Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

Background: The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is asking for assistance from Federal, State, and local agencies in informing potentially eligible individuals about the Earned Income Credit (EIC) and the Advanced Earned Income Credit (AEIC). Tax year 1993 The EIC is a tax benefit for working families with at least one child and income of less than $23,050 in tax year 1993. Eligible families can receive an EIC of as much as $2,364. The EIC is claimed by filing a Federal income tax return and a form called Schedule EIC. Even families whose incomes are so low that they do not owe Federal income tax can get the credit. For most persons, such returns must be filed by April 15, 1994. There are three parts to the 1993 EIC. The first part is the basic EIC for families with one child and is worth a maximum of $1,434 in 1993. For families with more than one child, the basic EIC is worth up to $1,511. The amount of the credit varies according to family income level. The second part is that families with a child born in 1993 can receive an extra EIC benefit of up to $388. The third part is that families that pay at least part of the premiums for a health insurance policy that includes coverage for a child may receive an extra benefit of up to $465. Families that qualify for both the basic EIC and extra credits can receive up to $2,364 for 1993. EIC Amendments Significant changes were enacted in August 1993 that will expand and simplify the EIC. These changes, which are effective for tax year 1994, provide most eligible families with a significantly larger benefit while very low-income workers without children will become eligible for the first time. The new law simplifies the EIC by eliminating the extra credits for families paying health insurance premiums for a child and for families with a child under age one. This revision is to be phased in over 3 years. For 1994, families with one child may receive a maximum benefit of $2,038 and with 2 or more children a maximum benefit of $2,528. For 1996 and years after, families with one child may receive a maximum benefit of $2,040 and with 2 or more children a maximum benefit of $3,370. Advance Payment Option There is a provision in the EIC under which workers can obtain "advance payments." A recent survey indicates that only about 10 percent of eligible workers were aware of this option. It is obtained by filing a W-5 form, called the "Earned Income Credit Advance Payment Certificate," with an employer. The employee would then receive EIC payments in each paycheck. Beginning in 1994, eligible families can receive up to 60 percent of the basic EIC to which they are entitled by paycheck. This could mean as much as $100 more a month for those entitled to the maximum credit. At the end of the year, they would file a Federal income tax return and Schedule EIC to claim the remainder. Program Implications: The Earned Income Credit has significant implications for eligible individuals in employment and training programs. It can increase the resources of EIC eligible participants. As discussed above, persons who receive EIC advance payments can receive up to 60 percent of the EIC as part of their regular wage payments. Since the EIC amounts will increase in future years, through 1996, it will be of increasing benefit to persons who continue to be eligible. Please note that funds received under the EIC are not "income" for Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) purposes and are not considered in determining eligibility for JTPA. Providing EIC information to customers: Because the EIC can provide important financial assistance to eligible families, local JTPA service providers, State Employment Service (ES) offices and Unemployment Insurance (UI) offices should encourage individuals to apply for the credit. This is particularly important for individuals who may not otherwise file a Federal income tax return because of low earnings. A person must file to receive EIC even if he or she does not owe tax. Information on the EIC and the AEIC can routinely be provided as part of the JTPA intake and assessment process, ES application or UI initial claims filing so that potentially eligible individuals may be made aware of the benefits of this credit and the process to obtain the credit. The IRS expects to have publicity posters and information pamphlets available for distribution about mid-April. Agencies that wish to obtain posters for display in local offices should contact the IRS office in their State regarding availability. In addition, ETA staff is continuing to work with the IRS National Office to obtain material which employment and training offices can distribute to individuals. It is always important to recognize that detailed responses to questions about eligibility for the credit, the filing process, and other information should be referred to the IRS. Employment and Training offices should not be or appear to be providing tax advice or services. Action: State JTPA Liaisons, Workers Adjustment Liaisons, and SESA Administrators should assure that customers receive the EIC information, as appropriate.

Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

Reference. Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) Section 165 (a)(2). Background. The Employment and Training Administration conducted an agency wide review of its reporting systems to assess and improve the quality and usefulness of program information. At its Denver meeting last June, the INA Advisory Council unanimously approved a motion that the Department develop an automated reporting system for the INA program. A subcommittee (see attachment) was formed to work with the Department in redesigning the current INA reporting system. In September, the subcommittee met and discussed over several days what information should be reported for the purposes of informing Congress and the public about INA programs, the scope and breadth of its services and the client benefits that result from program participation. A guiding principle throughout the discussion was to limit the amount of new information that grantees would need to collect and to simplify the way current information is being collected and reported. An ADP contractor also participated in the session to determine potential ADP shortcomings. The group recommended that user friendly software be developed for grantee use not only in producing the needed information for the Department, but also in providing management feedback. On November 5, the subcommittee members presented their recommendations to the INA Advisory Council. The Department outlined its rationale for changing the way grantees now report information and the subcommittee discussed the main features of this automated system. In advance of this meeting, Advisory Council members were sent copies of the record format proposing what participant information was to be collected by each grantee and reported to the Department's contractor. The Advisory Council unanimously adopted the subcommittee report and proposed format, authorizing further work with the Department in developing the new reporting system for INA programs. The Department is now distributing the subcommittee report and other relevant information, including the proposed record format and accompanying instructions, to the entire grantee community for public comment and reaction. Samples of analytical reports that will be available once the system is operational are also provided. The material transmitted with this Bulletin represents the latest version of the proposed INA reporting system and fully reflects the INA subcommittee recommendations. All earlier versions of forms, instructions, etc., should be disregarded. Rationale for the Proposed Reporting System. The current reporting system for the INA program requires grantees to provide descriptive information about their programs including demographic characteristics of participants, and quarterly enrollments by training category, as well as aggregate information on employment and/or enhancements achieved through program participation. These annual reports require grantees to aggregate data from individual participant records either manually or electronically; and some items, such as average weeks in training, involve complicated, multi-step computations. The high rate of reporting errors confirms the need to simplify INA program reporting. Requesting that grantees submit data on individuals rather than program totals will reduce the likelihood of reporting errors, by eliminating the need for grantees to do additional computations. It will also simplify the reporting process to a "paperless" electronic data transmission where feasible. Over the years, numerous grantees have been critical of the program's performance standards for not being more responsive to differences among grantees in their program emphases, delivery systems and labor markets, i.e., what employment, advanced training and education opportunities are achievable through program participation. Without knowing the scope and intensity of training and support services provided, or more detailed information on the kind of employment and wages obtained, the Department has a limited basis for making further refinements to the performance standards or adjusting standards for different client needs. Reporting information on individuals rather than programs, from the grantees' perspective, will provide an unprecedented opportunity to identify and analyze what are reasonable program outcomes for large vs small grantees, more urbanized vs. remote communities, on-reservation vs. off-reservations, and differing service mixes and program emphases such as direct placements, or remedial education, or vocational skills training or combinations of all of these. From the standpoint of program accountability, these data will provide the Department of Labor more complete and timely information which can be used to better answer questions about program accomplishments from other overseers, most notably the Congress. This is critical in terms of justifying and protecting future program funding in a time of budget constraints. Proposed features of INA Automated Reporting. Data will be reported only on those individuals who started to receive training or services after assessment through program completion. No postprogram information will be collected. Records will be reported on all program computers (terminees) within a given program year. DOL will consider the practical implications of reporting on a-11 participants (currently enrolled and terminees), once an automation capability assessment is completed. Individual records will be reported instead of summary data. Data on terminees will be submitted on a quarterly basis. Data can be received in any of the following ways: diskette, mainframe tape, modem and hard copy (as a last resort). The DOL data management contractor will provide both a program for data entry and a format for those grantees sending hard copy. Grantees and other interested parties approved by DOL will eventually be able to access the database, but in the interim, routine reports will be produced in hard copy. Individual records themselves will have a grantee-assigned identifier, not a social security number or name. Individual records will not be accessible to other grantees. The record will include data previously reported participant characteristics, training and services provided (typically maintained while a participant is enrolled in the program), and outcomes (similar to what has been required previously). Financial data will be reported separately. It is not practical to report costs by individual participants. By PY 1995, this reporting system will replace current quarterly and annual program reports. New Data Collection Items. Rather than recording average weeks in training (for training that lasted more than 12 hours per week), grantees will report actual hours spent in each of the following worksite activities: OJT, work experience, and community service employment. Grantees will also report: a. the dates when occupational/vocational classroom training began and ended for the individual and whether it resulted in a certificate completion from the academic facility. b. the dates when basic skills training began and ended for the individual and whether it resulted in a documented learning gain (e.g., improvement in test scores). An occupational code for each placement job will be reported. The Department of Labor will provide extensive technical assistance on coding job placement occupations using both nine-digit Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) codes and five-digit Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) codes. In addition, DOL will compile a reference list of occupations (and their nine-digit DOT codes) -- including those relevant to the Indian and Native American culture -- in which participants are most likely to be placed and a "look-up" description of the occupational activity. More detailed breakouts on specific support services received and reasons for leaving the program are also being sought to capture the broad range of support services that participants need and whether people leave the program for reasons within or outside the control of the program. Technical Assistance. Grantee computer capabilities will be initially identified by the California Indian Manpower Consortium, a grantee currently conducting a "computer hardware" survey for DINAP. From these survey results, the most cost effective data transmission method will be identified for each grantee. Training on the new reporting format will begin in the spring of 1994. Other forms of technical assistance will be available on an as-needed basis, including telephone support "hotline", written guidance, (i.e., reporting and coding instructions), site visits to individual grantees, and data input software. Implementation Schedule. Pilot the new reporting system beginning July 1, 1994, giving grantees option to either send in terminee data in new file format on a quarterly basis throughout PY 1994 or continue with previous quarterly program status reports and annual status reports. Those grantees that opt to send in terminee data in new uniform file format will have other non-financial quarterly and annual reports waived. Extensive training on new system throughout 1994, contractor software for grantee data entry to be developed during this period. Initiate new reporting system beginning July 1, 1995. Action Required. Native American Section 401 grantees are requested to: a. Review the attached proposed reporting format and instructions, and the proposed implementation schedule; and b. Provide comments by no later than April 1 to: U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Development ATTENTION: Norris Tyler, Rm. N5637 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20210 Inquiries. Questions should be directed to Karen Greene on (202) 219-8680, extension 101, or Norris Tyler on (202) 219-6485, extension 138.

Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

References: Title I of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 1991, as amended by P.L. 102-318;the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended by P.L. 102-318; GAL 12-92; UIPL 9-92 and Changes; UIPL 45-92; 20 CFR Part 615; ET Handbook 392; ET Handbook 399. Background: Public Law 102-318 amended several sections of the EUC Act of 1991 and the EUCA. No new claims may be filed under the EUC program after March 6, 1993 and the program is scheduled to end on June 19, 1993 (The dates in Section 102(f)(1) and (2) and 106(a)(2), EUC Act of 1991, are expected to be changed by future legislation). However, the suspension of the eligibility and requalification requirements of Section 202(a)(3) and (4) of EUCA that apply to claims for EUC effective with weeks of unemployment beginning after March 6, 1993, requires the determination and payment of EUC differently during the remaining period of the program. The effect of the suspension of these requirements on the eligibility of previously disqualified claimants makes necessary an additional claimant notification of potential eligibility. The modification to Section 101(e) of the EUC Act of 1991, which terminates the Governor's election of an extended benefit (EB) "off" trigger, also provides that individuals eligible under both the EB and EUC programs shall be paid for weeks beginning after March 6, 1993, under the program where the greater entitlement exists (The dates of this provision are expected to change if the EUC program is extended). This requirement necessitates special handling of such claims to determine the appropriate program for payment. All changes to the EUC Act of 1991 and the EUCA as they affect the determination of claims and payment of benefits for weeks beginning after March 6 are addressed in this directive. Controlling Guidance: The provisions of P.L. 102-318, as interpreted in these EUC and EB operating instructions and prior operating instructions (to the extent that they are not inconsistent with these instructions), issued by this Department constitute the controlling guidance provided by the Department of Labor. A. Phaseout of EUC Program. Section 101(c) of Public Law 102- 318 amended Section 102(f)(2) of the EUC Act of 1991 to provide that no payments of benefits will be made under the EUC program for any week beginning after March 6, 1993, except that, benefits will continue to be payable to individuals, for weeks of unemployment beginning between March 6 and June 19, 1993, that have established an EUC account prior to March 6, 1993 (The dates of this provision will change if the EUC program is extended). Therefore, no new EUC claims can be filed after March 6 and only those claimants with an existing EUC claim (or who were eligible to establish an EUC claim), effective prior to March 6, may file an EUC claim for weeks beginning after March 6 and before June 19, 1993. However, under no circumstances will any payments of EUC be made for weeks ending after June 19, 1993. (1) Applicable Benefit Year for EUC. An individual with an existing EUC claim, based on a prior benefit year, will cease to have rights to EUC based on the prior benefit year, when the current benefit year ends. When the current benefit year ends, the prior benefit year upon which the claimant's EUC was based ceases to be the "applicable benefit year" for EUC purposes. Therefore, when such an individual's benefit year ends on or after March 6, 1993, the claimant will have no further rights to EUC as no new EUC claim may be filed after March 6. Hence, if an EB period is "on" in the State, no determination of the greater entitlement under the requirements of Section 101(e)(2) of the EUC Act of 1991, as discussed in paragraph D of this GAL, is appropriate. B. Extended Benefits Trigger. Section 101(d) of P.L. 102-318 amended Section 101(e) of the EUC Act of 1991 to provide that the Governor's election to trigger "off" EB in a State in order to provide for the payment of EUC is not applicable with respect to weeks of unemployment beginning after March 6, 1993. Additionally, this provision prohibits the previous election of an "off" trigger to prevent the beginning of an extended benefit period for weeks beginning after March 6, 1993 (The dates of this provision is expected to change if the EUC program is extended). Therefore, an EB period may trigger "on" in any State effective March 7, 1993, and thereafter, in accordance with State laws consistent with Sections 203(d), (e) and (f) of EUCA without regard to the Governor's previous election of an "off" trigger. C. Alternative Total Unemployment Rate (TUR) EB Trigger. Section 203 of EUCA, was amended by Section 201 of P.L. 102-318 by adding a new subsection (f) which provides an alternative trigger provision that State law may include for purposes of beginning and ending an EB period. Section 201(b) of P.L. 102-318 amended Section 202(b) by adding a new paragraph (3)(A) to require that effective with weeks of unemployment beginning in a "high unemployment period", hereafter referred to as "HUP", an individual's extended compensation account shall be established at the lesser of 80 percent of the total amount of regular compensation or 20 times the individual's average weekly benefit amount or 46 times the individual's average weekly benefit amount reduced, in accordance with State law, by the amount of regular or additional benefits previously paid or deemed paid. Section 201(b) of P.L. 102- 318 further amended Section 202 by adding Subsection (b)(3)(B), EUCA, which defines an HUP, for purposes of Section 202(b)(3)(A), EUCA, as ". . .any period during which an extended benefit period would be in effect if section 202(f)(1)(A)(i) were applied by substituting '8 percent' for '6.5 percent'." Thus, if a State elects the alternative trigger as provided in Section 203(f), EUCA, State law must also conform to Section 202(b)(3)(A) and (B), EUCA. (See UIPL 45-92.) (1) High Unemployment Period. In accordance with State law, for weeks of unemployment beginning in a HUP, the extended compensation account of each individual shall be established at the higher extended benefit (HEB) level of the lesser of 80 percent of the total amount of regular compensation or 20 times the individual's average weekly benefit amount or 46 times the individual's average weekly benefit amount reduced, in accordance with State law, by the amount of regular, additional benefits and extended compensation previously paid or deemed paid. (2) Period for which HEB is payable. HEB may be paid only for weeks beginning during a HUP. When the HUP ends, the extended compensation account of each individual whose account was established during the HUP shall be redetermined and shall be established at the lesser of 50 percent of the total amount of regular compensation or 13 times the individual's average weekly benefit amount or 39 times the individual's average weekly benefit amount reduced, but not below zero, in accordance with State law, by the amount of regular and additional benefits and all extended compensation (EB or HEB) previously paid or deemed paid. D. Payment of the Greater of EB or EUC Entitlement. Section 101(d) of P.L. 102-318 further amended Section 101(e) of the EUC Act to provide that an individual in a State with an EB "on" trigger after March 6, 1993, and who has a EUC account balance shall receive, for weeks of unemployment beginning after March 6, 1993, payments under the program, EUC or EB, in which the individual's entitlement is greater. This provision requires that EUC shall be paid only to an individual whose EUC account balance is greater than the EB entitlement (maximum benefit amount), as of the week for which an EB determination is legally possible for such an individual, whether a claim for EB has been filed or not. When entitlement under both programs are the same, no benefits are payable under the EUC program. Section 101(b) of the EUC Act of 1991 provided that an individual is not eligible for EUC if such individual is eligible for EB and the individual with equal entitlement does not meet the exception provision of Section 101(e) of the EUC Act of 1991. To determine the program under which the claimant is to be paid, the State must examine each individual's specific situation as follows: (1) Claimant Receiving EUC Based on a Prior Benefit Year Under Section 102(b)(2)(B), P.L. 102-318. A claimant that is receiving EUC based on a prior benefit year, having deferred the receipt of regular benefits on a current benefit year, is not an "exhaustee" of the current benefit year for EB purposes and will, therefore, remain eligible for EUC. However, when the current benefit year ends, the claimant will have no further rights to EUC as the prior benefit year will cease to be the applicable benefit year and no new EUC claims may be filed after March 6 based on the most recent benefit year. Therefore, if the benefit year ends during the EB period, the claimant will only have rights to EB based on the most recent benefit year if he/she is otherwise an exhaustee. (2) Claimant Receiving EUC Based on a Prior Benefit Year Under Section 101(f), EUC Act. A claimant that is receiving EUC based on a prior benefit year, having postponed establishing a new benefit year for regular benefits, is not an "exhaustee" for EB purposes as the prior benefit year is not the "applicable benefit year" for EB purposes. Therefore, the individual will remain eligible for EUC. (3) Claimant Receiving EUC Based on a Current Benefit Year. A claimant that is receiving EUC based on a current benefit year, is an "exhaustee" for EB purposes. Therefore, the State must determine the claimant's greater entitlement in accordance with Section 202(b), EUCA, and shall pay weeks of unemployment beginning after March 6, 1993 under the program under which the claimant's remaining benefit entitlement is greater. The "greater" monetary entitlement is the greater of the balance remaining in the claimant's EUC account or the EUC WBA times the number of weeks for which EUC is potentially payable, as appropriate, and the MBA of the potential EB entitlement. If the EB entitlement and the EUC balance are equal, the claimant shall be paid under the EB program. If the claimant's greater entitlement is under the EUC program, and the current benefit year (upon which the EUC claim is based) ends and the claimant has rights to regular benefits, the claimant has an option to continue to receive EUC or file for regular benefits. If the claimant's greater entitlement is under the EB program, and the current benefit year (upon which the EB claim is based) ends and the claimant has rights to regular benefits, the claimant ceases to be an "exhaustee" for EB purposes and has no further rights to EB. E. Suspension of the Suitable Work and Systematic Work Search and Provisions of Sections 202(a)(3) of EUCA. Section 202(b) of P.L. 102-318 suspended the requirements of Sections 202(a)(3) of the EUCA, as amended, and prohibits the application of State laws in conformity with such provision to weeks of unemployment beginning between March 6, 1993 and January 1, 1995. Therefore, for weeks of unemployment during the period of the suspension of such requirements, State law applicable to claims for regular benefits will apply to claims for EB and EUC. To implement the suspension of the requirements of this provision, States must identify each claimant with an existing disqualification under State law in conformity with the provisions of 202(a)(3) and (4), EUCA, and notify each such claimant of the change in eligibility requirements for weeks of unemployment beginning after March 6. During the period of the suspension of the requirements of Sections 202(a)(3) EUCA, the requirements of paragraph (2) of Section 202(a), EUCA, which reads as follows will apply: "Except where inconsistent with the provisions of this title, the terms and conditions of the State law which apply to claims for regular compensation and to the payment thereof shall apply to claims for extended compensation and to the payment thereof." Therefore, under the requirements of Section 202(a)(2), EUCA, States are required to apply the provisions of State law applicable to claims for regular compensation to claims for EUC and EB in lieu of the State law requirements in conformity with Section 202(a)(3), EUCA. Hence, the continuing eligibility requirements pertaining to work search, suitable work, availability for work and ES registration that apply to claimants for regular compensation, apply to claims for EUC for weeks of unemployment beginning after March 6, 1993 and no later than June 19, 1993, and to claimants of EB for weeks of unemployment beginning after March 6, 1993 and before January 1, 1995. (1) Existing EUC Disqualifications. The suspension of the requirements of Section 202(a)(3), EUCA, means that all outstanding EUC disqualifications under State laws in conformity with such provisions do not apply to weeks of unemployment beginning after March 6. Therefore, all claimants disqualified under such State law provisions may have EUC eligibility for weeks of unemployment beginning after March 6. (a) Existing Work Search Disqualification. In the cases of individuals with disqualifications for failure to satisfy the systematic and sustained work search requirement, these denials do not apply to weeks beginning after March 6. The determination that such denial does not apply and that the claimant is eligible under the State law applicable to claims for regular benefits does not constitute a nonmonetary determination. (2) ES Registration and Work Search Requirements. The suspension of the requirements of Sections 203(a)(3), EUCA, eliminates the Job Prospects Classification and ES registration requirements for EUC and EB claimants. Therefore, for weeks of unemployment beginning after March 6, 1993 the work search, ES registration and suitable work requirements for EB and EUC claimants will be in accordance with the State law provisions applicable to claimants for regular benefits. (3) Optional Language for Claimant Notice. Our records indicate that you were denied Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) under provisions of (State) law, that are applicable to the payment of extended benefits as was required by the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 1991. Effective for weeks of unemployment beginning after March 6, 1993, amendments to Federal law require that (State) suspend the application of the State law provisions that apply to claims for extended benefits, and instead, determine eligibility under the same provisions of State law that are applied to claims under the regular State unemployment benefits program. The EUC disqualifications affected by this law change were issued for: -- Failure to conduct a sustained and systematic work search -- Refusal of a suitable job or referral to suitable work while receiving EUC -- Disqualifying separations from employment for voluntary leaving a job or discharges If you are still unemployed, you may be eligible to receive EUC for weeks beginning after March 6, 1993. To allow us to reassess your eligibility for EUC benefits, report to the office where you filed your claim. Note: In cases involving disqualifying separations from employment and refusals of suitable work or referrals to suitable work, the application of the State law provisions for regular State unemployment benefits may be more severe than the State law for extended benefits. F. Suspension of the Subsequent Work Requalification Requirement of Section 202(a)(4), EUCA. Section 202(b) of P.L. 102-318 suspended the requirements of Section 202(a) (4) of the EUCA, as amended, and prohibits the application of State laws in conformity with such provisions to weeks of unemployment beginning between March 6, 1993 and January 1, 1995. Therefore, for weeks of unemployment during the period of the suspension of such requirements, the requalification requirements of State law applicable to claims for regular benefits will apply to claims for EB and EUC. To implement the suspension of the requirements of this provision, States must identify claimants with existing disqualifications under State laws in conformity with such provisions, notify the claimants of the change in eligibility requirements for weeks of unemployment beginning after March 6. If a claimant previously disqualified under provisions in conformity with Section 202(a)(4), EUCA, requirements initiates a claim for benefits for a week beginning after March 6, the State must review the facts of the disqualifying issue under the State law applicable to claims for regular benefits (and EB or EUC for weeks of unemployment beginning after March 6). If no claim is filed after March 6, no review is necessary or appropriate. If the review results in a disqualification under State law provisions applicable to claims for regular benefits, such determination is a countable nonmonetary determination. (1) EUC Disqualifications Based on Prior Termination of Regular Benefit Disqualifications Without a Subsequent Work Requirement. If State law applicable to claims for regular benefits terminates a disqualification for voluntarily leaving employment, being discharged for misconduct, or refusing suitable employment without a requirement for employment/earnings subsequent to the date of the disqualifying act or determination, such State law applies to claims for EB and EUC for weeks of unemployment beginning after March 6, 1993 and before January 1, 1995. Therefore, if an EUC claimant has been denied benefits due to a prior regular benefit disqualification, the eligibility of such claimant must be redetermined for weeks beginning after March 6. If the claimant has satisfied the State law requirements for requalification, the claimant will be eligible for EUC for weeks beginning after March 6, if all other eligibility requirements are met. The determination that a claimant has satisfied the applicable requalifying requirements and is eligible for EUC or EB, whichever is greater, does not constitute a nonmonetary determination. If the review results in a disqualification under State law applicable to claims for regular benefits, the determination is a countable nonmonetary determination. (2) EUC Disqualifications for a Separation or Job Refusal that Occurred During the EUC Claim. In cases where a review of the facts of the issue under the applicable State law results in a lesser requalification requirement, the State must determine if the requirement has already been satisfied. When the lesser requalification requirement has already been satisfied, the removal of the disqualification does not constitute a nonmonetary determination. When the lesser requalification has not been satisfied, a redetermination under the appropriate State law will be issued and does constitute a nonmonetary determination. In cases where the review of the facts under State law applicable to the issue results in a greater requalification requirement, a redetermination will be issued under the appropriate State law and does constitute a nonmonetary determination. (3) Existing EUC Disqualifications Satisfied Prior to a Claim for a Week Beginning After March 6. Without regard to the date of the determination that the requalification requirements of a prior disqualification has been met, in cases where there is an existing disqualification and the claimant has met the requalification requirements prior to claiming a week of unemployment beginning after March 6, no readjudication of the issue under State law applicable to regular claims will occur. The claimant will be eligible for EUC or EB, whichever is greater, if all other eligibility requirements are met. G. Modification to the EB Base Period Earnings Test Requirement. In determining whether or not a claimant's benefits are "greater" under the EUC or EB program, States are reminded that Section 202(a)(5) of EUCA which was amended by P.L. 102- 318 to provide that, effective for weeks of unemployment beginning after July 3, 1992, a State may use one or more of the base period earnings test specified, i.e. 20 weeks of work, one and one-half times the high quarter wages or forty time the claimant's weekly benefit amount, to establish that the claimant had sufficient base period employment/earning to meet the eligibility requirement was implemented immediately upon enactment for claims under the EUC program. Therefore, if the State elected to use more than one test for EUC but has not amended its law with respect to EB, there are eligible EUC claimants that will be ineligible for EB. Section 202(a)(5) of EUCA requires State law to specify the earnings test(s) applicable to claims for EB. NOTE: It determining whether or not a claimant has sufficient base period employment and wages, base period employment and earnings under other States laws, whether or not used in the determination of regular benefit rights, are base period earnings for purposes of Section 202(a)(5), EUCA, and must be considered. However, States must not used the Request for Transfer of Wages, Form IB-4 (or the TC-IB4) to verify the base period wages. Administrative Funding: State agencies will receive additional administrative funds to notify and reassess the eligibility of individuals whose prior disqualifications are affected by the suspension of the requirements of Sections 202(a)(3) and (4), EUCA. Staffyears earned for reaccessing the eligibility of those claimants that reopen EUC claims as a result of the notice and no nonmonetary determination results from the reassessment will be computed by using an MPU value of no more than 20 minutes. States have the option to use a lesser value MPU if they deem it appropriate. This information should be included on line 5 of the regular UI-3 worksheet, Section B. States should show the calculation at the bottom of the additional costs worksheet. Staffyears used for this activity should be included on line 1, Section A. Staffyears will not be separately reported for the identification and notification process. If a reportable nonmonetary determination under State law applicable to regular claims results from the reassessment, no additional staffyear earnings are to be reported on the UI-3. Reporting Requirements: There are no special reporting requirements concerning claims affected by the law changes. Action Required: State Administrators are requested to make a copy of this letter available to all appropriate staff.