‘‘on’’ indicator before the 

14th week after the ending of a prior 

extended benefit period or high 

unemployment period in such State. 

Conversely, no extended benefit period or 

high unemployment period may end in any 

State by reason of a State ‘‘off’’ indicator 

before the 14th week after the beginning of 

an extended benefit period or high 

unemployment period in such State. In 

addition, no . . . 

since this criteria is covered in 

paragraph (c) of the same section. 

Three technical corrections were 

made in § 615.12. First, ‘‘our 

concurrence’’ was replaced with ‘‘the 

concurrence of the Department’’ in 

paragraph (d)(1). Second, in paragraph 

(d)(2), ‘‘Bureau of Labor Statistics’’ was 

spelled out since it is the first use in the 

rule text, and the paragraph was slightly 

revised to clarify that unemployment 

data released by BLS for each month 

have an initial release and then regular 

revisions. Third, an identical sentence 

in paragraphs (e)(1)(ii) and (e)(2)(ii) 

referencing the Tax Relief, 

Unemployment Insurance 

Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 

2010, Public Law 111–312, was deleted 

from both paragraphs because it 

describes a temporary provision of law 

that no longer applies. Several nonsubstantive additions and deletions 

were made in § 615.13. The first was to 

clarify that paragraphs (a) and (b) were 

revised by adding paragraphs (a)(1), 

(a)(2), (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3). Second, 

the phrase ‘‘the Department determines’’ 

was added after the word ‘‘which’’ in 

paragraph (a)(1). Third, the phrase ‘‘or 

high unemployment period’’ was added 

in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2). Fourth, 

‘‘a result of our determination’’ was 

replaced with ‘‘determined by the 

Department to be’’ in paragraph (a)(1). 

Finally, typographical errors were 

corrected in §§ 615.2, 615.12, 615.13, 

615.14, and 615.15. In § 615.2, a comma 

was added after the word ‘‘published’’ 

in the definition of ‘‘High 

unemployment period,’’ and ‘‘is’’ was 

replaced with ‘‘as’’ before the word 

‘‘described’’ in the definition of ‘‘Trigger 

Value.’’ In § 615.12, an ‘‘s’’ was added 

to the word ‘‘State’’ in paragraph 

(e)(2)(i), and ‘‘However’’ was deleted 

and the ‘‘t’’ in the word ‘‘the’’ was 

capitalized to begin the sentence in 

paragraph (f). In paragraph (a)(1) of 

§ 615.13, ‘‘the’’ was replaced with ‘‘a’’ 

before the word ‘‘notice’’; ‘‘to us’’ 

located after the word ‘‘acceptable’’ was 

deleted; ‘‘we’’ was replaced with ‘‘the 

Department’’; ‘‘will’’ was added before 

the phrase ‘‘publish in the Federal 

Register’’; and the word ‘‘publish’’ was 

revised to read ‘‘publishes’’ before the 

phrase ‘‘that information’’. In paragraph 

(a)(2) of § 615.13, ‘‘our’’ was replaced 

with ‘‘of the Department’s’’ before the 

word ‘‘determination’’. In § 615.14, the 

citation to paragraph (a) was corrected 

to paragraph (c), and the citation to 

paragraph (a)(4) was corrected to 

paragraph (c)(4). In § 615.15, ‘‘we’’ was 

replaced with ‘‘the Department,’’ and 

‘‘require’’ was revised to read 

‘‘requires’’. 

The final rule, as explained also in the 

discussion of Paperwork Reduction Act 

requirements below, retains proposed 

revisions in the NPRM to regulatory 

requirements at § 615.15, pertaining to 

records and reports State agencies must 

submit. Paragraphs (a) and (b) are 

revised for clarity by deleting 

unnecessary language regarding the 

Secretary’s authority to request 

Extended Benefit Program reports and to 

appoint audit officials for those reports. 

Furthermore, the final rule deletes 

paragraphs (c) and (d). In reference to 

reporting guidelines discussed in the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, the ET 

Handbook is a more effective way to 

communicate reporting requirements, 

because codifying the reporting 

requirements in paragraphs (c) and (d) 

of § 615.15 prevents the Department 

from adapting reporting instructions to 

changing conditions or needs. The ET 

Handbook requires the weekly 

submission of Forms ETA–538 and 

ETA–539. These forms have been 

computerized and contain information 

on initial Unemployment Insurance 

claims and continued weeks claimed. 

These figures are important economic 

indicators. Form ETA–538 provides 

information allowing release of advance 

unemployment claims information to 

the public five days after the close of the 

reference period. Form ETA–539 

contains more detailed weekly claims 

information and the State’s 13-week IUR 

that is used to determine eligibility for 

the Extended Benefits program. The 

reporting requirements in paragraphs (c) 

and (d) of the old regulation are 

included in the ET Handbook, and 

elimination of the requirements in 

regulation allow for ease in making 

future modifications by simply updating 

the ET Handbook. 

Furthermore, paragraph (d) existed 

during the implementation phase of the 

IUR indicator and required States to 

submit the method used to identify and 

select the weeks used for EB trigger 

purposes to ensure that States were 

consistent and comparable in their 

methods. With 30 years of experience, 

as well as numerous data validation and 

data quality programs in effect, the 

Department has determined it is 

unnecessary to compel State 

administrators to provide this 

information. Current reporting 

guidelines contained in the ET 

Handbook are clear enough that States 

continue to have clear standards about 

which claims are used for constructing 

totals used to compute trigger values, 

thus permitting the deletion of this 

paragraph. The NPRM did not change 

the existing reporting requirements for 

Forms ETA–538 or ETA–539, and the 

Department received no substantive 

comments on the NPRM during the 

public comment period. 

III. Administrative Information 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Executive Orders (E.O.) 13563 and 

12866 direct agencies to assess all costs 

and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects; distributive impacts; and 

equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, reducing costs, 

harmonizing rules, and promoting 

flexibility. 

Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 defines a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as an 

action that is likely to result in a rule 

that: (1) Has an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely and materially affects a sector 

of the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or State, local or 

Tribal governments or communities 

(also referred to as ‘‘economically 

significant’’); (2) creates serious 

inconsistency or otherwise interferes 

with an action taken or planned by 

another agency; (3) materially alters the 

budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 

user fees, or loan programs or the rights 

and obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) raises novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in E.O. 12866. Regarding item 

(4), any novel legal or policy issues 

raised by this rule do not arise from 

legal mandates, Presidential priorities, 

or the principles set forth in E.O. 12866. 

For a ‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ 

E.O. 12866 asks agencies to describe the 

need for the regulatory action and 

explain how the regulatory action will 

meet that need, as well as assess the 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 57769 

1Executive Order No. 12866, § 6(a)(3)(B). 

2Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 

1992, Public Law 102–318 (1992). This law added 

Section 203(f) to EUCA to provide for an optional 

alternative indicator that States may use to trigger 

‘‘on’’ or ‘‘off’’ EB based on the total unemployment 

rate. EUCA originally provided for an ‘‘on’’ 

indicator based only on the IUR. EUCA, § 203(d)– 

(e). 3EUCA, § 202(b)(3)(B). Meeting the 6.5 percent 

TUR indicator permits eligible claimants to receive 

up to an additional 50 percent of their regular 

entitlement during an EB period. Meeting the 8.0 

percent indicator permits eligible claimant to 

receive up to a total of 80 percent of their regular 

entitlement during a high EB period. 

4EUCA provides that ‘‘determinations of the rate 

of total unemployment in any State for any period 

. . . shall be made by the Secretary.’’ EUCA, 

§ 203(f)(3). 

costs and benefits of the regulation.1 In 

the Unemployment Compensation 

Amendments of 1992 (UC 

Amendments), Congress adopted an 

optional indicator for the existing EB 

Program that is based on both the level 

of the TUR Trigger Value and the 

percentage the Trigger Value is of 

Trigger Values in comparable periods in 

each of the prior years (referred to as the 

look-back).2 Although the TUR indicator 

was implemented in the early 1990s, 

there was never any regulation put in 

place defining its computation and its 

application. The Department is 

establishing regulations for the TUR 

indicator which interpret the law 

related to the TUR indicator and clarify 

the computation of its look-back 

provision. As discussed in more detail 

in the Background section above, the 

Department uses rounding to calculate 

the TUR because it is consistent with 

the BLS’s calculation of unemployment 

rates. Based on the economic impact 

analysis that follows, the Department 

believes this is not an economically 

significant regulatory action. 

EUCA, as amended by the UC 

Amendments, requires two conditions 

be met for a TUR-based ‘‘on’’ indicator 

to occur in a State: (1) For the most 

recent 3 months for which data for all 

States is published, the 3-month average 

seasonally adjusted TUR in the State 

equals or exceeds 6.5 percent, and (2) 

that the Trigger Value equals or exceeds 

110 percent of the Trigger Values for 

either or both of the corresponding 3- 

month periods in the 2 preceding 

calendar years (look-back). The UC 

Amendments also provide for a ‘‘high 

unemployment period’’ when the TUR 

Trigger Value in a State equals or 

exceeds 8 percent and meets the 110 

percent look-back described above, 

permitting the payment of additional 

weeks of compensation.3 States that 

want to use the optional TUR indicator 

must have authority under State law 

which may require States to enact 

legislation that implements the Federal 

requirements. An EB period ends when 

the State no longer meets any of the 

‘‘on’’ requirements provided for in State 

law. 

Under the original methodology by 

which the Department determined the 

look-back criterion for the optional TUR 

indicator, the indicator’s Trigger Value 

was divided by the indicator’s Trigger 

Value for the comparable period in the 

preceding year and 2nd preceding year. 

Digits beyond the hundredths place (the 

second digit to the right of the decimal 

place) in the resultant decimal fractions 

were truncated and the results 

multiplied by 100 to determine the 

percent the current indicator Trigger 

Value was of the indicator Trigger Value 

in the comparable periods in the prior 

years. If the result was greater than or 

equal to 110 for one of the fractions, the 

look-back criterion was met. This 

approach paralleled the method used for 

the IUR look-back computation 

established in regulations at 20 CFR 

615.12(c)(3); however, neither the law 

nor regulations specify the method for 

computing the TUR indicator lookback.4

The Department is changing the 

method for computing the TUR lookback by rounding to the hundredths 

place, rather than truncating. The TUR 

indicator uses total unemployment rates 

determined by BLS. These rates are 

measured using sampled data and 

therefore are imprecise due to sampling 

error. In order to ensure that the TUR 

indicator is measured with more 

consistency to similar measures, and to 

the extent possible, a more accurate 

measure, the Department has 

determined that an appropriate 

methodology for computing the lookback on the TUR indicator is to switch 

from truncation to rounding to the 

nearest hundredth, or second decimal 

place. In contrast, IUR indicators are 

computed from administrative data and 

thus represent the full universe. Because 

of these differences in the computation 

of the insured and total unemployment 

rates, the Department has determined 

that an appropriate methodology for 

computing the look-back for the TUR 

indicator is to switch from truncation at 

the second decimal place, to rounding 

to the second decimal place. Rounding, 

rather than truncating, is consistent 

with BLS practices for TUR data. UIPL 

No. 16–11, dated May 20, 2011, 

informed the SWAs that the full effect 

of this new rounding procedure was 

implemented retroactive to April 16, 

2011. 

Rounding Change in the TUR Look-Back 

Computation 


mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULESER24AU16.122</GPH>
57770 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

5The process of look-back calculation is done in 

the Division of Fiscal and Actuarial Services, 

Employment and Training Administration of the 

U.S. Department of Labor, using data from the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics which calculates the 

trigger values. The operational procedure will 

remain exactly the same as done previously by State 

and Federal staff. 

6See Office of Management and Budget, Circular 

A–4: Regulatory Analysis, p. 46 (Sept. 17, 2003), 

available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ 

circulars_default. 

7State trigger months are the number of months 

during high unemployment periods (see notes to 

Table 1) multiplied by the number of States, i.e., 53. 

During non-recessionary the percentage would be 

even less and close to zero. Extended Benefit 

Program data is found in the DOL ETA–394 annual 

report. http://www.workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/ 

unemploy/hb394.asp. 8An additional feature of the TUR trigger that 

should be noted is that for claims beginning after 

December, 2010, Congress added a 3rd year to the 

look-back calculation, so that if for the most recent 

three-month period the TUR equals or exceeds 6.5 

percent (or 8.0 percent) and the average TUR in the 

State equals or exceeds 110 percent of the average 

TUR for any or all three of the corresponding threemonth periods in the 3 preceding calendar years, 

then EB will trigger ‘‘on.’’ Tax Relief, 

Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job 

Creation Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111–312, § 502 (Dec. 

17, 2010). This feature expired on January 1, 2012, 

and was not included in the impact analysis. 

Where: 

Three Mo. SATUR = 3-month average 

seasonally adjusted total unemployment 

rate. 

Three Mo. SATUR (¥1) = 3-month average 

seasonally adjusted total unemployment 

rate for the corresponding period in the 

prior year period. 

Potential Impacts 

Changing the look-back 

computational method will have a 

marginal economic impact because of 

the new rounding method and no 

increased operational burden because it 

would result in no change in claimant 

behavior or in procedure from the 

existing process.5 The TUR indicator 

and new rounding method are currently 

implemented for the States to use; 

however, because the Department is 

implementing in regulations the TUR 

indicator as well as the new rounding 

method for the TUR look-back, the 

Department offers estimates of both 

impacts. 

The UI program is a transfer payment 

program. For the purposes of a costbenefit analysis under E.O.s 13563 and 

12866, transfer payments are not 

considered a cost. Therefore, the 

analysis will be on the possible 

redistribution of wealth that may take 

place, as opposed to any impact on 

aggregate social welfare.6 In this case, 

the redistribution is primarily one that 

takes place over time rather than 

between groups. More specifically, the 

UI program is structured to act as a 

counter-cyclical program in terms of its 

impact on the economy—during 

recessions increased benefit payments 

(much higher than taxes paid) provide 

temporary income support and greater 

economic stimulus which prevents 

greater economic distress, while during 

expansions the program acts through 

higher taxes to lower overall 

employment and demand levels. 

Because a State whose Trigger Value 

meets or exceeds the threshold and 

whose look-back falls short of meeting 

the requirement by 0.05 percentage 

point or less would trigger ‘‘on’’ under 

the rounding computation while under 

the truncation method would keep the 

State ‘‘off,’’ the change marginally 

increases extended compensation as the 

TUR Trigger Value increases in a 

recession. A change to increase the 

duration of benefits during recessions 

will ultimately increase the countercyclical nature of the program by 

increasing stimulus during recessions 

while slightly decreasing economic 

activity during expansions. Following is 

an impact analysis which estimates the 

change in the level and timing of the UI 

benefits paid and taxes collected as a 

result of the change for the look-back 

provision of the TUR indicator. 

The actual future impacts of changing 

the look-back calculation on the flow of 

UI benefits and taxes are dependent 

upon the unemployment rate in relation 

to the TUR trigger threshold and the 

number of States that have actually 

implemented the optional TUR 

indicator. Historically, the proportion of 

months that the EB Program has been in 

effect was extremely low, due primarily 

to a relatively high threshold in relation 

to the level of unemployment, 

unwillingness by States to adopt the 

optional indicators, and Federal 

emergency benefit programs that at 

times can and have supplanted the EB 

Program. For example, on average for 

the 1991 and 2001 high unemployment 

periods, State indicators were ‘‘on’’ in 

roughly 3 percent of the State trigger 

months.7 In contrast, this past 

recession’s high unemployment period 

(2007–2011) has been quite unique: In 

over 40 percent of the State trigger 

months, the EB Program has been ‘‘on,’’ 

due primarily to the large number of 

States adopting the optional TUR 

indicator once the Federal Government 

began paying 100 percent of the costs 

(see Table 1). 

TABLE 1—HOW OFTEN THE EXTENDED BENEFIT PROGRAM IS ‘‘ON’’ 

High unemployment periods State trigger 

months 

State trigger 

months EB 

was ‘‘on’’ 

Percent of 

trigger months 

EB was ‘‘on’’ 

1991–1994 1 ................................................................................................................................. 2,226 111 5.0 

2001–2004 2 ................................................................................................................................. 2,438 38 1.4 

2007–2011 3 ................................................................................................................................. 2,392 1,055 44 

1Period begins in July 1991 and goes to Dec. 1994 to include the post recessionary period of high unemployment. 

2Period begins in Mar. 2001 and goes to Dec. 2004 to include the post recessionary period of high unemployment. 

3Period begins in Dec. 2007 and goes to Sept. 2011 to include the post recessionary period of high unemployment. 

Only seven States adopted the 

optional TUR indicator upon its 

introduction in 1993. Then from 1994 

through 2008, only four more States 

added the TUR indicator to their State 

law, bringing the number to 11 at the 

start of 2009 (see Table 2). The number 

of States implementing the optional 

TUR indicator and how often the EB 

Program is actually activated are critical 

pieces of information for estimating the 

impacts of the look-back rounding 

methodology change. In 2009, as part of 

the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act), the 

Federal government began paying 100 

percent of extended compensation and 

high unemployment extended 

compensation, so the number of States 

that adopted the optional TUR indicator 

went up to 38 in 2009, then 39 in 2011.8

All of the 28 States that adopted the 

TUR indicator post-Recovery Act 

instituted the TUR indicator on a 

temporary basis—for as long as the 

Federal government was paying 100 

percent of the compensation for the EB 

Program. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 57771 

9The analysis does not include the computation 

of the 3 year look-back or the periods under which 

any State may have triggered ‘‘on’’ the EB Program 

by using the 3 year look-back. State data on 

adoption of the TUR trigger can be found on the 

weekly trigger notice at http://

www.workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/ 

claims_arch.asp. 

10The data for monthly seasonally adjusted State 

total unemployment rates is from Bureau of Labor 

Statistics LASST01000006 (http://data.bls.gov/ 

timeseries/LASST01000006). The total amount of 

monthly EB benefits paid is from the Division of 

Fiscal and Actuarial Services in the Employment 

and Training Administration of the Department of 

Labor report 394 can be found here: http://

www.workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/ 

hb394.asp. 

11The ‘‘on’’ period was computed for each state 

rather than using the actual historical outcome. 

12Under the new rounding of the look-back 

formulation there will only be cases when the look 

back percentage in either of the 2 years, will be 

higher than the original so the EB Program will turn 

‘‘on’’ while the original method will have the EB 

Program as ‘‘off.’’ 

TABLE 2—STATES THAT HAVE ADOPTED THE OPTIONAL EB TUR INDICATOR

Years 1993–1998 1999–2001 2002 2003–2004 2005–2008 2009–2010 2011 

Total TUR 

indicator states 7 8 9 10 11 38 39 

States ................ Alaska ............. New Hampshire North Carolina New Mexico .... New Jersey ............. Alabama ...... Maryland. 

Connecticut ..... ......................... ......................... ......................... Arizona.

Kansas ............ ......................... ......................... ......................... California.

Oregon ............ ......................... ......................... ......................... Colorado.

Rhode Island ... ......................... ......................... ......................... Delaware.

Vermont ........... ......................... ......................... ......................... District of Columbia.

Washington ..... ......................... ......................... ......................... Florida.

Georgia.

Idaho.

Illinois.

Indiana.

Kentucky.

Maine.

Massachusetts.

Michigan.

Minnesota.

Missouri.

Nevada.

New York.

Ohio.

Pennsylvania.

South Carolina.

Tennessee.

Texas.

Virginia.

West Virginia.

Wisconsin.

Impact Assessment Methodology 

ETA used two distinct methodologies, 

a time-series simulation and a Monte 

Carlo-type simulation analysis (each 

explained more fully below), to provide 

quantitative impact estimates for the 

change in the level and timing of the UI 

benefits paid and taxes collected as a 

result of the change in formulation of 

the TUR indicator. The specific goal of 

these two analyses is to provide a 

quantitative measure for: (1) The 

increased probability of a State turning 

‘‘on’’ the EB Program under the new 

rounding rules, and (2) the likely change 

in the aggregate level of UI benefits and 

taxes with each instance of additional 

EB benefits paid. The results of these 

measures will allow a determination of 

the economic impact of that occurrence 

of additional EB benefits paid on the 

overall economy and on any subgroups. 

The time-series simulation estimates 

are developed using a historical 

simulation methodology: By first 

applying the existing TUR indicator 

computation, and then applying the 

new rounding rules to data from a 

specified period of time and measuring 

the difference in outcomes. To examine 

the impact on outcomes, the data used 

is from the introduction of the optional 

TUR indicator in 1993 through 

September 2011 when this analysis was 

completed. This period encompasses 

two recessions of varying severity, two 

complete economic cycles, and a large 

number of States turning ‘‘on’’ the EB 

Program. This period also includes the 

temporary period of 100 percent Federal 

reimbursement of EB benefit payments 

when a majority of States, 39, adopted 

the TUR indicator.9

The baseline case is considered to be 

the simulated outcomes under the 

current TUR look-back computation for 

the States that had adopted the optional 

TUR indicator. For each month during 

this historical period (January 1993 

through September 2011), the actual 

seasonally adjusted 3-month average 

TUR 10 was used as well as the actual 

look-back percentages for each State that 

had adopted the TUR indicator. The 

number of months in EB periods was 

then estimated for each state.11 The TUR 

look-back percentage was then 

computed using the new rounding 

methodology and the analysis rerun. 

These computations enabled 

measurement of the differences between 

the two types of trigger formulations in 

the number months when the EB 

Program is triggered ‘‘on,’’ and then the 

amount of extended benefits paid.12

Probability of Turning ‘‘On’’ EB. 

Using just the States that had adopted 

the TUR indicator, there were 2,271 

monthly observations in this simulation, 

of which there were 1,170 instances 

when a State triggered ‘‘on’’ the EB 

Program by using the TUR indicator 

under the current methodology. When 

the new rounding rules were applied 

there were 1,177 instances—only 7 

additional instances when a State would 

have triggered ‘‘on’’ EB, an increase of 

0.6 percent (see Table 3). 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

57772 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

13Thirteen States were used as a number of States 

likely to maintain the TUR indicator in the future. 

The six States were randomly selected to insure a 

representative group from the remaining States. The 

six States randomly chosen were: Colorado; 

Delaware; Illinois; Kentucky; Maine; and Maryland. 14The mean and standard deviation were taken 

from actual monthly observations over the recession 

and post-recession periods of: 1980–1983; 1991– 

1993; 2001–2003; and 2008–2011. 

TABLE 3—EXTENDED BENEFIT PERIODS UNDER THE OLD AND NEW TUR INDICATOR 1

[1993–2011] 

Estimated # of 

instances of 

EB ‘‘on’’ 

# of instances 

of EB w/TUR 

indicator 

≥ 6.0% 

# of instances 

of EB w/TUR 

indicator 

≥ 8.0% 

Old Method .................................................................................................................................. 1,170 362 808 

New Method ................................................................................................................................. 1,177 365 812 

Source: Periods of EB are estimated using federal law and data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics seasonally adjusted Total Unemployment 

Rate series by State LASST01000006. 1 Data consists of measuring only the periods when the EB Program triggered ‘‘on’’ based on the TUR indicator and included only the States 

that had adopted the optional TUR indicator. The number of instances refers to the number of State months. 

The seven instances included six 

different States. In four of the instances, 

the State was triggering ‘‘on’’ because of 

the 8.0 percent high unemployment 

period. In none of the instances were 

there two consecutive months in which 

a State had a different EB triggering 

outcome under the new rounding 

methodology compared to the 

truncation method. Two of the instances 

when States triggered ‘‘on’’ EB due to 

the rounding calculation occurred 

following the 1991 recession, one 

occurred following the 2001 recession, 

and four occurred following the 2007 

recession when 39 States had adopted 

the optional TUR indicator (see Table 

4). In six of the seven occurrences, the 

difference in the look-back calculation 

occurred in the 2nd prior year look-back 

calculation. 

TABLE 4—PERIODS WHEN EB WAS TRIGGERED ‘‘ON’’ UNDER THE NEW ROUNDING FORMULATION

State EB Trigger 

date 

Rounded 

3-month 

SATUR 

First year 

look-back 

truncated 

Second year 

look-back 

truncated 

First year lookback rounded 

Second year 

look-back 

rounded 

Alaska ...................................................... 2/28/1993 8.0 86.02 109.58 86 110 

Connecticut .............................................. 5/31/1993 6.8 91.89 109.67 92 110 

Oregon ..................................................... 11/30/2003 8.0 106.66 109.58 107 110 

Alaska ...................................................... 1/31/2009 6.8 109.67 109.67 110 110 

Alabama ................................................... 3/31/2011 9.2 90.19 109.52 90 110 

Kansas ..................................................... 3/31/2011 6.8 94.44 109.67 94 110 

Georgia .................................................... 4/30/2011 10.0 98.03 109.89 98 110 

The 0.6 percent increase in the EB 

Program’s being ‘‘on’’ in this simulation 

represents the percentage likelihood 

change in the number of times that the 

EB Program would trigger ‘‘on’’ due 

solely to the change in formulation of 

the look-back mechanism for, on 

average, 13 States having the TUR 

indicator in place. Therefore, the 

likelihood of a State turning ‘‘on’’ the 

EB Program with the new rounding 

formulation may be represented by .05 

percent (.6/13). 

The time series estimates used the 

actual State unemployment rates as they 

occurred from 1993 through September 

2011 and include only the States which 

had adopted the optional TUR indicator. 

To provide further support for the 

estimate of the difference in the number 

of times the EB Program may trigger 

‘‘on’’ due to rounding in the look-back 

calculation during a recession, an 

additional analysis was employed based 

on a Monte Carlo-type methodology. 

The Monte-Carlo methodology allows 

the simulation of thousands of possible 

State TUR values rather than just the 

historical values used in the time series 

analysis. Thirteen States—the seven 

original States that adopted the optional 

TUR indicator and six additional 

randomly selected States—were 

chosen,13 and then, using the mean and 

standard deviation of their total 

unemployment rates during the past 

four recessions,14 one thousand TUR 

periods were created for each State 

using a random number generator with 

a normal distribution. The number of 

periods when the EB Program would 

trigger ‘‘on’’ by rounding as opposed to 

truncating was computed. Of the 13,000 

total State observation periods (each 

representing recessionary periods), the 

EB Program would have triggered ‘‘on’’ 

in 4,822 periods using the original 

method of truncation for the look-back 

computation, while the EB Program 

would have triggered ‘‘on’’ in 4,903 

periods using the method of rounding, 

an increase of 81 additional periods (see 

Table 5). 

TABLE 5—DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EB TRIGGER FORMULATIONS UNDER SIMULATED RECESSIONARY TURS

[For 1,000 simulations for each State] 

State 1

Mean TUR in 

recession 

periods 

(%) 2

Standard 

deviation of 

recession 

period 2

Instances 

when EB ‘‘on’’ 

w/truncating 

Instances 

when EB ‘‘on’’ 

w/rounding 

Difference 

% increase 

due to 

rounding 

Alaska ...................................................... 8.14 1.21 448 459 11 2.40 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 57773 

15Survival rate is the probability that a claimant 

will collect Unemployment Compensation from one 

week to the next. An exhaustee is a person 

collecting Unemployment Compensation who 

would be in their last week of compensation but for 

the EB Program. 

16ETA–5159 report includes monthly regular 

program exhaustees which were divided by the 

number of weeks in a month to get weekly data. 

17The weekly survival rate is the proportion of 

individuals claiming unemployment compensation 

in week n that will also claim unemployment 

compensation in week n+1. A weekly survival rate 

of 0.97 was used as a constant for each week of 

extended benefits. This level is derived from the 

Division of Fiscal and Actuarial Services State 

Benefit Forecasting Model. 

18State average weekly benefit is derived from the 

ETA–5159 monthly claims report: http://www.work

forcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/finance.asp. 

TABLE 5—DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EB TRIGGER FORMULATIONS UNDER SIMULATED RECESSIONARY TURS—Continued 

[For 1,000 simulations for each State] 

State 1

Mean TUR in 

recession 

periods 

(%) 2

Standard 

deviation of 

recession 

period 2

Instances 

when EB ‘‘on’’ 

w/truncating 

Instances 

when EB ‘‘on’’ 

w/rounding 

Difference 

% increase 

due to 

rounding 

Colorado ................................................... 6.35 1.48 226 229 3 1.31 

Connecticut ............................................ 6.31 1.59 363 375 12 3.20 

Delaware .................................................. 6.23 1.80 367 371 4 1.62 

Illinois ....................................................... 8.22 1.98 499 507 8 1.58 

Kansas .................................................... 5.32 1.08 119 120 1 0.83 

Kentucky .................................................. 8.04 2.07 510 517 7 1.35 

Maine ....................................................... 6.70 1.48 418 425 7 1.65 

Maryland .................................................. 5.24 1.30 183 185 2 1.08 

Oregon .................................................... 8.53 2.03 512 521 9 1.73 

Rhode Island .......................................... 8.01 2.08 497 506 9 1.78 

Vermont ................................................... 5.66 1.21 221 223 2 0.90 

Washington ............................................. 8.06 1.95 459 465 6 1.29 

1Original seven States to adopt the optional TUR indicator are in bold. 

2The mean and standard deviation were taken from actual monthly TUR observations over the recession and post-recession periods of: 1980– 

1983; 1991–1993; 2001–2003; 2008–2011. 

Across the States this represents, on 

average, a 1.7 percent (81/4822) increase 

in the likelihood of turning ‘‘on’’ the EB 

Program under the new rounding rules 

(see Table 6). This also represents the 

cumulative difference of the 13 States, 

meaning that each State in this 

simulation could be considered to have 

added a 0.13 percent increase of an 

added instance of turning ‘‘on’’ the EB 

Program (1.7/13). This value will be 

used as the per-State increase in the 

likelihood of turning ‘‘on’’ the EB 

Program under the new rounding rules 

in this simulation. 

TABLE 6—MONTE CARLO-TYPE ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENCE IN EB TRIGGER FORMULATION

[For 1,000 simulated monthly trigger values per State] 

State 

# Instances 

EB ‘‘on’’ 

w/truncating 

# Instances 

EB ‘‘On’’ 

w/rounding 

Difference % Difference 

13 States .......................................................................................................... 4,822 4,903 81 1.7 

Per State Average ........................................................................................... 371 377 6 

Source: Computations made by U.S. DOL ETA/OUI/DFAS. 

Transfer to EB Recipients: Temporary 

Income Support (During Recession) 

The revision to the TUR indicator 

computation methodology will result in 

increased benefits payments during a 

recession, which provide temporary 

income support and greater economic 

stimulus than would otherwise exist 

during that economic time period. This 

increased economic stimulus will 

prevent greater economic distress 

during a recession. This impact is not a 

true benefit of the rule because, as 

explained above, the TUR indicator 

formulation would redistribute existing 

transfer payments only over time. That 

is, a change to increase extended 

benefits during recessions will 

ultimately increase the counter-cyclical 

nature of the program by increasing 

stimulus during recessions while doing 

the opposite during expansions. 

Increased Compensation. A value for 

the amount of additional extended 

compensation and number of people 

who would receive the extended 

compensation under the rounding rules 

was estimated using a time-series 

methodology. The estimated total level 

of extended compensation that would 

have been paid under the look-back 

computation was estimated using a 

weekly survival rate method. In this 

methodology, for each week that the EB 

Program is ‘‘on,’’ the number of State EB 

claimants is multiplied by the State 

average weekly benefit amount to get 

the weekly total benefit amount. To 

arrive at the weekly number of EB 

claimants, a weekly survival rate is 

applied for each week of EB to a 

beginning number of regular UI program 

exhaustees.15 This was done for each 

week of the EB period (either 13 or 20 

weeks) and aggregated to get total EB 

payments for the applicable period, i.e., 

the period during which each State was 

‘‘on’’ EB. This computation is 

represented in the formula below. 

Computation of Total Extended 

Compensation Paid 

Total Wkly Extended Compensation 

EB Benefits = S (Reg. Program Wkly 

Exhaustions 16 * Wkly Survival Rate 17) 

* Avg. Wkly Benefit 18 (Summed over 

each week of the EB period.) 

Applying this computation to the 

seven State periods that turned ‘‘on’’ the 

EB Program under the rounding 

formulation in the time series 

simulation, it was estimated that in total 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

57774 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

19This amount is, of course, dependent on the 

size of the States, but it does represent a reasonable 

estimate since these are the States most likely to 

have the TUR indicator in the future. Also, this 

amount is considered a high estimate, since 4 of the 

States triggered on to 20 weeks of benefits, and the 

average is a reasonable expected value for the level 

of per State extended benefits. For all of the periods 

except one (Alaska, 1/2009) during the State EB 

period triggered on by the rounding calculation, 

there was no ‘‘on’’ period for the truncation 

calculation. The Alaska data was adjusted for the 

truncation period. 

20Estimated increase in the number of first 

payments in the seven state periods of triggering on 

EB found in the Time-series analysis. 21Total additional extended compensation from 

rounding, $294 million divided by the number of 

State periods, 7, and then divided by the total 

extended compensation for the entire period, 

$24,897 million. 22The increase in first pays due to rounding, 

148,000, divided by the number of State periods, 7, 

and then dividing by the total number of EB first 

pays during the period of 9.6 million. 

23Historical balances of the EUCA fund can be 

found here: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/ 

reports/tfmp/tfmp_utf.htm. 

24For applicable State triggering laws see 

Comparison of State UI Laws: http://www.work

forcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/comparison

2011.asp. 

25Recoupment rule of UI taxes in response to a 

compensation increase is from an Office of 

Unemployment Insurance, Division of Fiscal and 

Actuarial Services State Revenue model run over a 

range of scenarios, 12/2011. 

26 Derived by taking the average estimated yearly 

tax increase per State, $2.1 million, divided by the 

estimated amount of contributions per State per 

year, $1.4 billion. This is certainly a very rough 

estimate that depends on the size of the States 

having the optional TUR indicator in the 

simulation. However, because those States would 

be expected to continue having the indicator, it is 

considered a reasonable level. 

$294 million 19 more would have been 

paid out in extended compensation, and 

there would be an increase of 148,000 20

new first payments in the EB Program. 

This translates into an estimated 1.2 

percent increase ($294 million/$24,897 

million—total extended compensation 

in the simulation) in extended 

compensation and a 1.5 percent increase 

($148,000/$9.6 million—total EB first 

pays in the simulation) of EB first 

payments under the rounding rules 

compared to the current methodology 

(i.e., truncating the look-back 

computation after two decimal places). 

Again, dividing these results into the 

per State added percentage point 

increase for each instance of triggering 

‘‘on’’ the EB Program means there 

would be a 0.17 percent increase in 

extended compensation paid 21 and a 

0.22 percent increase 22 in first 

payments. 

In terms of how the increased 

extended compensation paid would be 

distributed among subgroups of EB 

recipients, attempting to disaggregate 

this level of benefits into numerically 

small select subgroups of claimants 

such as low-wage workers, or minority 

claimants, would mean working with 

monetary flows of very little statistical 

consequence. Therefore, the Department 

has determined that no distributional 

analysis is necessary. 

Transfer From State Unemployment 

Insurance Accounts: Increased 

Employer Taxes (During Expansions) 

The revision to the TUR indicator 

computation methodology will result in 

increased economic stimulus during 

recessions. However, a significant 

increase in extended compensation may 

result in a State UI tax increase on 

employers. An increased UI tax on 

employers might result in dampened 

overall economic activity as employers 

postpone equipment purchases or 

hiring. This impact does not represent a 

true cost of the changes made in this 

rule because it is associated with a 

corresponding transfer of payments to 

EB recipients during recessions. That is, 

the regulation would result in 

redistribution of wealth over time 

(based on the counter-cyclical nature of 

the EB Program), rather than have a net 

social welfare impact. 

UI Taxes. Except for the temporary 

provisions that are no longer in effect, 

Federal statutes specify that 50 percent 

of extended compensation is paid from 

the Extended Unemployment 

Compensation Account (EUCA) in the 

Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF), 

which is funded through the Federal 

Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), and 50 

percent is paid by the liable State from 

its account in the UTF. 

The Federal monies for extended 

compensation flow from EUCA, which 

is also used to fund additional Federal 

emergency benefit programs. 

Historically, the balance of this account 

has been sufficient to pay the level of 

extended compensation during a 

recession and would therefore be much 

greater than the estimated amounts that 

may result from the change in the lookback mechanism.23 Nevertheless, even if 

EUCA, together with the other Federal 

accounts in the UTF is depleted, the 

account can obtain advances from the 

General Fund with no impact on the 

FUTA tax, which means there would be 

no expected increase in Federal taxes 

from the change in formulation of the 

TUR indicator. 

On the State side, every State has a 

tax structure that responds with higher 

taxes when the amount of reserves in its 

UTF account declines.24 Thus, a 

significant increase in paid extended 

compensation may result in a State UI 

tax increase on employers. However, the 

tax response takes place only with 

relatively large changes in the State trust 

fund account balance, and differs by 

State depending on the size of the 

account balance; small changes in a 

State trust fund account balance may 

actually have no impact in a State’s UI 

taxes. To gauge the magnitude of the tax 

impact from an increase in extended 

compensation paid, a generalized rule of 

State UI tax collections can be applied: 

For any specified increase in 

unemployment compensation, 100 

percent of the increase will be collected 

in UI taxes over a 10-year period.25

Using the estimated increase of 

extended compensation paid (due to the 

TUR indicator rounding computation) 

from the time-series simulation, $294 

million, an estimate was derived for the 

amount of potential State tax increases 

by assuming the increase in extended 

compensation was divided among the 

average number of States that 

experienced an increase in extended EB 

compensation paid over a 10-year 

period. To arrive at an estimate for the 

expected increase in State 

unemployment compensation taxes due 

to a change in the rounding rule for the 

look-back feature of the TUR indicator, 

50 percent of the total extended 

compensation, $147 million, is assumed 

to be financed by seven States for an 

average of $21 million per State. The 

amount is assumed to be financed by 

increased State taxes over a 10-year 

period for an average of $2.1 million per 

year. This amount represents an 

estimated increase of 0.14 percent 26 in 

State unemployment compensation 

taxes for each State that turns ‘‘on’’ the 

EB Program under the new rounding 

rules. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 57775 

27See Office of Management and Budget, Circular 

A–4: Regulatory Analysis, pp. 2–3, 10, 26–27 (Sept. 

17, 2003), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

omb/circulars_default. 

28 In OMB Circular A–4 in reference to the size 

of stimulative impacts: ‘‘. . . that rules with annual 

costs that are less than one billion dollars are likely 

to have a minimal effect on economic growth.’’ 

29Similar in severity to the 1991 recession. 

30A value similar to the percentage of State 

months that triggered on to EB in the 1991 and 2001 

recessions. 

31Similar in severity to the 2007 recession. 

32Assumed likelihood of triggering on EB in a 

severe recession. 

33Calculated likelihood of triggering on EB in the 

severe recession for States with optional TUR 

trigger under the new rounding rules. 

TABLE 7—ESTIMATED INCREASE IN STATE TAXES COLLECTED UNDER NEW ROUNDING FORMULATION

[Based on the estimated extended compensation from the Time-Series data, 1993–2011] 

Period 

Est. amt. of added 

extended 

compensation 

to finance 1

(mil.) 

Amt. financed per 

state 2

(mil.) 

Avg. amt. financed 

per year 

(mil.) 

% Increase in 

taxes per state 3

1993–2011 data period ............................................................ $147 $21 $2.1 0.14 

1Fifty percent of total estimated amount of increased extended compensation paid due to rounding from the Time-Series Data. 

2 Derived from 50 percent of the estimated increase in extended compensation payments under the Time Series data divided by the number of 

States that experienced an increase. 3Total extended compensation to be financed divided by the total unemployment compensation contributions over the period: http://www.work

forcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/hb394.asp. 

In terms of specific distribution of 

these impacts, disaggregating the tax 

increases into subgroups of employers 

such as small businesses would mean 

working with monetary flows of very 

little consequence. Therefore, the 

Department has determined that no 

distributional analysis is necessary. 

Non-Quantified Impacts 

OMB Circular No. A–4 requires the 

identification of any non-quantifiable 

benefits and costs that cannot be 

reasonably measured.27 One primary 

non-quantifiable benefit of 

implementing regulations for the TUR 

indicator and the associated rounding 

rule, and which is a driving factor for its 

adoption, is that by codifying the TUR 

indicator the Department will explicitly 

clarify a methodology for computing the 

TUR look-back that regulations 

previously left unspecified. This final 

rule will remove the potential for future 

misunderstanding in the computation of 

the optional TUR indicator, as 

compared to the current status quo 

where the TUR look-back computation 

method is not specified in Department 

regulations. 

Regarding the secondary impacts from 

increased temporary income during 

recessions and increased employer taxes 

during expansions, the Department has 

determined that the estimates of 

extended compensation and UI tax 

increases are too small to meaningfully 

model their impact on the macro 

economy. With a likely impact of 

increasing the number of instances the 

EB Program triggers ‘‘on’’ by two during 

an average recession and nine instances 

during a severe recession (as computed 

in detail in the scenarios below), these 

impact numbers are too small to model 

any stimulus impact during a recession 

or a dampening effect of the tax 

increases during expansions. Not only 

are the impacts on extended 

compensation and taxes small compared 

to the U.S. economy (e.g., far below the 

$1 billion limit for use of an economic 

multiplier effect on the level of 

employment or economic activity 28), 

but even compared to aggregate 

unemployment compensation payments 

and taxes the numbers are rather 

insignificant. 

Potential Future Stimulative and 

Distributional Impacts Scenarios 

By increasing the overall level of 

benefits paid by States during 

recessionary periods, the change in TUR 

indicator computation methodology 

would aid in the counter-cyclical nature 

of the Unemployment Compensation 

program by increasing the economic 

stimulus during recessions and possibly 

dampening overall activity with 

possible higher taxes. The estimates for 

the increased probability of States 

triggering ‘‘on’’ the EB Program, 

increased benefits, higher first 

payments, and potential changes to UI 

taxes, can provide estimates for the 

change in flows of the Unemployment 

Compensation program that this 

proposal may cause under various 

future recessionary scenarios. 

Scenario 1 (11 States with the 

optional TUR indicator; typical severity 

3-year recession and post-recession 

period).29 In a likely scenario, assuming 

a recession and post-recession high 

unemployment period lasting 3 years, 

with 11 States having the optional TUR 

indicator in place, it would mean 396 

possible State months (11 States * 36 

months) of high enough unemployment 

for the EB Program to trigger ‘‘on.’’ 

Using the results from the high 

unemployment periods in the Monte 

Carlo-type analysis, the Department 

could expect approximately 147 periods 

of the EB Program to be triggered ‘‘on’’ 

in States with the optional TUR 

indicator (37 percent 30 * 396 State 

months) using the original truncation 

methodology. With 11 States having the 

optional TUR indicator, the likelihood 

of turning ‘‘on’’ the EB Program under 

the rounding methodology would be 1.4 

percent (11 States * 0.13 percent per 

State likelihood), this would increase 

the number of EB Program periods by 

two instances (1.4 percent * 147 

periods). Assuming a recession with $2 

billion in total extended compensation 

paid and 1.5 million first payments in 

the EB Program, then with two more 

instance of the EB Program triggering 

‘‘on’’ the Department would expect an 

increase in extended compensation paid 

of $7 million (0.34 percent * $2 billion) 

and an increase of 7,000 in the number 

of first payments (1.5 million * 0.44 

percent). The resulting tax increases 

spread over a 10-year period in one 

State would then be expected to be 

approximately $350,000 per year (($7 

million * 0.5 State cost)/10 years). 

Scenario 2 (20 States with optional 

TUR indicator; more severe 3-year 

recession and post-recession period).31

In a less likely scenario, but one with 

possibly the highest expected impact, 

assuming a recession and post-recession 

period lasting 3 years, with 20 States 

having the optional TUR indicator in 

place—720 State months (20 States * 36 

months). In a more severe recession the 

Department could expect 360 periods of 

the EB Program to be triggered ‘‘on’’ 

with the optional TUR indicator (720 * 

50 percent 32). With 20 States having the 

optional TUR indicator the likelihood of 

triggering ‘‘on’’ the EB Program under 

the new rounding rules would be 2.6 

percent (20 States * 0.13 percent 33) this 

would increase the number of periods 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

57776 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

34Calculated from average costs and payments 

made during recessions 1980–2001. 

35Assumed likelihood of triggering on EB in this 

type of recession. 

36For a state to trigger on extended compensation 

using the IUR, its insured unemployment rate (IUR) 

for the previous 13 weeks is at least 5 percent and 

is 120 percent of the average of the rates for the 

corresponding 13-week period in each of the 2 

previous years. 

the EB Program would be triggered ‘‘on’’ 

by nine instances (2.6 percent * 360 

periods). Assuming a recession with $5 

billion in total extended compensation 

paid and 3.0 million first payments for 

the program,34 with nine more instances 

of the EB Program triggering ‘‘on,’’ the 

Department would expect an increase in 

extended compensation of $77 million 

(0.17 percent 35 * 9 periods * $5 billion) 

and an increase of 59,000 in the number 

of first payments for the program (3 

million * 9 periods * 0.22 percent). The 

resulting tax increases spread over a 10- 

year period in one State would then be 

expected to be approximately $190,000 

per year ($77 million * 0.5 State cost)/ 

20 States)/10 years). 

Impact of the TUR Option 

The preceding impact analysis 

focused on changing the computational 

methodology of the TUR look-back 

provision. Since the Department is not 

considering the removal of the optional 

TUR indicator, the analysis does not 

measure the impact of the original 

adoption of the TUR indicator in 1992. 

However, it should be noted that a 

review of the most evident differences 

caused by the implementation of this 

option shows a rather small impact. 

From 1993 to 2006, for the 11 States 

that adopted the TUR indicator by 2006 

(Table 2), EB costs are totaled for each 

period when one of these States 

triggered on to the EB Program with the 

TUR option but would not have turned 

on extended compensation under the 

IUR option.36 During this 14-year 

period, there were 28 instances when a 

State triggered on to the EB Program 

using the TUR option and would not 

have triggered on using the IUR trigger. 

The total extended compensation costs 

of these instances were approximately 

$310 million and the number of First 

Payments was 330,000. 

TABLE 8—STATES TRIGGERING ON TO THE EB PROGRAM USING THE TUR OPTION

[Without qualifying with the IUR Option] 

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 

Alaska ...................

Oregon ..................

Rhode Is ...............

Washington. 

Alaska ..................

Oregon ................

Rhode Is, 

Alaska ..................

Rhode Is. 

Alaska .................. Alaska .................. Alaska .................. Alaska, 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Alaska ................... Alaska .................. Alaska .................. Alaska ..................

N. Carolina ..........

Oregon ................

Alaska ..................

Michigan ..............

N. Carolina ..........

Oregon ................

Washington. 

Alaska. 

Michigan. 

Oregon. 

Washington. 

This is a relatively small number of 

States and amount spent, on average 

approximately $22 million per year, and 

in no year did the amount spent on 

extended compensation from States that 

triggered on using the TUR option ever 

exceed $100 million. Indeed, measuring 

the change in cyclical financial flows of 

the UI program does not seem necessary 

under these aggregates. 

Conclusion 

Placing the optional TUR indicator in 

regulations does not impose any 

additional change in burden, since no 

change in the operational procedure 

will occur. In addition, it incorporates 

in regulations the computational 

methodology previously communicated 

in UIPL No. 16–11 for the TUR’s lookback. 

Changing the look-back computation 

does have an impact, although it is 

estimated to be small. For each State 

that adopted the optional TUR 

indicator, it was found that the new 

rounding rule would likely add a 0.13 

percentage point increase in the 

likelihood of a single State triggering 

‘‘on’’ the EB Program during a recession. 

For each State that triggered ‘‘on’’ the 

EB Program, it would likely add a 0.17 

percent increase in the level of extended 

compensation paid, a 0.22 percent 

increase in people receiving extended 

compensation, and a per State increase 

in unemployment compensation taxes 

of 0.14 percent per year. These numbers 

indicate a negligible impact on the 

redistribution of the flows 

(unemployment compensation and 

taxes) in the Unemployment 

Compensation program. These impacts 

are so small that any stimulative or 

distributional effects would be 

considered of little consequence. 

Indeed, the probable economic impact 

encompasses the likely possibility 

(depending on the future level of the 

TUR) that there would be no measurable 

impact from a change in the derivation 

of the TUR indicator due to rounding 

the look-back proportion as opposed to 

truncating that value. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The purposes of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq., include minimizing the 

paperwork burden on affected entities. 

The PRA requires certain actions before 

an agency can adopt or revise a 

collection of information, including 

publishing a summary of the collection 

of information and a brief description of 

the need for and proposed use of the 

information. 

A Federal agency may not conduct or 

sponsor a collection of information 

unless it is approved by OMB under the 

PRA, and displays a currently valid 

OMB control number, and the public is 

not required to respond to a collection 

of information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

Also, notwithstanding any other 

provisions of law, no person shall be 

subject to penalty for failing to comply 

with a collection of information if the 

collection of information does not 

display a currently valid OMB control 

number (44 U.S.C. 3512). 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 57777 

The Department published an NPRM 

on October 27, 2014, in the Federal 

Register (79 FR 63859). The NPRM 

proposed to amend 20 CFR 615, 

Extended Benefits, by implementing the 

TUR indicator, an optional calculation 

methodology for triggering on Extended 

Benefits, in regulations. The NPRM also 

proposed to revise the regulatory 

requirements at § 615.15, pertaining to 

records and reports State agencies must 

submit. More specifically, paragraphs 

(a) and (b) were proposed to be revised 

for clarity by deleting unnecessary 

language regarding the Secretary’s 

authority to request Extended Benefit 

Program reports and to appoint audit 

officials for those reports. Furthermore, 

for reasons discussed in the Review of 

the Final Rule, the Department 

proposed to delete paragraphs (c) and 

(d). The reporting instructions for the 

proper and timely submission of data 

are provided in ET Handbook No. 401, 

which governs Unemployment 

Compensation required reporting. 

The preamble to the NPRM stated that 

the Department had determined the 

proposed rule did not contain new 

information collections. However, to 

ensure transparency and full 

opportunities for public participation 

under all appropriate authorities, the 

Department is submitting an 

Information Collection Request (ICR) to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) to revise the PRA approval for 

the information collections to reflect 

this rulemaking. See 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(2)(B); 5 CFR 1320.11. As part of 

that process, the Department sought 

public comments on the removal of 

specific information collection 

requirements in the NPRM and on the 

general Extended Benefit reporting 

requirements in Handbook 401 and 

Forms ETA 538 and 539 in light of 

specific areas of interest to minimize socalled ‘‘paperwork’’ burdens on the 

public. The Department published a 

notice in the Federal Register on July 7, 

2015 (80 FR 38747) to provide the 

public a 60-day opportunity to comment 

on the information collections as 

described in the rule. No comments on 

the ICR were received during the public 

comment period. 

Concurrent with the publication of 

this final rule, the Department is 

submitting an ICR to OMB for approval. 

The Department will publish a Federal 

Register notice upon receipt of OMB’s 

notice of approval. 

Overview of the Information Collection 

Agency: DOL–ETA. 

Action: ICR Revision. 

Title of Collection: Weekly Claims and 

Extended Benefits Data and Weekly 

Initial and Continued Weeks Claimed. 

OMB Control Number: 1205–0028. 

Affected Public: State, Local, and 

Tribal Governments. 

Total Estimated Number of 

Respondents: 53. 

Total Estimated Number of 

Responses: 5,512. 

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 

3,675 hours. 

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs 

Burden: $0. 

Executive Order 13132 

Section 6 of Executive Order 13132 

requires Federal agencies to consult 

with State entities when a regulation or 

policy may have a substantial direct 

effect on the States or the relationship 

between the National Government and 

the States, or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, within the 

meaning of the Executive Order. Section 

3(b) of the Executive Order further 

provides that Federal agencies must 

implement regulations that have a 

substantial direct effect only if statutory 

authority permits the regulation and it 

is of national significance. 

This final rule does not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States or 

the relationship between the National 

Government and the States, or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of Government, within the 

meaning of the Executive Order 13132. 

Any action taken by a State as a result 

of the final rule would be at its own 

discretion as the rule imposes no 

requirements. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

This regulatory action has been 

reviewed in accordance with the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Reform Act). Under the Reform Act, a 

Federal agency must determine whether 

a regulation proposes a Federal mandate 

that would result in the increased 

expenditures by State, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

in any single year. The Department has 

determined this final rule does not 

include any Federal mandate that may 

result in increased expenditure by State, 

local, and Tribal governments in the 

aggregate of more than $100 million, or 

increased expenditures by the private 

sector of more than $100 million. 

Accordingly, it is unnecessary for the 

Department to prepare a budgetary 

impact statement. Further, as noted 

above in the conclusion of the economic 

impact analysis, the impact is positive 

for State UTF accounts. 

Effect on Family Life 

The Department certifies that this 

final rule has been assessed according to 

section 654 of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 

enacted as part of the Omnibus 

Consolidated and Emergency 

Supplemental Appropriations Act of 

1999 (Pub. L. 105–277, 112 Stat. 2681), 

for its effect on family well-being. It will 

not adversely affect the well-being of the 

nation’s families. Therefore, the 

Department certifies that this final rule 

does not adversely impact family wellbeing. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act/SBREFA 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

at 5 U.S.C. 603(a) requires agencies to 

prepare and make available for public 

comment an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis which will describe the impact 

of the final rule on small entities. 

Section 605 of the RFA allows an 

agency to certify a rule, in lieu of 

preparing an analysis, if the final 

rulemaking is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Furthermore, under the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996, 5 U.S.C. 801 (SBREFA), an agency 

is required to produce compliance 

guidance for small entities if the rule 

has a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The RFA defines small entities as 

small business concerns, small not-forprofit enterprises, or small 

governmental jurisdictions. The final 

rule does not regulate small entities. As 

a result, any indirect impact on small 

entities would be from a tax increase 

resulting from a State triggering ‘‘on’’ 

because of the new computation method 

for the look-back. Therefore, the 

Department certifies that the final rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of these 

small entities. 

Plain Language 

The Department drafted this final rule 

in plain language. 

List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 615 

Grant programs-labor; Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements; 

Unemployment compensation. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, ETA amends 20 CFR part 615 

as follows: 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

57778 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

PART 615—EXTENDED BENEFITS IN 

THE FEDERAL-STATE 

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 

PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 615 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805; 26 U.S.C. 1102; 

Secretary’s Order No. 6–10. 

■ 2. Revise § 615.1 to read as follows: 

§ 615.1 Purpose. 

This part implements the ‘‘FederalState Extended Unemployment 

Compensation Act of 1970’’ (EUCA). 

Under the Federal Unemployment Tax 

Act, 26 U.S.C. 3304(a)(11), an approved 

State law must provide for the payment 

of extended compensation to eligible 

individuals who have exhausted all 

rights to regular compensation during 

specified periods of unemployment, as 

prescribed in EUCA and this part. 

§§ 615.3, 615.4, 615.7, 616.8, 615.9, 615.12, 

and 615.14 [Amended] 

■ 3. In part 615 remove the words ‘‘the 

Act’’ and add in their place the acronym 

‘‘EUCA’’ in the following places: 

■ a. Section 615.3 (four places); 

■ b. Section 615.4(a) and (b) 

introductory text; 

■ c. Section 615.8(a) introductory text; 

■ d. Section 615.8(c) introductory text; 

■ e. Section 615.8(c)(2); 

■ f. Section 615.8(d) introductory text; 

■ g. Section 615.8(d)(3) (two places); 

■ h. Section 615.8(d)(4); 

■ i. Section 615.8(e) introductory text; 

■ j. Section 615.8(e)(8); 

■ k. Section 615.8(f)(1) introductory 

text; 

■ l. Section 615.8(f)(1)(ii); 

■ m. Section 615.8(f)(4); 

■ n. Section 615.8(g)(1) and (5); 

■ o. Section 615.9(d); 

■ p. Section 615.14(a)(1) through (4); 

■ q. Section 615.14(b) introductory text; 

■ r. Section 615.14(c)(1); 

■ s. Section 615.14(c)(2) (two places); 

■ t. Section 615.14(c)(3) introductory 

text; 

■ u. Section 615.14(c)(5) and (6); 

■ v. Section 615.14(c)(7)(i) through (iii); 

■ w. Section 615.14(d)(1); 

■ x. Section 615.14(d)(2) (two places); 

■ y. Section 615.14(d)(3)(four places); 

■ z. Section 615.14(d)(6); and 

■ 4. Revise § 615.2 to read as follows: 

§ 615.2 Definitions. 

For the purposes of the EUCA and 

this part— 

Additional compensation means 

compensation totally financed by a State 

and payable under a State law by reason 

of conditions of high unemployment or 

by reason of other special factors and, 

when so payable, includes 

compensation payable pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. chapter 85. 

And, as used in section 

202(a)(3)(D)(ii), shall be interpreted to 

mean ‘‘or’’. 

Applicable benefit year means, with 

respect to an individual, the current 

benefit year if, at the time an initial 

claim for extended compensation is 

filed, the individual has an unexpired 

benefit year only in the State in which 

such claim is filed, or, in any other case, 

the individual’s most recent benefit 

year. For this purpose, the most recent 

benefit year for an individual who has 

unexpired benefit years in more than 

one State when an initial claim for 

extended compensation is filed, is the 

benefit year with the latest ending date 

or, if such benefit years have the same 

ending date, the benefit year in which 

the latest continued claim for regular 

compensation was filed. The 

individual’s most recent benefit year 

which expires in an extended benefit 

period, when either extended 

compensation or high unemployment 

extended compensation is payable, is 

the applicable benefit year if the 

individual cannot establish a second 

benefit year or is precluded from 

receiving regular compensation in a 

second benefit year solely by reason of 

a State law provision which meets the 

requirement of section 3304(a)(7) of the 

Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 

U.S.C. 3304(a)(7)). 

Applicable State means, with respect 

to an individual, the State with respect 

to which the individual is an 

‘‘exhaustee’’ as defined in § 615.5, and 

in the case of a combined wage claim for 

regular compensation, the term means 

the ‘‘paying State’’ as defined in 

§ 616.6(e) of this chapter. 

Applicable State law means the law of 

the State which is the applicable State 

for an individual. 

Average weekly benefit amount, for 

the purposes of section 202(a)(3)(D)(i), 

means the weekly benefit amount 

(including dependents’ allowances 

payable for a week of total 

unemployment and before any 

reduction because of earnings, pensions 

or other requirements) applicable to the 

week in which the individual failed to 

take an action which results in a 

disqualification as required by section 

202(a)(3)(B) of the EUCA. 

Base period means, with respect to an 

individual, the base period as 

determined under the applicable State 

law for the individual’s applicable 

benefit year. 

Benefit structure as used in section 

204(a)(2)(D), for the requirement to 

round down to the ‘‘nearest lower full 

dollar amount’’ for Federal 

reimbursement of sharable regular and 

sharable extended compensation means 

all of the following: 

(1) Amounts of regular weekly benefit 

payments, 

(2) Amounts of additional and 

extended weekly benefit payments, 

(3) The State maximum or minimum 

weekly benefit, 

(4) Partial and part-total benefit 

payments, 

(5) Amounts payable after deduction 

for pensions, and 

(6) Amounts payable after any other 

deduction required by State law. 

Benefit year means, with respect to an 

individual, the benefit year as defined 

in the applicable State law. 

Claim filed in any State under the 

interstate benefit payment plan, as used 

in section 202(c), means: 

(1) Any interstate claim for a week of 

unemployment filed pursuant to the 

Interstate Benefit Payment Plan, but 

does not include— 

(i) A claim filed in Canada, 

(ii) A visiting claim filed by an 

individual who has received permission 

from his/her regular reporting office to 

report temporarily to a local office in 

another State and who has been 

furnished intrastate claim forms on 

which to file claims, or 

(iii) A transient claim filed by an 

individual who is moving from place to 

place searching for work, or an 

intrastate claim for Extended Benefits 

filed by an individual who does not 

reside in a State that is in an Extended 

Benefit Period, 

(2) The first 2 weeks, as used in 

section 202(c), means the first 2 weeks 

for which the individual files 

compensable claims for Extended 

Benefits under the Interstate Benefit 

Payment Plan in an agent State in which 

an Extended Benefit Period is not in 

effect during such weeks. 

Compensation and unemployment 

compensation means cash benefits 

(including dependents’ allowances) 

payable to individuals with respect to 

their unemployment, and includes 

regular compensation, additional 

compensation and extended 

compensation as defined in this section. 

Date of a disqualification, as used in 

section 202(a)(4), means the date the 

disqualification begins, as determined 

under the applicable State law. 

Department means the United States 

Department of Labor, and shall include 

the Employment and Training 

Administration, the agency of the 

United States Department of Labor 

headed by the Assistant Secretary of 

Labor for Employment and Training to 

whom has been delegated the 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 57779 

Secretary’s authority under the EUCA in 

Secretary’s Order No. 6–2010 (75 FR 

66268) or any subsequent order. 

Eligibility period means, for an 

individual, the period consisting of— 

(1) The weeks in the individual’s 

applicable benefit year which begin in 

an extended benefit period or high 

unemployment period, or for a single 

benefit year, the weeks in the benefit 

year which begin in more than one 

extended benefit period or high 

unemployment period, and 

(2) If the applicable benefit year ends 

within an extended benefit period or 

high unemployment period, any weeks 

thereafter which begin in such extended 

benefit period or high unemployment 

period, 

(3) An individual may not have more 

than one eligibility period for any one 

exhaustion of regular benefits, or carry 

over from one eligibility period to 

another any entitlement to extended 

compensation. 

Employed, for the purposes of section 

202(a)(3)(B)(ii) of the EUCA, and 

employment, for the purposes of section 

202(a)(4) of the EUCA, mean service 

performed in an employer-employee 

relationship as defined in the State law; 

and that law also shall govern whether 

that service must be covered by it, must 

consist of consecutive weeks, and must 

consist of more weeks of work than are 

required under section 202(a)(3)(B) of 

the EUCA. 

EUCA means the Federal-State 

Extended Unemployment Compensation 

Act of 1970, title II of Public Law 91– 

373, 84 Stat. 695, 708 (codified in note 

to 26 U.S.C. 3304), as amended. 

Extended benefit period means the 

weeks during which extended 

compensation is payable in a State in 

accordance with § 615.11. 

Extended Benefits Program or EB 

Program means the entire program 

under which monetary payments are 

made to workers who have exhausted 

their regular compensation during 

periods of high unemployment. 

Extended compensation or extended 

benefits means the funds payable to an 

individual for weeks of unemployment 

which begin in a regular EB period or 

high unemployment period (HUP), 

under those provisions of a State law 

which satisfy the requirements of EUCA 

and this part with respect to the 

payment of extended unemployment 

compensation, and, when so payable, 

includes compensation payable under 5 

U.S.C. chapter 85, but does not include 

regular compensation or additional 

compensation. 

Extended compensation account is 

the account established for each 

individual claimant for the payment of 

regular extended compensation or high 

unemployment extended compensation. 

Extended unemployment 

compensation means: 

(1) Regular extended compensation 

paid to an eligible individual under 

those provisions of a State law which 

are consistent with EUCA and this part, 

and that does not exceed the smallest of 

the following: 

(i) 50 percent of the total amount of 

regular compensation payable to the 

individual during the applicable benefit 

year; or 

(ii) 13 times the individual’s weekly 

amount of extended compensation 

payable for a week of total 

unemployment, as determined under 

§ 615.6(a); or 

(iii) 39 times the individual’s weekly 

benefit amount, referred to in paragraph 

(1)(ii) of this definition, reduced by the 

regular compensation paid (or deemed 

paid) to the individual during the 

applicable benefit year; or 

(2) High unemployment extended 

compensation paid to an eligible 

individual under an optional TUR 

indicator enacted under State law when 

the State is in a high unemployment 

period, in accordance with § 615.11(e) 

of this part, and that does not exceed the 

smallest of the following: 

(i) 80 percent of the total amount of 

regular compensation payable to the 

individual during the applicable benefit 

year; or 

(ii) 20 times the individual’s weekly 

amount of extended compensation 

payable for a week of total 

unemployment, as determined under 

§ 615.6(a); or 

(iii) 46 times the individual’s weekly 

benefit amount, referred to in paragraph 

(1)(ii) of this definition, reduced by the 

regular compensation paid (or deemed 

paid) to the individual during the 

applicable benefit year. 

Gross average weekly remuneration, 

for the purposes of section 

202(a)(3)(D)(i), means the remuneration 

offered for a week of work before any 

deductions for taxes or other purposes 

and, in case the offered pay may vary 

from week to week, it shall be 

determined on the basis of recent 

experience of workers performing work 

similar to the offered work for the 

employer who offered the work. 

High unemployment extended 

compensation means the benefits 

payable to an individual for weeks of 

unemployment which begin in a high 

unemployment period, under those 

provisions of a State law which satisfy 

the requirements of EUCA and this part 

for the payment of high unemployment 

extended compensation. When so 

payable, high unemployment extended 

compensation includes compensation 

payable under 5 U.S.C. chapter 85, but 

does not include regular compensation 

or additional compensation. Regular 

extended unemployment compensation, 

along with high unemployment 

extended compensation, are part of the 

program referred to in this part as 

Extended Benefits. 

High unemployment period (or HUP) 

means a period where the Department 

determines that the Trigger Value in a 

State, which has enacted the alternative 

Total Unemployment Rate indicator in 

law, for the most recent 3 months for 

which data for all States is published, 

equals or exceeds 8 percent and such 

Trigger Value equals or exceeds 110 

percent of such Trigger Value for either 

or both of the corresponding 3-month 

periods ending in the 2 preceding 

calendar years. 

Hospitalized for treatment of an 

emergency or life-threatening condition, 

as used in section 202(a)(3)(A)(ii), has 

the following meaning: ‘‘Hospitalized 

for treatment’’ means an individual was 

admitted to a hospital as an inpatient for 

medical treatment. Treatment is for an 

‘‘emergency or life threatening 

condition’’ if determined to be such by 

the hospital officials or attending 

physician that provide the treatment for 

a medical condition existing upon or 

arising after hospitalization. For 

purposes of this definition, the term 

‘‘medical treatment’’ refers to the 

application of any remedies which have 

the objective of effecting a cure of the 

emergency or life-threatening condition. 

Once an ‘‘emergency condition’’ or a 

‘‘life-threatening condition’’ has been 

determined to exist by the hospital 

officials or attending physician, the 

status of the individual as so 

determined shall remain unchanged 

until release from the hospital. 

Individual’s capabilities, for the 

purposes of section 202(a)(3)(C), means 

work which the individual has the 

physical and mental capacity to perform 

and which meets the minimum 

requirements of section 202(a)(3)(D). 

Insured Unemployment Rate means 

the percentage derived by dividing the 

average weekly number of individuals 

filing claims for regular compensation 

in a State for weeks of unemployment 

in the most recent 13-consecutive-week 

period as determined by the State on the 

basis of State reports to the United 

States Secretary of Labor by the average 

monthly employment covered under 

State law for the first 4 of the most 

recent 6 completed calendar quarters 

before the end of such 13-week period. 

Jury duty, for purposes of section 

202(a)(3)(A)(ii), means the performance 

of service as a juror, during all periods 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

57780 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

of time an individual is engaged in such 

service, in any court of a State or the 

United States pursuant to the law of the 

State or the United States and the rules 

of the court in which the individual is 

engaged in the performance of such 

service. 

Provisions of the applicable State law, 

as used in section 202(a)(3)(D)(iii) of 

EUCA, means that State law provisions 

must not be inconsistent with sections 

202(a)(3)(C) and 202(a)(3)(E). Therefore, 

decisions based on State law provisions 

must not require an individual to take 

a job which requires traveling an 

unreasonable distance to work, or which 

involves an unreasonable risk to the 

individual’s health, safety or morals. 

Such State law provisions must also 

include labor standards and training 

provisions required under sections 

3304(a)(5) and 3304(a)(8) of the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986 and section 

236(d) of the Trade Act of 1974. 

Reasonably short period, for the 

purposes of section 202(a)(3)(C), means 

the number of weeks provided by the 

applicable State law. 

Regular compensation means 

compensation payable to an individual 

under a State law, and, when so 

payable, includes compensation payable 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. chapter 85, but 

does not include extended 

compensation or additional 

compensation. 

Regular extended compensation 

means the benefits payable to an 

individual for weeks of unemployment 

which begin in an extended benefit 

period, under those provisions of a State 

law which satisfy the requirements of 

EUCA and this part for the payment of 

extended unemployment compensation, 

and, when so payable, includes 

compensation payable under 5 U.S.C. 

chapter 85, but does not include regular 

compensation or additional 

compensation. Regular extended 

compensation, along with high 

unemployment extended compensation, 

are part of the program referred to in 

this part as Extended Benefits. 

Regular EB period means a period in 

which a state is ‘‘on’’ the EB Program 

because either the mandatory or 

optional IUR indicator satisfies the 

criteria to be ‘‘on’’ and the state is not 

in a 13-week mandatory ‘‘off’’ period; or 

the State is ‘‘on’’ the EB Program 

because the TUR indicator’s Trigger 

Value is at least 6.5 percent and it is at 

least 110 percent of the Trigger Value 

for the comparable 3 months in either of 

the prior 2 years. 

Secretary means the Secretary of 

Labor of the United States. 

Sharable compensation means: 

(1) Extended compensation paid to an 

eligible individual under those 

provisions of a State law which are 

consistent with EUCA and this part, and 

that does not exceed the smallest of the 

following: 

(i) 50 percent of the total amount of 

regular compensation payable to the 

individual during the applicable benefit 

year; or 

(ii) 13 times the individual’s weekly 

amount of extended compensation 

payable for a week of total 

unemployment, as determined under 

§ 615.6(a); or 

(iii) 39 times the individual’s weekly 

benefit amount, referred to in paragraph 

(1)(ii) of this definition, reduced by the 

regular compensation paid (or deemed 

paid) to the individual during the 

applicable benefit year. 

(2) Extended compensation paid to an 

eligible individual under an optional 

TUR indicator enacted under State law 

when the State is in a high 

unemployment period, in accordance 

with § 615.12(f) of this part, and that 

does not exceed the smallest of the 

following: 

(i) 80 percent of the total amount of 

regular compensation payable to the 

individual during the applicable benefit 

year; or 

(ii) 20 times the individual’s weekly 

amount of extended compensation 

payable for a week of total 

unemployment, as determined under 

§ 615.6(a); or 

(iii) 46 times the individual’s weekly 

benefit amount, referred to in paragraph 

(1)(ii) of this definition, reduced by the 

regular compensation paid (or deemed 

paid) to the individual during the 

applicable benefit year. 

(3) Regular compensation paid to an 

eligible individual for weeks of 

unemployment in the individual’s 

eligibility period, but only to the extent 

that the sum of such compensation, plus 

the regular compensation paid (or 

deemed paid) to the individual for prior 

weeks of unemployment in the 

applicable benefit year, exceeds 26 

times and does not exceed 39 times the 

average weekly benefit amount 

(including allowances for dependents) 

for weeks of total unemployment 

payable to the individual under the 

State law in such benefit year: Provided, 

that such regular compensation is paid 

under provisions of a State law which 

are consistent with EUCA and this part. 

(4) Notwithstanding the preceding 

provisions of this paragraph, sharable 

compensation does not include any 

regular or extended compensation for 

which a State is not entitled to a 

payment under section 202(a)(6) or 204 

of EUCA or § 615.14 of this part. 

State means the States of the United 

States, the District of Columbia, the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the 

U. S. Virgin Islands. 

State agency means the State 

unemployment compensation agency of 

a State which administers the State law. 

State law means the unemployment 

compensation law of a State, approved 

by the Secretary under section 3304(a) 

of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

(26 U.S.C. 3304(a)). 

A systematic and sustained effort, for 

the purposes of section 202(a)(3)(E), 

means— 

(i) A high level of job search activity 

throughout the given week, compatible 

with the number of employers and 

employment opportunities in the labor 

market reasonably applicable to the 

individual, 

(ii) A plan of search for work 

involving independent efforts on the 

part of each individual which results in 

contacts with persons who have the 

authority to hire or which follows 

whatever hiring procedure is required 

by a prospective employer in addition to 

any search offered by organized public 

and private agencies such as the State 

employment service or union or private 

placement offices or hiring halls, 

(iii) Actions by the individual 

comparable to those actions by which 

jobs are being found by people in the 

community and labor market, but not 

restricted to a single manner of search 

for work such as registering with and 

reporting to the State employment 

service and union or private placement 

offices or hiring halls, in the same 

manner that such work is found by 

people in the community, 

(iv) A search not limited to 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, except that the 

individual, while classified by the State 

agency as provided in § 615.8(d) as 

having ‘‘good’’ job prospects, shall 

search for work that is suitable work 

under State law provisions which apply 

to claimants for regular compensation 

(which is not sharable), 

(v) A search by every claimant, 

without exception for individuals or 

classes of individuals other than those 

in approved training, as required under 

section 3304(a)(8) of the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986 or section 236(e) 

of the Trade Act of 1974, 

(vi) A search suspended only when 

severe weather conditions or other 

calamity forces suspension of such 

activities by most members of the 

community, except that 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 57781 

(vii) The individual, while classified 

by the State agency as provided in 

§ 615.8(d) as having ‘‘good’’ job 

prospects, if such individual normally 

obtains customary work through a 

hiring hall, shall search for work that is 

suitable work under State law 

provisions which apply to claimants for 

regular compensation (which is not 

sharable). 

Tangible evidence of an active search 

for work, for the purposes of section 

202(a)(3)(E), means a written record 

which can be verified, and which 

includes the actions taken, methods of 

applying for work, types of work sought, 

dates and places where work was 

sought, the name of the employer or 

person who was contacted and the 

outcome of the contact. 

Total Unemployment Rate means the 

number of unemployed individuals in a 

State (seasonally adjusted) divided by 

the civilian labor force (seasonally 

adjusted) in the State for the same 

period. 

Trigger Value or average rate of total 

unemployment means the ratio 

computed using 3 months of the level of 

seasonally adjusted unemployment in a 

State in the numerator and 3 months of 

the level of the seasonally adjusted 

civilian labor force in the State in the 

denominator. This rate is used for 

triggering States ‘‘on’’ and ‘‘off’’ the 

optional Total Unemployment Rate 

indicator as described in § 615.12(e). 

Week means: 

(1) For purposes of eligibility for and 

payment of extended compensation, a 

week as defined in the applicable State 

law. 

(2) For purposes of computation of 

extended compensation ‘‘on’’ and ‘‘off’’ 

and ‘‘no change’’ indicators and insured 

unemployment rates and the beginning 

and ending of an EB Period or a HUP, 

a calendar week. 

Week of unemployment means: 

(1) A week of total, part-total, or 

partial unemployment as defined in the 

applicable State law, which shall be 

applied in the same manner and to the 

same extent to the Extended Benefit 

Program as if the individual filing a 

claim for Extended Benefits were filing 

a claim for regular compensation, except 

as provided in paragraph (2) of this 

definition. 

(2) Week of unemployment in section 

202(a)(3)(A) of the EUCA means a week 

of unemployment, as defined in 

paragraph (1) of this definition, for 

which the individual claims Extended 

Benefits or sharable regular benefits. 

■ 5. Amend § 615.3 by revising the third 

sentence to read as follows: 

§ 615.3 Effective period of the program. 

* * * Conformity with EUCA and 

this part in the payment of regular 

compensation, regular extended 

compensation, and high unemployment 

extended compensation (if State law so 

provides) to any individual is a 

continuing requirement, applicable to 

every week as a condition of a State’s 

entitlement to payment for any 

compensation as provided in EUCA and 

this part. 

■ 6. Amend § 615.7 by adding paragraph 

(b)(3) and revising paragraph (d) 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 615.7 Extended Benefits; maximum 

amount. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) If State law provides, in 

accordance with § 615.12(e), for a high 

unemployment period for weeks of 

unemployment beginning after March 6, 

1993, the provisions of paragraph (b)(1) 

of this section are applied by 

substituting: 

(i) 80 percent for 50 percent in 

(b)(1)(i), 

(ii) 20 for 13 in (b)(1)(ii), and 

(iii) 46 for 39 in (b)(1)(iii). 

Note to paragraph (b)(3). Provided, that if 

an individual’s extended compensation 

account is determined in accordance with the 

provisions of paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through 

(b)(3)(iii) (for a ‘‘high unemployment period’’ 

as defined in § 615.2) during the individual’s 

eligibility period, upon termination of the 

high unemployment period, such 

individual’s account must be reduced by the 

amount in the account that is more than the 

maximum amount of extended compensation 

or high extended compensation payable to 

the individual. Provided further, if the 

account balance is equal to or less than the 

maximum amount of extended compensation 

or high unemployment extended 

compensation payable, there will be no 

reduction in the account balance upon 

termination of a high unemployment period. 

In no case will the individual receive more 

regular extended compensation or high 

unemployment extended compensation than 

the amount determined in accordance with 

paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iii) of this 

section, nor more extended compensation or 

high unemployment extended compensation 

than as provided in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) 

through (iii) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(d) Reduction because of trade 

readjustment allowances. Section 233(c) 

of the Trade Act of 1974 (and section 

204(a)(2)(C) of EUCA), requiring a 

reduction of extended compensation 

because of the receipt of trade 

readjustment allowances, must be 

applied as follows: 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Amend § 615.8 by revising 

paragraphs (e)(5)(iii), (f)(2)(i) and (iii), 

and (h)(3) and (4) to read as follows: 

§ 615.8 Provisions of State law applicable 

to claims. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(5) * * * 

(iii) The work pays less than the 

higher of the minimum wage set in 

section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act of 1938, or any applicable 

State or local minimum wage, without 

regard to any exemption elsewhere in 

those laws, or 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) The gross average weekly 

remuneration for the work for any week 

does not exceed the sum of the 

individual’s weekly benefit amount plus 

any supplemental unemployment 

compensation benefits (as defined in 

section 501(c)(17)(D) of the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986) payable to the 

individual, 

* * * * * 

(iii) The work pays less than the 

higher of the minimum wage set in 

section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act of 1938, or any applicable 

State or local minimum wage, without 

regard to any exemption elsewhere in 

those laws, or 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(3) What kind of jobs he/she must be 

actively engaged in seeking each week 

depending on the classification of his/ 

her job prospects, and what tangible 

evidence of such search must be 

furnished to the State agency with each 

claim for benefits. In addition, the State 

must inform the claimant that he/she is 

required to apply for and accept suitable 

work, and 

(4) The resulting disqualification if 

he/she fails to apply for work to which 

referred, or fails to accept work offered, 

or fails to actively engage in seeking 

work or to furnish tangible evidence of 

such search for each week for which 

extended compensation or sharable 

regular benefits is claimed, beginning 

with the week following the week in 

which such information shall be 

furnished in writing to the individual. 

■ 8. Revise § 615.11 to read as follows: 

§ 615.11 Extended Benefit Periods. 

(a) Beginning date. Except as provided 

in paragraph (d) of this section, an 

extended benefit period or high 

unemployment period begins in a State 

on the first day of the third calendar 

week after a week for which there is a 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

57782 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

State ‘‘on’’ indicator in that State under 

either § 615.12(a) or (b). 

(b) Ending date. Except as provided in 

paragraphs (c) and (e) of this section, an 

extended benefit period or high 

unemployment period in a State ends 

on the last day of the third week after 

the first week for which there is a State 

‘‘off’’ indicator in that State, unless 

another indicator is in ‘‘on’’ status. 

(c) Duration. When an extended 

benefit period and/or high 

unemployment period becomes effective 

in any State, or triggers ‘‘off,’’ the 

attained status must continue in effect 

for not less than 13 consecutive weeks. 

(d) Limitation. No extended benefit 

period or high unemployment period 

may begin or end in any State before the 

most recent week for which data used 

to trigger the State ‘‘on’’ or ‘‘off’’ or ‘‘no 

change’’ indicator has been published. 

(e) Specific applications of the 13- 

week rule. (1) If a State concludes a 13- 

week mandatory ‘‘on’’ period by virtue 

of the IUR indicator which, at the end 

of the 13-week period no longer satisfies 

the requirements for a State to be ‘‘on,’’ 

the extended benefit period continues if 

the TUR indicator is ‘‘on’’ during the 

11th week of the 13-week mandatory 

‘‘on’’ period. 

(2) If a State concludes a 13-week 

mandatory ‘‘on’’ period by virtue of the 

TUR indicator which, at the end of the 

13-week period no longer satisfies the 

requirements for a State to be ‘‘on,’’ the 

extended benefit period continues if the 

IUR indicator is ‘‘on’’ during the 11th 

week of the 13-week mandatory ‘‘on’’ 

period. 

(f) Determining if a State remains 

‘‘off’’ as a result of a total 

unemployment rate indicator after the 

13-week mandatory ‘‘off’’ period ends. 

(1) The State remains ‘‘off’’ if there is 

not an IUR ‘‘on’’ indicator the 11th week 

of the 13-week mandatory ‘‘off’’ period, 

and there is a TUR ‘‘off’’ indicator for 

the third week before the last week of 

the 13-week mandatory ‘‘off’’ period. 

■ 9. Amend § 615.12 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (2); 

■ b. Adding paragraph (d)(3); 

■ c. Redesignating paragraph (e) as 

paragraph (f) and revising it; and 

■ d. Adding new paragraph (e). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 615.12 Determination of ‘‘on’’ and ‘‘off’’ 

indicators. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) Any determination by the head of 

a State agency of an ‘‘on’’ or ‘‘off’’ or ‘‘no 

change’’ IUR indicator may not be 

corrected more than three weeks after 

the close of the week to which it 

applies. If any figure used in the 

computation of a rate of insured 

unemployment is later found to be 

wrong, the correct figure must be used 

to redetermine the rate of insured 

unemployment and the 120 percent 

factor for that week and all later weeks, 

but no determination of previous ‘‘on’’ 

or ‘‘off’’ or ‘‘no change’’ indicator shall 

be affected unless the redetermination is 

made within the time the indicator may 

be corrected under the first sentence of 

this paragraph (d)(1). Any change is 

subject to the concurrence of the 

Department as provided in paragraph (e) 

of this section. 

(2) The initial release of the TUR by 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is 

subject to revision. However, once a 

State’s TUR indicator is determined 

using the initial release of the TUR data, 

it is not subject to revision even if the 

BLS TUR for that period of time is 

revised. 

(3) The ‘‘on’’ period under a State’s 

optional IUR or TUR indicator may not 

begin before the later of the date of the 

State’s adoption of the optional insured 

unemployment rate or total 

unemployment rate indicator, or the 

effective date of that enactment. The 

‘‘off’’ period under a State’s optional 

insured unemployment rate or total 

unemployment rate indicator may not 

occur until after the effective date of the 

repeal of the optional insured 

unemployment rate or total 

unemployment rate indicator from State 

law. 

(e) Other optional indicators. (1) A 

State may, as an option, in addition to 

the State indicators in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section, provide by its 

law that there is a State ‘‘on’’ or ‘‘off’’ 

indicator in the State for a week if we 

determine that— 

(i) The Trigger Value in such State 

computed using the most recent 3 

months for which data for all States are 

published before the close of such week 

equals or exceeds 6.5 percent; and 

(ii) The Trigger Value computed using 

data from the 3-month period referred to 

in paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section 

equals or exceeds 110 percent of the 

Trigger Value for either (or both) of the 

corresponding 3-month periods ending 

in the 2 preceding calendar years. This 

‘‘look-back’’ is computed by dividing 

the Trigger Value by the same measure 

for the corresponding 3 months in each 

of the applicable prior years, and the 

resulting decimal fraction is rounded to 

the hundredths place, multiplied by 100 

and reported as an integer and 

compared to the statutory threshold to 

help determine the State’s EB Program 

status; and 

(iii) There is a State ‘‘off’’ indicator for 

a week if either the requirements of 

paragraph (e)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section 

are not satisfied. 

(2) Where a State adopts the optional 

indicator under paragraph (e)(1) of this 

section, there is a State ‘‘on’’ indicator 

for a high unemployment period (as 

defined in § 615.2) under State law if— 

(i) The Trigger Value in the State 

computed using the most recent 3 

months for which data for all States are 

published before the close of such week 

equals or exceeds 8.0 percent, and 

(ii) The Trigger Value in the State 

computed using data from the 3-month 

period referred to in paragraph (e)(2)(i) 

of this section equals or exceeds 110 

percent of the Trigger Value for either 

(or both) of the corresponding 3-month 

periods ending in the 2 preceding 

calendar years. This ‘‘look-back’’ is 

computed by dividing the Trigger Value 

by the same measure for the 

corresponding 3 months in each of the 

applicable prior years, and the resulting 

decimal fraction is rounded to the 

hundredths place, multiplied by 100 

and reported as an integer and 

compared to the statutory threshold to 

help determine the State’s EB Program 

status; and 

(iii) There is a State ‘‘off’’ indicator for 

high unemployment period for a week 

if either the requirements of paragraph 

(e)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section are not 

satisfied. 

(3) Method of computing the average 

rate of total unemployment. The average 

rate of total unemployment is computed 

by dividing the average of 3 months of 

the level of seasonally adjusted 

unemployment in the State by the 

average of 3 months of the level of 

seasonally adjusted unemployment and 

employment in the State. The resulting 

rate is multiplied by 100 to convert it to 

a percentage basis and then rounded to 

the tenths place (the first digit to the 

right of the decimal place). 

(4) Method of computing the State 

’’look-back.’’ The average rate of total 

unemployment, ending with a given 

month, is divided by the same measure 

for the corresponding 3 months in each 

of the applicable prior years. The 

resultant decimal fraction is then 

rounded to the hundredths place (the 

second digit to the right of the decimal 

place). The resulting number is then 

multiplied by 100 and reported as an 

integer (no decimal places) and 

compared to the statutory threshold to 

help determine the State’s EB Program 

status. 

(f) Notice to Secretary. Within 10 

calendar days after the end of any week 

for which the head of a State agency has 

determined that there is an ‘‘on,’’ or 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 57783 

‘‘off,’’ or ‘‘no change’’ IUR indicator in 

the State, the head of the State agency 

must notify the Secretary of the 

determination. The notice must state 

clearly the State agency head’s 

determination of the specific week for 

which there is a State ‘‘on’’ or ‘‘off’’ or 

‘‘no change’’ indicator. The notice must 

include also the State agency head’s 

findings supporting the determination, 

with a certification that the findings are 

made in accordance with the 

requirements of § 615.15. The Secretary 

may provide additional instructions for 

the contents of the notice to assure the 

correctness and verification of notices 

given under this paragraph. The 

Secretary will accept determinations 

and findings made in accordance with 

the provisions of this paragraph and of 

any instructions issued under this 

paragraph. A notice does not become 

final for purposes of EUCA and this part 

until the Secretary accepts the notice. 

■ 10. Revise § 615.13 to read as follows: 

§ 615.13 Announcement of the Beginning 

and Ending of Extended Benefit Periods or 

High Unemployment Periods. 

(a) State indicators—(1) Extended 

benefit period. Upon receipt of a notice 

required by § 615.12(f) which the 

Department determines is acceptable, 

the Department will publish in the 

Federal Register a notice of the State 

agency head’s determination that there 

is an ‘‘on’’ or an ‘‘off’’ indicator in the 

State, as the case may be, the name of 

the State and the beginning or ending of 

the extended benefit period, or high 

unemployment period, whichever is 

appropriate. If an ‘‘on’’ or ‘‘off’’ EB 

period is determined by the Department 

to be based on a State’s TUR Trigger 

Value, the Department publishes that 

information in the Federal Register as 

well. 

(2) Notification. The Department also 

notifies the heads of all other State 

agencies, and the Regional 

Administrators of the Employment and 

Training Administration of the State 

agency head’s determination of the State 

‘‘on’’ or ‘‘off’’ indicator for an extended 

benefit period, or high unemployment 

period (based on the insured 

unemployment rate in the State), or of 

the Department’s determination of an 

‘‘on’’ or ‘‘off’’ indicator (based on the 

total unemployment rate in a State) for 

an extended benefit period or high 

unemployment period and of the 

indicator’s effect. 

(b) Publicity by State. (1) Whenever a 

State agency head determines that there 

is an ‘‘on’’ indicator in the State by 

reason of which an extended benefit 

period (based on the insured 

unemployment rate in the State) will 

begin in the State, or an ‘‘off’’ indicator 

by reason of which an extended benefit 

period in the State (based on the insured 

unemployment rate) will end, the head 

of the State agency must promptly 

announce the determination through 

appropriate news media in the State 

after the Department accepts notice from 

the agency head in accordance the 

615.12(f). 

(2) Whenever the head of a State 

agency receives notification from the 

Department in accordance with 

§ 615.12(f) that there is an ‘‘on’’ 

indicator by reason of which an 

extended benefit period or high 

unemployment period (based on the 

total unemployment rate in the State) 

will begin in the State, or an ‘‘off’’ 

indicator by reason of which a regular 

extended benefit period or high 

unemployment period (based on the 

total unemployment rate) will end, the 

head of the State agency must promptly 

announce the determination through the 

appropriate news media in the State. 

(3) Announcements made in 

accordance with paragraphs (b)(1) or 

(b)(2) of this section must include the 

beginning or ending date of the 

extended benefit period or high 

unemployment period, whichever is 

appropriate. In the case of a regular EB 

period or high unemployment period 

that is about to begin, the 

announcement must describe clearly the 

unemployed individuals who may be 

eligible for extended compensation or 

high extended compensation during the 

period, and in the case of a regular EB 

period or high unemployment period 

that is about to end, the announcement 

must also describe clearly the 

individuals whose entitlement to 

extended compensation or high 

extended compensation will be 

terminated. If a high unemployment 

period is ending, but an extended 

benefit period will remain ‘‘on,’’ the 

announcement must clearly state that 

fact and the effect on entitlement to 

extended compensation. 

(c) Notice to individuals. (1) 

Whenever there has been a 

determination that a regular extended 

benefit period or high unemployment 

period will begin in a State, the State 

agency must provide prompt written 

notice of potential entitlement to 

Extended Benefits to each individual 

who has established a benefit year in the 

State that will not end before the 

beginning of the regular extended 

benefit period or high unemployment 

period, and who exhausted all rights 

under the State law to regular 

compensation before the beginning of 

the regular extended benefit period or 

high unemployment period. 

(2) The State agency must provide the 

notice promptly to each individual who 

begins to claim sharable regular benefits 

or who exhausts all rights under the 

State law to regular compensation 

during a regular extended benefit period 

or high unemployment period, 

including exhaustion by reason of the 

expiration of the individual’s benefit 

year. 

(3) The notices required by 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section 

must describe the actions required of 

claimants for sharable regular 

compensation and extended 

compensation and those 

disqualifications which apply to the 

benefits which are different from those 

applicable to other claimants for regular 

compensation which is not sharable. 

(4) Whenever there is a determination 

that a regular extended benefit period or 

high unemployment period will end in 

a State, the State agency must provide 

prompt written notice to each 

individual who is currently filing claims 

for extended compensation of the 

forthcoming end of the regular extended 

benefit period or high unemployment 

period and its effect on the individual’s 

right to extended compensation. 

■ 11. Amend § 615.14 by revising 

paragraph (c)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 615.14 Payments to States. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(4) As provided in section 204(a)(2)(C) 

of EUCA, for any week in which 

extended compensation is not payable 

because of the payment of trade 

readjustment allowances, as provided in 

section 233(c) of the Trade Act of 1974, 

and § 615.7(d). 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Revise § 615.15 to read as follows: 

§ 615.15 Records and reports. 

(a) General. State agencies must 

furnish to the Secretary such 

information and reports and make such 

studies as the Secretary decides are 

necessary or appropriate for carrying out 

the purposes of this part. 

(b) Recordkeeping. Each State agency 

must make and maintain records 

pertaining to the administration of the 

Extended Benefit Program as the 

Department requires, and must make all 

such records available for inspection, 

examination and audit by such Federal 

officials or employees as the Department 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

57784 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

may designate or as may be required by 

law. 

Portia Wu 

Assistant Secretary for Employment and 

Training. 

[FR Doc. 2016–18382 Filed 8–23–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FW–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

21 CFR Parts 1, 11, 16, 106, 110, 111, 

112, 114, 117, 120, 123, 129, 179, 211, 

and 507 

[Docket Nos. FDA–2011–N–0920, FDA– 

2011–N–0921, FDA–2011–N–0922, FDA– 

2011–N–0143] 

RIN 0910–AG10, 0910–AG35, 0910–AG36, 

0910–AG64 

The Food and Drug Administration 

Food Safety Modernization Act; 

Extension and Clarification of 

Compliance Dates for Certain 

Provisions of Four Implementing Rules 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Final rule; extension and 

clarification of compliance dates for 

certain provisions. 

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA or we) is 

extending the dates for compliance with 

certain provisions in four final rules. We 

are extending the compliance dates to 

address concerns about the practicality 

of compliance with certain provisions, 

consider changes to the regulatory text, 

and better align compliance dates across 

the rules. In addition, we are clarifying 

certain compliance dates in the 

Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, 

Packing, and Holding of Produce for 

Human Consumption rule. 

DATES: This final rule is effective August 

24, 2016. See sections III.C, IV.A.2, IV.B, 

and V through VIII for the extended 

compliance dates. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

For questions relating to Current Good 

Manufacturing Practice, Hazard 

Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive 

Controls for Human Food: Jenny Scott, 

Center for Food Safety and Applied 

Nutrition (HFS–300), Food and Drug 

Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., 

College Park, MD 20740, 240–402–2166. 

For questions relating to Current Good 

Manufacturing Practice, Hazard 

Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive 

Controls for Food for Animals: Jeanette 

Murphy, Center for Veterinary Medicine 

(HFV–200), Food and Drug 

Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., 

Rockville, MD 20855, 240–402–6246. 

For questions relating to Foreign 

Supplier Verification Programs for 

Importers of Food for Humans and 

Animals: Rebecca Buckner, Office of 

Food and Veterinary Medicine, Food 

and Drug Administration, 10903 New 

Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 

20993–0002, 301–796–4576. 

For questions relating to Standards 

for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, 

and Holding of Produce for Human 

Consumption: Samir Assar, Center for 

Food Safety and Applied Nutrition 

(HFS–317), Food and Drug 

Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., 

College Park, MD 20740, 240–402–1636. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background: The Four Related Rules 

Implementing the FDA Food Safety 

Modernization Act 

This extension and clarification of 

compliance dates concerns four of the 

seven foundational rules that we have 

established in Title 21 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (21 CFR) as part of 

our implementation of the FDA Food 

Safety Modernization Act (FSMA; Pub. 

L. 111–353). The four final rules are 

entitled ‘‘Current Good Manufacturing 

Practice, Hazard Analysis, and RiskBased Preventive Controls for Human 

Food’’ (published in the Federal 

Register of September 17, 2015, 80 FR 

55908) (http://www.fda.gov/fsma); 

‘‘Current Good Manufacturing Practice, 

Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based 

Preventive Controls for Food for 

Animals’’ (published in the Federal 

Register of September 17, 2015, 80 FR 

51670) (http://www.fda.gov/fsma); 

‘‘Foreign Supplier Verification Programs 

for Importers of Food for Humans and 

Animals’’ (published in the Federal 

Register of November 27, 2015, 80 FR 

74226) (http://www.fda.gov/fsma); and 

‘‘Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, 

Packing, and Holding of Produce for 

Human Consumption’’ (published in the 

Federal Register of November 27, 2015, 

80 FR 74354) (http://www.fda.gov/ 

fsma). 

In part 117 (21 CFR part 117), we have 

established our regulation entitled 

‘‘Current Good Manufacturing Practice, 

Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based 

Preventive Controls for Human Food’’ 

(80 FR 55908, September 17, 2015). 

Among other things, the rulemaking to 

establish part 117 amended our current 

good manufacturing practice (CGMP) 

regulation for manufacturing, packing, 

or holding human food to modernize it 

and establish it in new part 117, 

subparts A, B, and F. Part 117 also 

includes new requirements for domestic 

and foreign facilities that are required to 

register under section 415 of the Federal 

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the 

FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 350d) in subparts 

A, C, D, E, F, and G to establish and 

implement hazard analysis and riskbased preventive controls for human 

food (the human food preventive 

controls requirements). In the preamble 

of the final rule establishing part 117, 

we stated that the rule is effective 

November 16, 2015, and provided for 

compliance dates of 1 to 3 years from 

the date of publication in most cases 

(see table 53 in the preamble of the final 

rule establishing part 117, 80 FR 55908 

at 56128). In the rulemaking to establish 

part 117, we also amended the ‘‘farm’’ 

definition in our regulations 

implementing section 415 of the FD&C 

Act (the section 415 registration 

regulation; 21 CFR part 1, subpart H) to 

clarify the scope of the exemption from 

registration requirements provided for 

‘‘farms’’ and, in so doing, to clarify 

which human food establishments are 

subject to the human food preventive 

controls requirements, and which 

human food establishments are exempt 

from those requirements because they 

are ‘‘farms.’’ 

In part 507 (21 CFR part 507), we have 

established our regulation entitled 

‘‘Current Good Manufacturing Practice, 

Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based 

Preventive Controls for Food for 

Animals’’ (80 FR 56170, September 17, 

2015). Among other things, the 

rulemaking to establish part 507 

established new requirements for 

CGMPs in subparts A, B, and F (CGMP 

requirements) and also established 

requirements for hazard analysis and 

risk-based preventive controls for food 

for animals in subparts A, C, D, E, and 

F (the animal food preventive controls 

requirements). The part 507 

requirements apply to domestic and 

foreign facilities that are required to 

register under the section 415 

registration regulation and, thus, the 

‘‘farm’’ definition that we amended as 

part of the rulemaking to establish part 

117 also clarifies which animal food 

establishments are subject to the part 

507 requirements, and which animal 

food establishments are exempt from 

those requirements because they are 

‘‘farms.’’ In the preamble of the final 

rule establishing part 507, we stated that 

the rule is effective November 16, 2015 

(80 FR 56170). We provided for 

compliance dates of 1 to 3 years from 

the date of publication in most cases for 

compliance with the CGMP 

requirements, with an additional year 

beyond that for compliance with the 

animal food preventive controls 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES