References: ET Handbooks Nos. 384 and 391. Background: The SESAs are required to prepare and send a "machine readable" claims control inquiry to the LCCC for each claimant who makes an initial claim for either UCFE or UCX benefits, as provided by Chapter II of ET Handbook No. 384 and Chapter III of ET Handbook No. 391. No specific cancellation procedure was provided for SESAs to cancel previously submitted UCX claims control inquiries. The cancellation procedures for previously submitted UCX and UCFE claims control inquiries are illustrated in Attachment I to this UIPL and will be incorporated in the revised UCX and UCFE Handbooks. Action Required: State Administrators should ensure that their SESA is using the UCX/UCFE claims control system and its attendant data requests in the form and content prescribed in the attachments to this directive.

References: 5 U.S.C. 8521, 20 CFR Part 614, UIPLs 18-89 and 47-94 and GAL 3-92. Background: The Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) have informed us that, effective October 1, 1993, all military services began using a standard list of narrative reasons for separation from service in item 28 on all Certificates of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214). This standard list is used when an ex-servicemember does not complete a first full term of service, but has met the other require- ments for "Federal service" under 5 U.S.C. 8521(a)(1). Such a list makes it possible for the Department of Labor (DOL) to provide SESAs a list of common terminology used by the branches of the military services that will simplify and expedite the processing of UCX claims. DOL is currently consulting with the DOD and the DOT to finalize the standardized list of "acceptable" narrative reasons for separation for UCX qualifying purposes. The standardized narrative reasons for separation for all areas, except those dealing with "inaptitude," have been prepared. In order not to further delay the issuance of guidance to the SESAs, DOL is issuing this directive at this time covering all "acceptable" narrative reasons for separation, except those dealing with "inaptitude." The list of acceptable" narrative reasons for separation will be amended when a decision is made involving narrative reasons for separation for "inaptitude." (See Section 4.f of this directive for further guidance in this regard.) Instructions: The previous list of acceptable narrative reasons for separation was disseminated to the SESAs in UIPL 25-83 and Changes 1 through 12 to UIPL 25-83, and these UIPLs are now rescinded. DOL is providing the new consolidated list as an Attachment to this UIPL. DOL has determined which narrative reasons for separation are acceptable for UCX qualifying purposes. The SESAs shall follow the instructions in this UIPL in determining "Federal service" under 5 U.S.C. 8521(a)(1) for all branches of the armed forces. a. UCX First Claim--General Requirements. In determining whether an ex-servicemember has performed "Federal service" under 5 U.S.C. 8521(a)(1) for purposes of paying UCX, the SESA will first ascertain if the ex-servicemember: (1) Performed active service, either in a regular or reserve status (active service in a reserve status must be for a continuous period of 90 days of more); (2) Separated "under honorable conditions" and if an officer, did not resign for the good of the service; and (3) Was discharged or released after completing the first full term of service which the individual initially agreed to serve. If the member did not complete such first full term of service, then the narrative reason for separation in item 28 of the DD Form 214 must include an entry that is contained on the list of "acceptable" narrative reasons for separation issued by DOL in order for the ex-servicemember to qualify as having performed "Federal service." b. UCX First Claim--Ex-servicemember Not Member of National Guard or Reserve. If the ex-servicemember filing a UCX first claim is not identified as a member of the National Guard or Reserve, the SESA will then determine if the ex-servicemember was separated from the military service after completing a first "full term of active service" or, if earlier, was separated under a specified reason provided under 5 U.S.C. 8521(a)(1)(B)(ii)(I)-(IV). If the ex-servicemember was separated from the armed forces after completing a "first full term of active service," and was also separated "under honorable conditions" (or, if an officer, did not resign for the good of the service), the SESA will not utilize the attached list of "acceptable" narrative reasons for separation in order to determine whether that ex-servicemember performed "Federal service." In such case, the ex-servicemember has met the UCX qualifying requirements at 5 U.S.C. 8521(a)(1)(A) and (B)(i), and such period of service in the armed forces is considered to be "Federal service" for UCX qualifying purposes. In making this determination for an ex-servicemember who did not complete a "first full term of active service," the SESA shall be guided by the attached list of "acceptable" narrative reasons for separation. In this case, the ex- servicemember's military service will be used to support a finding of "Federal service" under 5 U.S.C. 8521(a)(1) if: (1) The ex-servicemember's separation was "under honorable conditions" (or, if an officer, did not resign for the good of the service); and (2) The narrative reason for separation shown on the DD Form 214 conforms to the list of "acceptable" narrative reasons for separation issued by this Department. If the narrative reason for separation is not on the list of "acceptable" narrative reasons for separation issued by this Department, the ex-servicemember's military service covered by the period of the applicable DD Form 214 is not "Federal service" within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 8521(a)(1). This period of military service may not be used to support UCX entitlement. c. UCX First Claim--Ex-Servicemember is a Member of the National Guard or Reserve. If the ex-servicemember filing a UCX first claim is identified as a member of the National Guard or Reserve who has previously served in the regular Armed Forces, the SESA will then determine if the ex- servicemember's most recent period of military service equalled 90 days or more of continuous active duty in a reserve status. In addition, the individual must be discharged or separated under honorable conditions (or, if an officer, did not resign for the good of the service) after completing the first full term of service, unless separated earlier for a reason shown on the DD Form 214 that is on the list of "acceptable" narrative reasons for separation issued by this Department. NOTE: In some instances, an individual may join a branch of the Armed Forces in a reserve capacity without having previously served any active service in the regular Armed Forces. In such case, to meet the criteria for Federal service at 5 U.S.C. 8521(a)(1), the ex-servicemember must have at least 90 continuous days of active duty in a reserve status and be discharged or separated from that active duty in a reserve status under honorable conditions (and, if an officer, did not resign for the good of the service). The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 8521(a)(1)(B) relating to completion of the first full term of active service which the individual initially agreed to serve are not applicable because the ex-service member does not have a first full term of active service. d. Narrative Reason for Separation--Missing or Incomplete Information. If item 28 of the ex-servicemember's DD Form 214, "Narrative Reason For Separation," is blank, the SESA will send a Form ETA 8-43, UCX Request for Military Information, to the appropriate branch of the military service requesting the specific narrative reason for separation. Also, if information in item 28 appears incomplete, a Form ETA 8-43 will be used to obtain clarification from the appropriate branch of the military service. When a Form ETA 8-43 is used to clarify the "narrative reasons for separation," the information requested by the SESA from the military service in item 16 of the Form ETA 8- 43 will be specific and complete. The military service must not be asked some general question as to whether the ex- servicemember is eligible for UCX under 5 U.S.C. 8521(a)(1). The SESA is responsible for making a UCX determination for eligibility based on the Federal findings on the DD Form 214. (1) When a Form ETA 8-43 is used to obtain clarification of the DD Form 214, the SESA will attach a copy of the ex-servicemember's DD Form 214. (2) If the narrative reason for separation shown on the ex-servicemember's DD Form 214 is clear and complete, but the claimant disagrees with such findings, the claimant will be instructed to write to the branch of the military service that issued the DD Form 214 in order to request a correction of the Federal findings. Under such circumstances, the claimant will be informed that the UCX law provides that findings of the Federal military service must be accepted by the SESA as "final and conclusive" for determining UCX entitlement, but that the claimant may initiate a request for correction of the military finding with the appropriate branch of the military service. At the request of the claimant, the SESA shall forward the request for correction of the military finding, and any supporting material provided by the claimant, to the appropriate branch of the military service. (See 20 CFR 614.22(a).) e. Completion of First Full Term of Active Service. (1) For U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force Separatees. SESAs shall follow the guidance contained in UIPLs 18-89 and 47-94 and paragraph (3) of this subsection below. (2) For U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Marine Corps, and U.S. Navy Separatees. Any combination of prior active service in item 12.d and net active service in the current period shown in item 12.c of an ex-servicemember's DD Form 214 that meets or exceeds the amount of active service normally required for completion of a "first full term of active service" will constitute "constructive completion" of the ex- servicemember's "first full term of active service." These branches of the military service have informed this Department that the term of enlistment may range from 2 to 6 years. For example, a former Navy servicemember who had a 4-year enlistment and who completed 2 years of prior active service and 2 years of active service on the current enlistment would be considered to have completed 4 years of active service and receive credit for "constructive completion" of the "first full term of active service" which was agreed to be served. In the example outlined above, the SESA will not utilize the attached list of "acceptable" narrative reasons for separation in order to determine whether the ex- servicemember performed "Federal service" since the ex- servicemember has met the requirements for completion of a "first full term of active service" under the "constructive completion" concept. The SESA will then determine if the ex-servicemember's separation was "under honorable conditions" (and, if an officer, did not resign for the good of the service), and, if the ex-servicemember's separation meets this requirement, the ex-servicemember is considered to have performed "Federal service" for UCX qualifying purposes. (3) The constructive completion concept applies only to members of the regular armed services in active duty service. It does not apply to reservists who are on active duty in a reserve status. Active service (regular) and active duty (reservist) may not be combined for UCX qualifying purposes. f. Effective Date. The Attachment to this directive containing the new consolidated list of "acceptable" narrative reasons for separation for determining "Federal service" for military separatees is effective for all separations from the military services on and after the date of this directive. DOL will be issuing a change to this UIPL containing an amended list of "acceptable" narrative reasons for separation which includes those dealing with "inaptitude." The change to this UIPL will be retroactive to the issuance of this directive. The reason for a retroactive effective date of the forthcoming change to this UIPL is to provide equal treatment to all ex-service-members separated or discharged before completing their first full term of active service and whose narrative reason for separation is on the "acceptable" list issued by DOL. The authority for the retroactive application of the forthcoming change to this UIPL is contained at 20 CFR 614.9(a). DOL has determined that it would be inconsistent with Federal law to apply State law redetermination time limitations to UCX claims involving the narrative reasons for separation that will be included on the forthcoming amended list of "acceptable" narrative reasons for separation. Action Required: The above information and the attachment to this directive should be provided to appropriate staff members.

References: 5 U.S.C. 8502(b) and 8521; 20 CFR 614.6(c), 614.9(a)(1) and 20 CFR 614.22(d); and UIPL 25-83 and Changes 1-9. Background: UIPL 25-83, Change 10 transmitted a letter to all SESAs that was issued by the Air Force in lieu of reissuing DD Forms 214 or issuing DD Forms 215 to certain Air Force ex-servicemembers separated after November 5, 1991, to correct, for UCX eligibility purposes, the narrative reason for separation reflected in Block 28 of their DD Forms 214. The Secretary of the Air Force, in consultation with the DOL, determined that one of the unacceptable narrative reasons for separation, "Voluntary - Miscellaneous Reasons" was incorrectly applied to Air Force separatees after November 5, 1991. These separatees were in fact, separated for the convenience of the government under an early release/force reduction program and item (Block) 28 of their DD Forms 214 should have contained the acceptable narrative reason for separation "Early Separation Program - Force Reduction". Instructions: This Department has been informed by the Air Force that the early release program to which the narrative reason for separation "Voluntary - Miscellaneous Reasons" was incorrectly applied ended on October 31, 1992. The Air Force further informed this Department that it would cease issuing letters to the affected Air Force separatees on October 31, 1992. Therefore, the instruction in Section 4. of UIPL 25-83, Change 10 is not applicable to Air Force separations occurring after October 31, 1992. As provided in 5 U.S.C. 8502(b) and 20 CFR 614.9(a)(1), State UI law claims filing provisions are applicable to UCX claims. Furthermore, 20 CFR 614.6(c) provides that any redetermination or reconsideration of previously eligible UCX claims will be undertaken according to State law provisions applicable to UI claims. Action Required: The above information should be provided to appropriate staff.

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

References: Section 4 of P.L. 103-152; Titles III and IX of the Social Security Act (SSA); P.L. 103-6; P.L. 102- 318; UI Occasional Papers 89-3 and 91-1; and UIPL 45-93, dated September 23, 1993. Background: On November 24, 1993, the President signed into law the Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1993, P.L. 103-152. P.L. 103-152 extended the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) program, and amended the SSA to require States, as a condition of receiving administrative grants, to establish and utilize a system of profiling all new claimants for regular UC for purposes of identifying claimants who are likely to exhaust UC and will need job search assistance to make a successful transition to new employment. The SSA was further amended to require States to disqualify an individual identified pursuant this profiling system if the individual fails to participate in reemployment services. In addition, P.L. 103-152 made a technical change to Title IX of the SSA. States have already been advised of those provisions affecting the EUC program in GAL 12-92, Change 6. This issuance is limited to those amendments to the SSA affecting the Federal-State UC program. These amendments are as follows: (a) a new requirement that States establish and utilize a system of profiling all new claimants for regular UC; (b) a new requirement that State law require claimants identified as most likely to exhaust regular UC to participate in reemployment services as condition of UC eligibility; and (c) a technical amendment to Title IX of the SSA pertaining to the Unemployment Trust Fund. Action Required: SESAs are requested to take the action necessary to assure consistency with Federal requirements as amended by P.L. 103-152. The effective dates for implementation of these amendments are found in Attachment III.

References: ETA Handbook No. 365, Second Edition and ETA Handbook No. 361, Revised October 1, 1986. Background: UIPL No. 10-93 provided answers to questions that had arisen at a training session held at the Latham Hotel in Georgetown in August. The information given in the second answer in the attachment to UIPL No. 10-93 was inadvertently given and is incorrect. Correct Answer: ETA Handbook No. 365, Second Edition, Page 9, states, "If a potential issue arises and is detected prior to the claimant certifying for the week which would be affected, it is not to be considered an issue (detected) until the week is claimed." To further clarify, the start date for timeliness is the week ending date of the week in which the affected week is certified. Action Required: Line out the second answer in the attachment to UIPL No. 10-93, write in the correct answer, and provide this change to UIPL No. 10-93 to all Quality Appraisal staff.

References: Unemployment Insurance Program Letter (UIPL) No. 7-92, "Eagle Pass Task Force - Recommended Actions for Deterring and Detecting Fraud Activity in the Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program." Background: The validity of UI claims filed by claimants who use a third party to assist in filing has long been a concern of Federal and State UI administrators. Increased attention was focused on this concern in the early 1990's by the results of the Texas Employment Commission (TEC), the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) investigation of a third party fraud scheme in Eagle Pass, Texas. A similar third party fraud scheme was subsequently uncovered in the Roma/McAllen, Texas, area. The Dallas OIG, with the cooperation of ETA and the SESAs, has successfully pursued prosecution and conviction of several individuals involved in these fraud schemes. Additional information concerning these operations can be found in UIPL No. 7-92. Further investigations have uncovered a total of fourteen third party fraud schemes along the Texas/Mexico border to date. These investigations disclosed that the third party filed weeks claimed on behalf of claimants, certified to false work search contacts, and perhaps falsified answers to other eligibility questions in the claimants' absence. The third party also forged the claimants' signatures and cashed UI benefit checks. The majority of the claimants identified during the third party investigations were filing interstate claims. These claims involved a total of thirty-three States, although most of the claims involved the States of California and Texas. Normally, after claimants file an interstate initial claim through an agent State local office, they correspond directly with the liable State by mail or telephone and only report again to the agent State local office if directed to report for eligibility review interview (ERI) purposes by the liable State. UIPL No. 7-92 indicated the actions that had been initiated in response to the Eagle Pass fraud scheme which included the establishment of a Task Force to look into the issues involved in the scheme with the goal of identifying lessons to be learned for the prevention of such occurrences in the future. Also included in UIPL No. 7-92 were numerous Task Force recommendations for SESA administrators to consider for use in their own systems and procedures for deterrence and detection of fraud activity. In addition to States taking specific actions to attempt to address the potential of fraud in the individual claims associated with cases in the Eagle Pass and Roma/McAllen fraud schemes, other significant activities that have been initiated since the issuance of UIPL No. 7-92 include: - In September 1993, UIS signed a Cooperative Agreement with the State of California to conduct a study to develop a prototype third party fraud profile system. The profile system will be directed toward early detection of potential third party UI benefit fraud. - A claimant benefit rights interview video and an informational booklet have been produced in both English and Spanish for use with interstate claimants in response to one of the Task Force's recommendations. UIPL No. 21-94, announcing the development of these materials and making them available to each of the States, was issued in April 1994. - A comprehensive Benefit Payment Control (BPC) Technical Assistance Guide (TAG) containing guidance on fraud detection and prevention was developed through a Cooperative Agreement between UIS and the State of Maryland. During 1994, three training sessions were held for State BPC staff in conjunction with the issuance of the BPC TAG to all States. - ETA Regional Offices hosted Regional and Multi-Regional BPC Conferences which have included information regarding third party fraud activity as well as other types of fraud activity. Additionally, State agency officials from California and Texas and ETA and OIG officials from the Regional and National Offices have met on several occasions to discuss efforts toward detection and deterrence of third party fraud. During one of these meetings, it was agreed that in- depth ERIs and investigations could be conducted to assess the cost effectiveness of these actions in addressing the problems of third party fraud. TEC developed and submitted a proposal, with input from ETA and OIG officials, to provide an analysis of third party involvement in the UI process and related integrity issues and to attempt to quantify the detection/deterrence effect of in-depth ERIs and investigations. This project was approved by ETA. Project Objectives: This project will extend for a 3-year period from October 1, 1994 through September 30, 1997, to allow for sufficient annual workload cycles to be able to accurately evaluate the effectiveness and determine the cost of the in-depth ERIs and investigations. The objectives of the project include: - Ascertaining the nature of third party involvement and the factors contributing to their use in the UI process. - Measuring the impact of increased investigative efforts and claimant interviews on third party fraud incidence. - Estimating the cost effectiveness of in-depth ERIs and investigations in detection and deterrence of improper payments. - Documenting the types of issues resulting in disqualifications and/or overpayments (e.g., able and available issues, and/or work search issues). - Developing recommendations for procedures designed to detect and deter third party fraud. - Ascertaining how agent and liable States may better coordinate efforts in detecting and deterring third party fraud. Project Design: Six local offices will be selected based on an analysis of claimant addresses, historical significance in prior investigations, and other local area characteristics and demographics. Three local offices will be "test" offices and three will be "control" offices. In each of these local offices, the project population will be: a. All claimants who are utilizing a single address used by multiple claimants as determined by a review of Texas files; and b. Any claimants with prior third party involvement who have active claims with Texas addresses associated with the six selected local offices. In the three "test" offices, such intrastate and interstate claimants will be called in for in-depth ERIs and all potential issues detected will be investigated. To ensure that all "test" offices are asking claimants the same questions, TEC will develop a comprehensive questionnaire. This questionnaire will provide for obtaining specific information such as residence address, labor market area attachment, work search activities, intervening/casual employment, etc. Fact-finding results from the ERIs and investigations will be provided to the appropriate TEC adjudication unit or liable State for determination and appropriate action. In the three "control" offices, ERIs for intrastate and interstate claimants will continue to be scheduled and conducted based on current policy and procedures. Comparable data will be accumulated at all phases to compare activity and results in the "test" and "control" offices. TEC Activities: TEC will perform all the following activities under this project: a. Utilize the Interstate Benefit Rights Interview (BRI) in the agent State claims process. b. Identify project population, e.g., multiple claimants utilizing a single address, OIG list of claimants with prior third party involvement. c. Call in all selected claimants in the "test" offices for in-depth ERIs that will focus on able and available issues, such as labor market attachment, work search, method(s) of seeking work, and other potential issues. d. Thoroughly investigate all potential issues identified including: (1) visiting, inspecting, or investigating single addresses used by multiple claimants and/or contacting third parties, as appropriate. (2) establishing contact sources for information at utility companies, law enforcement authorities, postal service, and State and Federal Courts, as needed. e. Refer potential issues and investigative results to appropriate adjudication units (TEC or liable State). f. Conduct special supplemental interviews/ investigations as requested by adjudication or prosecution units and/or liable States. g. Coordinate assistance from DOL-OIG regarding fraud cases as appropriate. h. Document the cost of conducting the in-depth ERIs and investigations (e.g., staff time, travel dollars, etc.). i. Collect and compile project data with respect to "test" and "control" offices for reporting purposes. j. Request liable States to provide information pertaining to the disposition of each case investigated and referred by TEC. k. Develop a follow-up form for use by liable States to provide the requested information on the disposition of each case to TEC. Data Analysis and Reports: Efforts are being made to ensure that data captured with respect to the "test" and "control" offices will provide sufficient information to address the project objectives so that meaningful conclusions can be reached and fraud detection and deterrent procedures for the UI system can be recommended. The identification of all data collection elements has not been completed. However, some of the information that will be compiled and separately arrayed by interstate and intrastate program for analysis with respect to claimants and third parties in the "test" and "control" offices is as follows: Claimant Information - Number of identified claimants; - Characteristics of claimants filing from suspect addresses-- - Occupation - Age - Sex - Mailing address - Residence address (if available) - Distance of residence from labor market area - Work history - Claim history; - Number of ERIs scheduled, conducted and results; - Number of claimant investigations conducted; - Number of determinations (fraud/non-fraud); - Amount of fraudulent and non-fraudulent overpayments established; - Number of claimants living outside the local labor market area while filing a UI claim; - Number of claimants working while filing a UI claim; - Number of claimants identified in prior investigations; - Number of claimants referred for prosecution; - Number of claimants convicted; and - Number of claimants prosecuted under Federal mail fraud statutes. Third Party Information - Number of third party interviews/contacts conducted; - Number of third party fraud investigations initiated; - Number of third party cases referred for criminal prosecution; - Number of third parties convicted; - Number of third parties referred to OIG for prosecution; and - Number of third parties contacted/investigated that were involved in prior OIG investigations. Liable State Assistance: As mentioned above, this project will be on-going through September 30, 1997. Each State, therefore, is requested to designate a contact person to coordinate interstate communications for this project during this period. Although TEC and the Dallas OIG will identify potential claimant fraud cases involving interstate and third parties and will be able to collect information regarding the issue, this project will be successful only with each liable State's assistance and cooperation. The TEC Project Director, Mr. Ken Helm, will be sending a letter to all SESAS informing them of the selected local offices and providing additional information regarding the project. Mr. Ken Helm will also be transmitting to SESAs a State specific OIG list of Social Security Numbers (SSNs) and addresses utilized by claimants with prior third party involvement. SESAs will be requested to conduct file searches of the information on the list against their active claim files in order to identify any active claims with Texas zip code addresses associated with the selected local offices. This will allow TEC to include in the project population, claimants with prior third party involvement who are not in TEC's agent State files but who are in an active claim filing status. To attempt to facilitate the use of the OIG information lists, these lists are being made available on floppy disks using Lotus spreadsheets. SESAs can use the OIG lists for their own integrity related purposes as they may deem appropriate. OIG Assistance Available: The Dallas OIG has agreed to work with TEC and the Dallas ETA Regional Office in order to ensure a comprehensive approach. The Dallas OIG will assist TEC in investigating the interstate cases and in preparing cases for prosecution. In addition, in order to assist liable States in prosecuting cases related to these interstate and third party cases, the Dallas OIG has agreed to assist liable States by providing testimony as to the OIG investigation of the third party, including evidence obtained. In some cases, as appropriate, the OIG will pursue Federal prosecution via the mail fraud statutes. Action Required: SESA Administrators are requested to: a. Ensure all appropriate SESA staff are aware of and familiar with the material in this UIPL and UIPL No. 7-92. b. Designate a contact person to coordinate interstate communications for this project and provide the name, telephone number, and address by December 30, 1994, to: Texas Employment Commission Kenneth Helm, Director Benefit Payment Control Department 101 East 15th Street Travis Building, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78731 Phone Number - (512) 502-3701 Fax Number - (512) 502-3704 c. Establish a means to provide follow-up data to TEC pertaining to the disposition of each case referred by TEC utilizing the form which TEC develops. Information requested will include: - Disposition of issue. - Determination (fraud/non-fraud). - Overpayment (fraud/non-fraud). - Amount of overpayment. - Prosecution pursued. - Results of prosecution. d. Provide TEC with the PS/NPS cost of providing the follow-up information requested.

References: Section 3304(a)(9)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended; 20 CFR 616; ET Handbook No. 399; UIPL No. 55-89; and UIPL No. 11-91. Background: To address the need for prompt communication of wage transfer requests and responses for claims filed under the Interstate Arrangement for Combining Employment and Wages, a software package to telecommunicate the requests and responses using the INTERNET was distributed in September 1989. States were previously requested in UIPL No. 55-89 to be operational on the TC-IB4 application as of April 2, 1990. The TC-IB4 application was subsequently updated to address additional needs, identified by the States, and re-released in August 1990. The Report on the Determination of a Combined Wage Claim, Form IB- 5 (TC-IB5), is an integral part of the combined wage program. This report is used by a paying State to advise a transferring State of its potential benefit liability and to advise a transferring State when wages are returned and need to be restored to the wage file and made available. It is extremely important to use this report to return wages immediately so that they may be available for use for a substitute claim that may result from a combined wage claim cancellation or ineligibility. It is also important that States process the incoming TC-IB5s before incoming initial claims (TC- IB1s) to prevent the substitute initial claim from resulting in an ineligible monetary determination because the wages have not been restored. This application was distributed in December 1990, and SESAs were requested to implement the new automated procedure by April 1, 1991. Before and after the distribution of the TC-IB4 and TC-IB5 applications, several meetings were held with State representatives to explain the requirements, provide assistance and answer any installation questions. Additionally, SESAs were and continue to be allocated special funding for data processing support of the automation necessary to telecommunicate data under the interstate and combined wage program procedures. During the past year, all States have been contacted by the Regional Offices and offered on- site assistance. Yet some SESAs have not requested assistance and have not installed the required applications necessary to telecommunicate the data. SESAs' failure to telecommunicate the required data is having an adverse affect on all other States as they must continue to maintain a manual system in order to handle requests and responses to and from such States. Requirement for Conformity and Compliance: Section 3304(a)(9)(B) of the Federal Unemployment Tax Act requires States to participate in any combined wage claim arrangement approved by the Secretary of Labor (in consultation with the State agencies). 20 CFR 616.13, in pertinent part, implements this arrangement by providing that: Each State agency will cooperate with every other State agency by implementing such rules, regulations, and procedures as may be prescribed for the operation of this [combined wage] arrangement. Effective April 5, 1993, electronic data communication, as described in Section 5, is the prescribed procedure for handling wage transfer requests and responses, and reports on the determination of combined wage claims. Action Required: State Administrators are requested to take the necessary actions to ensure that effective April 5, 1993: a. all requests for wage transfers are sent and received via INTERNET; b. all responses to wage transfer requests are sent and received via INTERNET; c. all reports on the disposition of transferred wages (IB- 5) are sent and received via INTERNET; and d. the use of hard copy forms for these purposes are discontinued.

References: UIPL No. 16-94 (3/15/94), UIPL No. 31-94 (6/24/94), UIPL No. 32-94 (6/24/94), UIPL No.42-94 (8/16/94), ET Handbook No. 401. 2nd Edition, Change 5 (10/11/94). Background: The RQC staff compiles questions and issues that arise during Regional and National Office (NO) monitoring trips, and from other sources in order to develop a generic set of answers to those questions believed to be of universal interest to the State staff implementing RQC. Revised 581: The 581 report has been revised and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to accommodate planned changes in data elements for accounts receivable and to include the proper data elements for RQC Computed Measures. Instructions for completing the revised 581 were issued in ET Handbook No. 401, 2nd Edition, Change 5, October 11, 1994. The revised form will become effective with the report for the quarter ending March 31, 1995, due in the NO on May 20, 1995. State Employment Security Agency staff have raised additional questions concerning changes on the revised form. Answers to 581 questions are now included in this third group of Q&A's dated November 1994. Questions and Answers: The Q&As are arranged by categories of the 581 report and by each major RQC tax function. Numbering of the questions in each section is continuous. This format provides the necessary flexibility to allow periodic Q&A updates to be inserted in the appropriate section. There may be some overlap between 581 and RQC Computed Measures questions. Effective with this compilation, questions relating to interpretation of Computed Measures data elements have been included in the appropriate 581 category and questions relating to calculation are included in the appropriate Computed Measures tax function. Action Required: The SESA Administrators are requested to provide the attached Q&As to the SESA Tax staff, the agency organizational unit responsible for the accuracy and completion of the 581, RQC Reviewers and appropriate DP staff. Five copies are attached for your convenience.

References: The EUC Act of 1991, Public Law 102-164, as amended; GAL No. 4-92 and Changes 1-4 as consolidated in GAL 12-92; UIPL No. 9-92 and Changes 1-4; the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended; 20 CFR Part 615; 20 CFR Part 616; ET Handbook 392; ET Handbook 399; ET Handbook 401; Section 5100, Part V, Employment Security Manual and UIPL No. 6-92. Background: Many questions have been received from States about options available to claimants under Public Law 102-318. This change to the program letter provides to all States answers that have been given to individual State questions. Action Required: State Administrators are requested to make a copy of this UIPL available to all appropriate staff.