B-160026, SEP 20, 1966

B-160026, SEP 20, 1966

PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE

CHARLES L. SCHULTZE, BUREAU OF BUDGET:

WE REFER TO THE LETTER OF YOUR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION DATED SEPTEMBER 8, 1966, REQUESTING OUR REVIEW OF AND COMMENTS UPON THE PROPOSED REVISION OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A -56, WHICH GOVERNS THE PAYMENT OF CERTAIN TRAVEL, TRANSPORTATION AND SIMILAR EXPENSES OF CIVILIAN OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES. THE PROPOSED REVISIONS WOULD IMPLEMENT THE ACT OF JULY 21, 1966, PUB. L. 89-516, TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH ACT WAS NOT IMPLEMENTED BY TM NO. 6 TO CIRCULAR NO. A-56 DATED JULY 26, 1966.

SECTION 1.2D OF CIRCULAR NO. A-56 WOULD BE REWORDED AS FOLLOWS:

"'IMMEDIATE FAIMILY' MEANS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING NAMED MEMBERS OF THE EMPLOYEE'S HOUSEHOLD AT THE TIME OFFICIAL TRAVEL IS PERFORMED: SPOUSE, CHILDREN (INCLUDING STEPCHILDREN AND ADOPTED CHILDREN) UNMARRIED AND UNDER TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR PHYSICALLY OR MENTALLY INCAPABLE OF SUPPORTING THEMSELVES REGARDLESS OF AGE, OR DEPENDENT PARENTS OF THE EMPLOYEE (BUT NOT OF THE SPOUSE)."

SINCE THE "OFFICIAL TRAVEL" REFERRED TO PRESUMABLY IS THAT OF THE EMPLOYEE HIMSELF WE SUGGEST FOR CLARIFICATION THAT THE WORDS "BY THE EMPLOYEE" BE INSERTED AFTER THE WORD "PERFORMED". ALSO, WE POINT OUT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION THAT THE WORDS "AT THE TIME OFFICIAL TRAVEL IS PERFORMED" WOULD NOT APPEAR TO COVER THE CASE OF AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS ON TEMPORARY DUTY AT THE TIME HE RECEIVES NOTICE OF HIS TRANSFER TO THAT POINT.

SECTION 1.2H DEFINING "HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND PERSONAL EFFECTS" LIMITS SUCH GOODS AND EFFECTS TO ITEMS WHICH BELONG TO AND ARE IN THE POSSESSION OF THE EMPLOYEE OR HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILY AT THE TIME SHIPMENT OR STORAGE IS AUTHORIZED. UNDER THE PROPOSED DEFINITION AN EMPLOYEE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SHIP AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE ITEMS OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND PERSONAL EFFECTS WHICH HE ACQUIRED BETWEEN THE DATE OF HIS TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION AND THE DATE HE WAS REQUIRED TO BEGIN TRAVEL TO HIS NEW STATION. WE BELIEVE THAT THE PROPOSED REGULATION WOULD CAUSE HARDSHIP TO SOME EMPLOYEES ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO ARE TRANSFERRED TO FOREIGN AREAS WHERE CERTAIN HOUSEHOLD FURNISHINGS AND APPLIANCES MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE.

THE REASON FOR THE WORD "OTHER" IN SUBSECTION 3.1C(1) IS NOT APPARENT AND WE SUGGEST THAT IT BE DELETED.

SECTION 2.4 PROVIDES THAT HOUSE HUNTING TRIPS MAY BE MADE AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE ONLY IF THE EMPLOYEE HAS AGREED IN WRITING TO THE CONTEMPLATED TRANSFER AND IF A DATE FOR SUCH TRANSFER HAS BEEN FIXED. AS A RESULT EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE MADE HOUSE HUNTING TRIPS DURING THE RETROACTIVE PERIOD COVERED BY THE REGULATIONS - JULY 21, 1966, TO THE DATE THE REGULATIONS ARE PROMULGATED - WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELIANCE UPON THE NEW PROVISION OF LAW UNLESS THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THAT SECTION WERE MET. SINCE THERE MAY BE CASES IN WHICH THE EMPLOYEE MADE THE TRIP DURING THE RETROACTIVE PERIOD WITHOUT HAVING AGREED IN WRITING TO THE TRANSFER, BUT HAS OTHERWISE MET ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF SUCH TRAVEL, YOU MAY WISH TO CONSIDER WHETHER SOME MODIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION IN THAT REGARD IS JUSTIFIED.

SECTION 2.4C(2) PROVIDES THAT EMPLOYEES ON AUTHORIZED HOUSE HUNTING TRIPS WILL BE CARRIED IN A DUTY STATUS BY THEIR EMPLOYING AGENCY. SINCE THIS REQUIREMENT DEALS WITH THE DUTY AND LEAVE STATUS OF EMPLOYEES THE MATTER APPEARS TO BE PRIMARILY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE AGENCY CONCERNED. THEREFORE, WE SUGGEST THAT THE PROVISION BE DELETED.

REGARDING THE TIME LIMIT APPLICABLE TO THE GRANTING OF A TEMPORARY LODGING ALLOWANCE - SECTION 2.5 - WE SUGGEST THAT, FOR CLARIFICATION, THE FOLLOWING PROVISO BE INCLUDED IN SUBSECTION C OF THAT SECTION.

"WHEN THE EMPLOYEE, TOGETHER WITH HIS DEPENDENTS, OCCUPIES TEMPORARY QUARTERS AT BOTH THE OLD STATION AND THE NEW STATION THE TIME USED IN TRAVEL BETWEEN SUCH STATIONS WILL NOT BE COUNTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE EXPIRATION OF THE APPLICABLE TIME LIMITATION."

WE HAVE BEEN INFORMALLY ADVISED THAT THERE IS UNDER CONSIDERATION BY YOUR AGENCY A CHANGE IN THE DEFINITION OF "IMMEDIATE FAMILY" AS CONTAINED IN SECTION 1.2D OF CIRCULAR NO. A-56 TO INCLUDE DEPENDENT PARENTS OF THE EMPLOYEE'S SPOUSE AS WELL AS DEPENDENT PARENTS OF THE EMPLOYEE HIMSELF. IN 26 COMP. GEN. 211 WE HELD THAT THE TERM "IMMEDIATE FAMILY" AS USED IN SECTION 201(A) OF THE INDEPENDENT OFFICES APPROPRIATION ACT, 1946, WHICH CONTAINED A PROVISION SIMILAR TO THAT LATER CONTAINED IN SECTION 1 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES ACT OF 1946, AND CURRENTLY CONTAINED IN 5 U.S.C. 5724, DID NOT INCLUDE THE MOTHER-IN-LAW OR FATHER-IN-LAW OF THE EMPLOYEE. WE NOTE THAT DECISION WAS BASED NOT ONLY ON THE CONTROLLING ACT BUT ALSO UPON EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9587 WHICH IMPLEMENTED SUCH ACT. WE HAVE EXAMINED THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORIES OF THE ACTS IN QUESTION AND FIND NO INDICATION THAT THE CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO GIVE THE PRESIDENT AUTHORITY TO INCLUDE THE INDIVIDUALS IN QUESTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF "IMMEDIATE FAMILY". THEREFORE, WE WILL NOT OBJECT IF SECTION 1.2D OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56 IS AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE DEPENDENT PARENTS OF THE EMPLOYEE'S SPOUSE WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF IMMEDIATE FAMILY.