Background: Program letters, or the five letter series, are considered temporary directives containing instructions or information of a short-term nature which complement one of the five parts of the ES Manual. Rather than rewrite and reissue expiring program letters which still contain relevant information or instructions, the expiration date is extended. Attached is a listing of program letters with extended expiration dates for the above period.

References: Title I of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) Act of 1991, P.L. 102-164, as amended by P.L.s 102-182, 102-244, 102-318, and the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1993, P.L. 103-6; the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended; 20 CFR Part 615; GAL 12-92 (57 Fed. Reg. 54106) and Changes 1-4, (58 Fed. Reg. 34484) ; UIPL 9-92 and Changes 1-5; UIPL 45-92 (57 Fed. Reg. 47871, 47873); GAL 7-93, dated March 5, 1993. Background: GAL 12-92, dated September 11, 1992, and published in the Federal Register on November 16, 1992 (52 Fed. Reg. 54106) consolidated earlier operating instructions for the EUC program based on the amendments to the EUC Act of 1991 and other provisions of P.L. 102-318. This document became the official controlling guidance for the States and the cooperating State agencies in the administration of the EUC program. In response to questions received from the States and other interested parties, the Department issued UIPL 9-92 and Changes 1- 5. These UIPLs have provided the States and cooperating State agencies with responses to various questions that have arisen regarding the administration of the EUC program. Some State agencies' questions, concerning the answer to one question in Change 5, indicate a need for clarification of the operating instructions with respect to Section 102(b)(2)(B) of P.L. 102-318. This GAL clarifies the implementation of Section 102(b)(2)(B) of P.L. 102-318, provides guidance with respect to the handling of improper payments, and revises Section III.C.2. of Attachment A to GAL 12-92 for the reasons described below. Controlling Guidance: The revised operating instructions in this GAL 12-92, Change 5, are issued to the States and cooperating State agencies and constitute the controlling guidance provided by the Department in its role as the principal in the EUC program. As agents of the United States, the States may not vary from the operating instructions in GAL 12-92 and GAL 12-92, Changes 1-4, or this Change 5 (or any subsequent or supplemental operating instructions) without the prior approval of the Department of Labor. Clarification: Section 102(b)(2)(B) of P.L. 102-318 provides that an individual with a current (subsequent) benefit year, as of July 3, 1992, that was established after the enactment of the EUC Act (November 15, 1991), may defer the receipt of regular benefits in order to receive EUC based on the prior "applicable benefit year," until rights to such EUC benefits are exhausted. This section is effective for weeks of unemployment beginning after July 3, 1992. Questions have been raised regarding when rights to benefits based on a prior benefit year are exhausted. That is, whether EUC, based upon the first (prior) benefit year, may be paid after the end of the second (subsequent) benefit year, or whether those EUC rights terminate at the end of the second benefit year. The definition of "applicable benefit year" at 20 CFR 615.2(c)(2) applies in determining the prior benefit year upon which EUC is payable. This regulation provides that the "applicable benefit year" shall be the claimant's current benefit year or most recent benefit year ending in the extended compensation period. Therefore, a claimant exercising an option under Section 102(b)(2)(B) to defer rights to regular compensation in the current (subsequent) benefit year, in order to receive EUC attributable to a prior benefit year, has rights to such EUC only during the period that the prior benefit year is the "applicable benefit year" for EUC purposes. Hence, when the claimant's rights to regular benefits based on the current benefit year are exhausted, either monetarily or by virtue of the benefit year expiring, this subsequent benefit year now becomes the claimant's "applicable benefit year" for extended compensation purposes, and all rights to benefits based on the prior "applicable benefit year" are exhausted. See also 20 CFR 615.(h)(2). This interpretation produces the identical results for an individual covered by Section 102(b)(2)(B) of P.L. 102-318 as is produced by Section 101(f) of the EUC Act. In both cases, the individual receives EUC based on the "applicable benefit year" (i.e., the most recently expired or exhausted benefit year). This interpretation is applicable to all weeks of unemployment beginning after July 3, 1992. Amendment to Operating Instructions: The revised operating instructions in this GAL 12-92, Change 5, are issued to the States and cooperating State agencies and constitute the controlling guidance provided by the Department in its role as the principal in the EUC program. As agents of the United States, the States may not vary from the operating instructions in GAL 12-92 and GAL 12-92, Changes 1-4, or this Change 5 (or any subsequent or supplemental operating instructions) without the prior approval of the Department of Labor. At the end of Section III.C.2. of Attachment A of GAL 12-92, insert the following new paragraph: "When the current benefit year (subsequent), of an individual who has exercised an option to postpone regular benefits to receive EUC, ends, the subsequent benefit year becomes the "applicable benefit year" for EUC purposes as defined in 20 CFR 615. Therefore, all rights to EUC based on the prior benefit year are exhausted. Any further EUC entitlement must be based on the most recently expired/exhausted benefit year." Guidance for Handling Improper Payments: Some claimants were paid EUC based on the "prior" benefit year after their rights to EUC based on that benefit year were exhausted. In order to correct the problem, States will have to review the payment history of each individual who exercised an option in accordance with Section 102(b)(2)(B) of P.L. 102-318 to determine if a payment was issued, on the EUC claim based on a prior benefit year, after the benefit year ending date of the subsequent claim. When it is determined that an individual has been improperly paid benefits under one program (or based on one claim) and was entitled to benefits for the same week(s) of unemployment under another program, procedures permitting the necessary payment adjustments to be made by correcting the bookkeeping charges are appropriate. In correcting these improper payments, those claimants, with no regular entitlement or those who exercise an option to postpone establishing a new benefit year pursuant to Section 101(f) of the EUC Act, are entitled to EUC based on the "subsequent" benefit year for the same weeks that were previously paid. Others with regular entitlement and who do not exercise an option to receive EUC will be entitled to regular benefits for the same weeks that were improperly paid. In making the adjustments, the week(s) claimed and associated payment(s) is transferred to the claim where the entitlement exists. If the payment for the week is the correct amount of compensation, the claimant would have received the amount to which he/she is entitled. If the payment made was less than the appropriate entitlement, an adjustment payment would be issued. However, if the payment exceeds the entitlement for the week paid, the excess amount would be a non-fraudulent overpayment and would be handled under the appropriate Federal or State law, rules or regulations with respect to the program (of entitlement) where the overpayment exist. If the payment transfer results in an EUC overpayment, the requirements of Section 105 of the EUC Act, including the waiver provisions, apply. The waiver provision of Section 102(b)(2)(A) of P.L. 102-318 does not apply in this situation as it is specific to EUC benefits to which an individual would have been entitled if the individual was not eligible for regular benefits prior to the enactment of P.L. 102-318. Effective Date: The operating guidance contained in this directive shall be implemented immediately. If procedures consistent with the guidance provided in this directive have not been previously followed, a corrective action plan must be submitted to the appropriate Regional Office no later than 30 days after the issuance of this GAL 12-92, Change 5. Action Required: SESA administrators shall: a. Provide the controlling guidance contained in this directive to appropriate staff; b. Ensure that payments to individuals who exercised an option under the provisions of Section 102(b)(2)(B) of P.L. 102-318 conform to the requirements as explained in this GAL; c. Submit a corrective action plan, if required to do so under paragraph 7 above, to the appropriate Regional Office no later than 30 days after the issuance of this directive; and, d. Where EUC payments to individuals exceeded Federal or State benefit entitlement for the weeks paid, ensure that the implementation includes the proper accounting for EUC payments and the establishment of overpayments, as appropriate.

References: The Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 as amended by Title II of the Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1992 (Public Law (P.L.) 102-318); UIPL 45-92 (57 Fed. Reg. 47871, 47873); 20 CFR Part 615. Background: P.L. 102-318 amended the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 (FSEUCA) to provide an alternative trigger provision that State law may include for purposes of beginning and ending an extended benefit (EB) period. States adopting the alternative trigger must also provide for the potential payment of up to an additional seven (7) times the weekly benefit amount, in accordance with Section 202(b)(3)(A) of the FSEUCA, during a HUP as defined in Section 202(b)(3)(B) of the FSEUCA. This letter will focus on the determination and payment of benefits during a HUP. Controlling Guidance: The operating instructions in this GAL are issued to the States and cooperating State agencies and constitute the controlling guidance provided by the Department until revisions to 20 CFR 615 are published. This GAL will be published in the Federal Register. Establishment of High Extended Benefit (HEB) Account: The extended compensation monetary entitlement determined effective during an HUP is hereafter referred to as HEB. Section 202(b)(3)(A) of the FSEUCA provides that the amount to be established in an individual's HEB account is the amount, including dependents' allowances, which represents the lesser of (a) 80 percent of the total amount of regular compensation, (b) 20 times the individual's average weekly benefit amount, or (c) 46 times the individual's average weekly benefit amount, reduced, in accordance with State law, by the amount of regular benefits previously paid or deemed paid. If State law so provides, the maximum amount established in the individual's HEB/EB account is reduced by the amount of additional benefits paid or deemed paid during the individual's benefit year which did not begin in the EB period or HUP. See 20 CFR 615.7(b)(2). Determination and Payment of HEB: When a HUP triggers "on," in a State under State law provisions which are in conformity with Section 203(f) of the FSEUCA (including the requirements of Section 202(b)(3)(B) of the FSEUCA), each individual with an existing benefit year when the EB period begins has entitlement to HEB. The EB period may be in effect prior to or simultaneously with the HUP. An individual claiming a week of unemployment beginning during the benefit year, or thereafter, during the HUP, shall have their monetary entitlement determined or redetermined to the HEB amount, including dependent's allowances, that represents the lesser of: (a) 80 percent of the total amount of regular compensation, including dependent's allowances, (b) 20 times the individual's average weekly benefit amount, or (c) 46 times the individual's average weekly benefit amount, reduced, but not below zero, by the amount of regular and additional benefits (if State law so provides) and all EB previously paid or deemed paid. The eligibility period for the payment of HEB consists of only those weeks beginning during a HUP. Therefore, when the HUP ends, the account of each individual, whose monetary award was determined or redetermined to the HEB level during the HUP, shall be redetermined to the amount, including dependent's allowances, that represents the account balance minus the unpaid portion of the increased award attributable to the HEB determination. Action Required: State Administrators are requested to make a copy of this letter available to all appropriate staff.

References: The Trade Act of 1974 as amended; regulations at 20 CFR 617; GAL 4-89, and Change l; Section C of APPENDIX A to GAL 15-90; and Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Audit Report No. 05-93-008-03-330. Background: The OIG recently completed an audit of the TAA Program in nine selected States. The OIG conducted the audit to determine if the TAA program assisted workers to find suitable employment and, where training was needed, how States managed their training efforts. States audited were Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The OIG concluded that ETA and the States did not know if the program is effective in assisting workers to return to suitable employment. The OIG felt that data necessary to evaluate the program are not available because clearly defined objectives, follow up and relevant performance measures are lacking. Among its recommendations, the OIG indicated that ETA should strengthen controls over the granting of waivers from the TAA training requirement if it is to meet the training and reemployment goals for workers implied by the Trade Act. Among the waiver issues cited by the OIG were: no evidence that waivers were periodically reviewed as required; lack of documentation showing special conditions or other justifications for waivers; and numerous cases in which waivers may have been granted for unreasonable time periods, were counterproductive, or may have been contrary to the intent of the program. The OIG also reported that States used waivers to allow participants to receive TRA payments, even though training may have been feasible and appropriate in many cases . This practice may be a disincentive for training and send mixed signals about the priorities of the TAA program. This GAL restates the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) guidance for issuance of TAA certifications waiving workers' participation in TAA training and administrative processes which States must have in place to ensure proper administration of the waiver of training requirements. States' Responsibility: States have a positive responsibility to ensure that certifications waiving workers' participation in TAA training are granted only when it has been determined that training is not feasible or appropriate. GAL 15-90 provides specific guidance to the States on how to make a determination on whether training is "feasible or appropriate" for a TAA applicant. A determination on whether training is "feasible or appropriate" is made by evaluating whether training suitable for the worker is available, the training is approvable under Section 236, and the worker is able to take full advantage of the training and complete the training. In addition, full funding for the training must be available and the training must commence within thirty days of approval. In addition, when a State agency makes a determination that the training requirement will be waived for an individual, the State agency must issue a written certification to the individual of such a finding. State agencies are also required to develop a procedure to review these certifications every 30 days or less to ensure that the conditions upon which the certification was granted continue to exist. If conditions under which a waiver certification was issued have changed, the certification must be revoked if it is determined that training is now appropriate. Finally, State agencies must also develop procedures for compiling and reporting on the number of certifications issued and revoked, by reason. Although State agencies are not required to forward copies of individual waivers to the Department, Regional staff responsible for TAA activities will check random samples of waivers during regular ETA reviews. Operating instructions on State responsibilities for providing certifications waiving workers' participation in TAA training are issued in Section C of APPENDIX A of GAL 15-90, dated August 21, 1990. Action Required: The OIG findings underscore the importance of implementing and adhering to administrative controls on the issuances of waivers. States must inform all appropriate staff of the content of this GAL and implement the following actions. a. Review the State TAA program and ensure that State certifications waiving workers' participation in TAA training are granted, documented and reviewed in accordance with the guidelines described in TAA program operating instructions at Section C of APPENDIX A to GAL 15-90. b. Determine what procedures and administrative controls, if any, the State needs to have implemented to ensure that waivers are being reviewed every 30 days to determine the current standing of the waiver. c. Implement corrective action or procedures, where needed, to ensure that the State is able to compile and report on certifications and revocations in a timely and accurate manner and that the State administration of TAA training waivers is in accordance with TAA program operating instructions at Section C of APPENDIX A to GAL 15-90.

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

References: Title V - NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance and Other Provisions of PL 103-182, North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. The Trade Act of 1974 as amended; regulations at 20 CFR 617; GAL 6-94; GAL 7-94; FM 19-94; and FM 1-95 and Change 1. Background: The office of Trade Adjustment Assistance (OTAA) has launched a capacity building strategy aimed at increasing the effectiveness of staff in local and State agencies that administer NAFTA-TAA benefits and training services across the country. OTAA is supporting this effort through a variety of projects and activities which are responsive to, and in support of, the States' NAFTA-TAA service delivery systems and focus primarily on effective customer satisfaction practices. OTAA staff has been meeting with State and Regional NAFTA-TAA and regular Trade staff to evaluate the effectiveness of the Trade program in the following areas; assisting workers find suitable employment, assisting States in identifying where additional training services might be needed, and how OTAA can continue to assist the States in delivering services. The focus of theses efforts is to allow the states to improve or enhance their NAFTA-TAA and regular Trade service delivery systems, improve services to Trade participants, and better evaluate program operations and effectiveness. The demand on the Trade program to process an ever increasing number of Trade impacted workers applying for TAA benefits as a result of NAFTA and the growth of regular Trade activity provides the impetus for State involvement with this type of capacity building activity. Without such action, the Trade program will continue to be hard pressed to provide accurate reports in a timely fashion, improve customer service, or ensure quality performance. In the short term, OTAA has developed materials to help the States address specific shortcomings previously identified in the Office of the Inspector General reports. New Resources Available: In consultation with Federal and community-based agencies responsible for providing NAFTA-TAA training and other re-employment services to NAFTA certified dislocated workers, NAFTA-TAA videos and posters have been developed by the Utah Department of Employment Security. The Videos and posters are available in both English and Spanish language versions and were developed as part of an ongoing project to create outreach tools which can be used by States in administering the NAFTA-TAA Program. The intent of this project is to build dislocated workers' awareness of the benefits that may be available to them under the NAFTA-TAA Program. a. The NAFTA-TAA Video: The video outlines the goals of the NAFTA-TAA Program and emphasizes the rapid response assistance and reemployment services available to workers who have been adversely affected by shifts in production to and/or imports from Canada or Mexico. The NAFTA-TAA Video was created as an outreach tool which can be used by States in Administering the NAFTA-TAA Program. Is was developed to provide information and contacts for service providers working in several areas of worker training and program development. The video guides the dislocated worker through the actions that must be taken in order to receive benefits. The video includes descriptions on: How Workers May File a Petition; the State and Federal Role in the Investigative Process; and the Eligibility Criteria set forth by the legislation. The video also describes in detail the four basic types of assistance that workers may receive: job training, income support, job search allowance and relocation allowance. The video may also be used as a training tool to help State staff become more knowledgeable regarding the NAFTA-TAA Program and its benefits. b. The NAFTA-TAA Poster. The NAFTA-TAA Poster was created to promote the availability of the NAFTA-TAA Program to dislocated workers. The poster should be made available to all local employment security agency offices. The poster will most likely be the first exposure dislocated workers will have to the NAFTA-TAA Program. It is designed to advise dislocated workers on the availability of the program and where to seek further information. The telephone number will refer workers to the U.S. Department of Labor in Washington, D.C. However, States may want to add the telephone number where workers can contact local NAFTA-TAA staff. Additional Copies: Additional copies of these resource materials can be ordered (at cost) from Mr. Jan Passelin at the Utah Department of Employment Security at (801) 536-7800. Action Required: State Administrators are requested to: a. Convey the information in this directive to appropriate staff processing NAFTA-TAA certified dislocated workers and secondary workers. b. Request that appropriate State staff review the information contained in the outreach materials and provide the information on programs and resources to local office NAFTA-TAA staff and other service providers on an as needed basis. C. Take the necessary action to fully utilize the materials provided in the attachments. D. Encourage local officials to review the present NAFTA-TAA application processing and benefits delivery system to identify potential areas where these materials may be introduced to improve the States effectiveness in assisting NAFTA-TAA and regular Trade impacted dislocated workers. Inquiries: Inquires should be directed to Mr. Russell T. Kile or Ms. Heidi M. Casta at (202) 219-5555.

References: The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, P.L. 103-31; Sections 302(a), 303(a)(8), 303(a)(9), and 901(c)(1)(A)(i) of the Social Security Act (SSA); the Reed Act (Section 903(c), SSA); the W-P Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 49; and OMB Circular A-87. Background: The NVRA is designed to increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office by means of expanding the number of forums which provide voter registration services. Section 7 of the NVRA provides for specific voter registration agencies. Under Section 7(a)(2), States must designate as voter registration agencies all offices that provide public assistance (i.e., welfare) and all offices that provide State-funded programs primarily engaged in serving persons with disabilities. Section 7(a)(3) provides for other voter registration agencies, in relevant part, as follows: In addition to voter registration agencies designated under paragraph (2), each State shall designate other offices within the State as voter registration agencies. (B) Voter registration agencies designated under subparagraph (A) may include--(i) State or local government offices such as public libraries, public schools, . . . unemployment compensation offices, and offices not described in paragraph (2)(B) that provide services to persons with disabilities. [Emphasis added.] Thus, Section 7(a)(3) of the NVRA permits, but does not mandate, States to designate State UC offices as voter registration agencies. (See paragraphs 4b and 5b of this GAL for discussion of the designation of ES offices as voter registration agencies.) Concerns have been raised by Federal and State officials and public interest organizations about whether Federal funding would be available for voter registration activities in State UC and ES offices. This issuance addresses this question. Applicable Sections of the Law: SSA. Title III, SSA, governs the use of Federal grant funds for the administration of the unemployment compensation programs by the States. Section 302(a), SSA, addresses the uses of UC granted funds as follows: The Secretary of Labor shall from time to time certify to the Secretary of the Treasury for payment to each State which has an unemployment compensation law approved by the Secretary of Labor under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, such amounts as the Secretary of Labor determines to be necessary for the proper and efficient administration of such law during the fiscal year for which such payment is to be made. Section 303(a)(8), SSA, requires--the expenditure of all moneys received pursuant to section 302 of this title solely for the purposes and in the amounts found necessary by the Secretary of Labor for the proper and efficient administration of such State law. Section 303(a)(9), SSA, requires--. . . the replacement, within a reasonable time, of any moneys received pursuant to section 302 of this title, which, because of any action or contingency, have been lost or have been expended for purposes other than, or in amounts in excess of, those found necessary by the Secretary of Labor for the proper administration of such State law. Section 901(c)(1), SSA, authorizes to be made available for expenditure out of the employment security administration account, for each fiscal year--(A) such amounts . . . as the Congress may deem appropriate for the purpose of--(i) assisting the States in the administration of their unemployment compensation laws as provided in title III (including administration pursuant to agreements under any Federal unemployment compensation law). (ii) the establishment and maintenance of systems of public employment offices in accordance with the Act of June 6, 1933, as amended (29 U.S.C., secs. 49-49n) . . . . Reed Act and W-P Act Funds: SESAs include both UC and public ES offices. W-P Act grants are distinct from SSA Title III grants. While the W-P Act does not have limitations on the expenditure of administrative grant funds as specific as those imposed on UC administrative grants, these grants are subject to the same type of restrictions discussed above in connection with UC grants. First, as with Title III grants, W-P Act funds are subject to the restriction of 31 U.S.C. Section 1301(a) that "appropriations shall be applied only to the objects for which the appropriations were made except as otherwise provided by law." Thus, W-P Act funds may be used only for the purposes expressly authorized by law. Second, the limitations of OMB Circular A-87, which addresses cost principles for State and local governments, apply to W-P monies as well as Title III grants. In particular, Attachment A, Section C.1.a. of the Circular requires that to be allowable under a grant, a cost must be necessary for the proper and efficient performance and administration of Federal awards. Interpretation and Discussion: SSA. No chargeable costs against the Title III grant are permitted to fund voter registration activities. Although Congress authorized States to designate UC offices as voter registration agencies, this authorization was not accompanied by an amendment to the Title III, SSA, prohibitions against expenditure of grant monies for purposes other than the proper and efficient administration of the State's UC law. Thus, Title III grant monies may not be used to carry out the purposes of the NVRA. However, in the event a State chooses to designate a State UC office as a voter registration agency, the Department has determined that it will not disallow costs or raise conformity or substantial compliance issues under Sections 303(a)(1), 303(a)(8), and 303(a)(9), SSA, unless the designation of such an agency or the performance of such voter registration functions results in any additional charges to UC grant funds or otherwise impedes the operations of that UC office. Therefore, some voter registration activities may be conducted in State UC offices to the extent that the States neither incur additional chargeable costs in the use of existing UC-funded resources nor allow such activities to compromise UC operations. To the extent that additional costs are incurred (even if they appear to be deminimis costs), States must fund such additional costs from non-UC administrative grant sources. Failure to do so could result in disallowed costs and other appropriate remedies. W-P Act and Reed Act Funds: States may, under the limitations described below, use Reed Act and Section 7(a) and (b) W-P Act funds to carry out the purposes of the NVRA in SESAs designated as voter registration agencies. (1) W-P Funds. Currently W-P funds, i.e., ES grants, are used for a wide variety of activities all of which in some way relate to the basic labor exchange functions of an ES agency. The W-P Act authorizes the appropriation of funds "necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act." Since the purposes of the Act are "to promote the establishment and maintenance of a national system of public employment offices . . .", 29 U.S.C. Section 49, (emphasis added), funds under the Act may be used to fund ES office administrative expenses. States may, under the NVRA, designate any of a variety of public offices to conduct voter registration activities, including ES offices statewide. The Department has determined that, if an ES office is designated under the NVRA, then voter registration is a legitimate ES administrative expense chargeable to ES grants. This position is consistent with Congress' recognition in the NVRA that voter registration is an important Federal priority and that Federal agencies are, therefore, to cooperate with the States as much as possible regarding the designation of voter registration agencies. Further support for this position is found in Section 7(a)(3)(B) of the W-P Act authorizing SESAs to use ES grant monies for "developing linkages between services funded under this Act and related Federal or State legislation." Congress' purpose in enacting the NVRA was to require States to make access to voter registration widely available, thus providing sufficient linkage for this purpose. Therefore, if a State elects to use SESAs for voter registration activities, the U.S. Department of Labor permits the use of Section 7(a) and (b) W-P Act funds for voter registration activities. However, SESAs are not required to use ES grants for voter registration activities. If ES grants are used, SESAs shall act prudently in using such resources to ensure the integrity of the States' basic labor exchange function. (2) Reed Act Funds. Section 903(c)(2), SSA, provides that "a State may, pursuant to a specific appropriation made by the legislative body of the State, use money withdrawn from its account in the payment of expenses incurred by it for the administration of its unemployment compensation law and public employment offices . . . ." Under the SSA, voter registration activities are not necessary for the proper and efficient administration of the State's UC law. Since, however, Reed Act monies may be used to pay expenses of administration of public employment offices, if an activity is fundable under the W-P Act, then it may be paid for from Reed Act monies. Therefore, Reed Act monies may be used to fund voter registration costs under the same circumstances as W-P funds. As discussed above, these activities are fundable under the W-P Act. Since these activities are allowable costs under the W-P Act, if ES offices are designated as voter registration agencies, voter registration activities may be funded with Reed Act monies (if any are available). States are reminded that if Reed Act funds are used for administrative costs such as voter registration activities, the expenditure is not recoverable as is the case when the funds are used to purchase a building and amortized using UC or W-P grant funds. (3) Summary. In accordance with the Department's interpretation and consistent with W-P requirements, SESAs may use ES grants or Reed Act funds for voter registration activities in the following situations, but are not limited to these situations: (1) where voter registration forms and collection points are provided at an ES office, (2) where voter registration tables are set up in the lobby areas of the ES offices, or (3) where ES staff are available to assist voter registration activities. Further, if UC staff in an UC office co-located with an ES office, were to assist voter registration activities which created chargeable costs, such costs may be chargeable to the ES grant or the Reed Act appropriation. In no circumstances may additional costs be charged to the UC grant. However, the Department of Labor will not disallow costs or raise substantial compliance issues unless the designation of UC offices or the performance of voter registration activities results in additional charges to UC grant funds or otherwise impedes the operation of such offices. Action Required: SESAs in States where the public employment service offices and UC offices have been designated as voter registration agencies are requested to review existing and proposed procedures to ensure that any expenditure of funds for such activities are consistent with the guidance provided in this issuance.

References: The Trade Act of 1974, as amended; Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-182), 20 CFR Part 617; GAL 6-94; and GAL 7-94.

References: 20 CFR part 655, subpart A; 20 CFR part 655, subparts H and I; 20 CFR part 656; Technical Assistance Guide (TAG) No. 656 Labor Certifications; General Administration Letter (GAL) 2- 98, Prevailing Wage Policy for Nonagricultural Immigration Programs; and GAL 2-98, Change 1, Prevailing Wage Policy for Researchers Employed by Colleges and Universities, College and University Operated Federally Funded Research and Development Centers, and Certain Federal Agencies. Background: The Bureau of Labor Statistics regional offices have recently provided new data files to Employment Security Agencies which contain the updated OES data. The State is to use this data in making prevailing wage determinations during Calendar Year 1999. This year there are two data sets. One set is composed of the ALC__97f.dbf and *.dat files and is referred to as the AALC@ database. These files will be used to determine prevailing wages for occupations in most industries. The second set is composed of the EDC__97f.dbf and *.dat files and is referred to as the AEDC@ database. These files are to be used to determine prevailing wages in industries identified in ACWIA, as discussed below. These data sets should be used for making prevailing wage determinations immediately upon receipt. This year¿s data are the second year of OES estimates and have been developed using both 1996 and 1997 survey data that, when combined, cover approximately 800,000 sample units. As expected, wages for use in 1999 differ from those used in 1998. One of the results of the new sample is that the number of occupation/location cells whose data is based on data only obtained within the specific location has more than doubled from last year. Fewer cells must show national or State data because of the inability to obtain a sample resulting in publishable data for that cell. The recently enacted ACWIA, which increased the H-1B quota and made other changes to the program, also included a change for the calculation of prevailing wages in all labor certification programs for all occupations in specific types of employers. The ACWIA states: Section 212 (8 U.S.C.1182) is amended by adding at the end the following: (p)(1) In computing the prevailing wage level for an occupational classification in an area of employment for purposes of subsections (n)(1)(A)(i)(II) [H-1B program] and (a)(5)(A) [permanent program] in the case of an employee of- (A) an institution of higher education (as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965), or a related or affiliated nonprofit entity; or (B) a nonprofit research organization or a Governmental research organization, the prevailing wage level shall only take into account employees at such institutions and organizations in the area of employment....@ Attached to this GAL is the definition of ¿an institution of higher education¿ found in the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA). Any institution meeting this definition is to be provided a prevailing wage determined by using the AEDC@ database (unless an approvable employer provided survey is offered). An institution which can show evidence (e.g., a charter) that they are a nonprofit entity either related to or affiliated with an institution of higher education as defined in the HEA is also to use the AEDC@ database. Institutions that can offer evidence of being a nonprofit research organization (e.g., recognition by IRS of nonprofit status) or a Governmental research organization are also to be provided prevailing wages based on the EDC database (unless an approvable employer provided survey is offered). The new law went beyond the recently published regulations referring to ¿researchers¿ in colleges and universities and selected research facilities. The ACWIA indicates that all occupations in institutions of higher education, a related or affiliated nonprofit entity, nonprofit research organization, or governmental research agency, should be provided prevailing wages using the AEDC database or use the prevailing wage based on a sample of similar institutions. Use of OES data: The OES wages in the AALC@ database from BLS are to be used to determine prevailing wages except: a) where a Davis-Bacon wage, an SCA wage, or a contract wage takes precedence, as outlined in GAL 2-98; and b) where the occupation is in an industry described under ACWIA. The OES survey collected wage data on occupations found in institutions of higher education (SIC 822). This is the AEDC@ database (files listed as EDC__97.dbf and *.dat). The AEDC@ database is to be used to determine the prevailing wage for occupations in organizations identified in ACWIA above, (institutions of higher education, a related or affiliated nonprofit entity, nonprofit research organization, or governmental research agency). The Davis-Bacon and Service Contract Act wages are not to be used as the prevailing wage for occupations in organizations identified in ACWIA because of the specific wording in the Act regarding the way in which prevailing wages are to be determined for these organizations. However, if a negotiated union agreement exists for the requested job in the facility where the job is being requested, the negotiated wage is to be used as the prevailing wage. The provisions of GAL 2-98 continue to apply to the process of providing Level One and Level Two as the appropriate prevailing wage for the requested occupation. Also applicable is the process described under GAL 2-98, Section J, Use of Employer-Provided Published Wage Surveys or Employer-Conducted Surveys. For occupations in organizations which were identified in ACWIA, employer provided or conducted surveys must meet the criteria under GAL 2-98, Section J, except that criterion (5) will not apply. Instead, such surveys, in order to be acceptable, must include a representative sample of the occupation in similar institutions as required in the ACWIA. We are currently discussing with BLS the possibility of obtaining wage data for ¿Governmental research organizations¿. Although BLS has data from OPM on Federal wages, we must determine if we can extract from that data those wages paid in organizations where the primary function is research. Until that information can be provided, the EDC database should be used to provide prevailing wage determinations in these organizations as well. For users of ALCATS, that computer program has been revised to allow the user to select the use of the ALC or EDC database, as appropriate. The application is available to down load from the following internet site: http://edc.dws.state.ut.us/alcats21.htm. State Agency staff that would like to obtain a CD containing the application may obtain it either by using the order form available at that site, or by calling Gary Ray at 801-526-9455. Action Required: State Administrators are requested to: A. Provide this guidance to appropriate staff. B. Ensure that the State OES coordinator has provided the 1997 Occupational Employment Statistics Survey to staff responsible for making prevailing wage determinations under the nonagricultural Alien Labor Certification programs. C. Ensure that state staff start using these data for determining prevailing wages immediately upon receipt of the data.

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