B-210555.23, MAY 18, 1987

B-210555.23, MAY 18, 1987

CIVILIAN PERSONNEL - TRAVEL - COMMUTING EXPENSES - PROHIBITION - APPLICABILITY DIGEST: 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR INTERNAL AFFAIRS, U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE, IS ADVISED THAT THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION TRAVEL REGULATIONS ON WHICH HE RELIED DO NOT AUTHORIZE HOME-TO-AIRPORT TRAVEL IN A GOVERNMENT CAR. FTR SECTION 1-2.3D, FPMR 101-7 AUTHORIZES REIMBURSEMENT ONLY FOR TAXICABS, PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION OR MILEAGE AND PARKING FEES IF A PRIVATE VEHICLE IS USED. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR INTERNAL AFFAIRS, U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE, IS ADVISED THAT THE STATUTORY PROHIBITION IN 31 U.S.C. SEC. 1344 AGAINST USE OF A GOVERNMENT CAR FOR HOME-TO-WORK TRAVEL IS NOT LIMITED TO TRAVEL FROM THE EMPLOYEE'S HOME TO HIS HEADQUARTERS, BUT EXTENDS TO ANYWHERE HE MAY BE REQUIRED TO REPORT, INCLUDING A CONFERENCE SITE OUTSIDE HIS USUAL OFFICE. HOWEVER, IF HIS DRIVER IS FOUND TO BE ENTITLED TO A GOVERNMENT CAR UNDER THE "FIELD WORK" EXCEPTION IN THE LAW, AND DOES NOT INCUR ANY ADDITIONAL EXPENSE TO THE GOVERNMENT BY PICKING UP THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ON THE WAY TO THE MEETING, THERE WOULD BE NO NEED TO REPAY HIS AGENCY FOR THE COST OF THE TRIP. DECISION B-210555.18, B-210555.20, MARCH 10, 1987, PROVIDED TO ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION.

THE HONORABLE WILLIAM GREEN:

THANK-YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS ON OUR REPORT TO CONGRESSMAN JACK BROOKS ABOUT UNAUTHORIZED USES OF GOVERNMENT VEHICLES BY YOU AND COMMISSIONER VON RAAB FOR HOME-TO-WORK TRANSPORTATION. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION FOR YOUR FRANKNESS AND COOPERATION IN ASSISTING MY STAFF TO GATHER THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO PREPARE THE REPORT.

WE ARE QUITE PREPARED TO ACCEPT YOUR STATEMENT THAT THERE WERE ONLY TWO OCCASIONS DURING YOUR SERVICE AT CUSTOMS ON WHICH YOU WERE PROVIDED WITH A GOVERNMENT VEHICLE FOR TRAVEL BETWEEN YOUR HOME AND AN OFFICIAL ASSIGNMENT, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT CUSTOMS HAS NOT MAINTAINED VEHICLE USAGE RECORDS SINCE 1981.

YOU HAVE NOT INDICATED THE DATES ON WHICH THIS TRANSPORTATION TOOK PLACE. AS YOU POINT OUT QUITE CORRECTLY, THERE WAS CERTAINLY A GREAT DEAL OF CONFUSION PRIOR TO 1983 AS TO WHETHER AN AGENCY WAS FREE TO DETERMINE FOR ITSELF THE NATURE OF "OFFICIAL BUSINESS" JUSTIFYING THE USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE FOR HOME-TO-WORK TRANSPORTATION. OUR DECISION IN 62 COMP.GEN. 438 (1983) WAS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE A DEFINITIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE PARAMETERS OF 31 U.S.C. SEC. 1344, AS IT WAS THEN CONSTITUTED, TO CLEAR UP THAT CONFUSION. HOWEVER, WE STATED EXPLICITLY THAT THE DECISION SHOULD BE READ AS PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE ONLY. WE DID NOT FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO SEEK RECOVERY FOR ANY MISUSE OF GOVERNMENT VEHICLES PRIOR TO JUNE 3, 1983- - THE DATE THAT OUR DECISION WAS ISSUED. THEREFORE, IF EITHER OF THE TWO TRIPS YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED TOOK PLACE BEFORE THAT DATE, NO PERSONAL REPAYMENT IS NECESSARY.

I WOULD LIKE TO CLEAR UP A POSSIBLE MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE USE OF A GOVERNMENT CAR IN BOTH OF THE SITUATIONS YOU MENTION.

WITH RESPECT TO THE TRIP FROM YOUR HOME TO THE AIRPORT, YOU STATE: "IT APPEARS FROM YOUR REPORT AND OTHER GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE DECISIONS THAT I WOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE TRIP TO THE AIRPORT AT THE BEGINNING OF OVERNIGHT TRAVEL AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE." IT IS TRUE THAT YOU ARE ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR ANY EXPENSES YOU INCUR IN GOING DIRECTLY TO THE AIRPORT FROM HOME. (SEE FTR SEC. 1-2.3D, FPMR 101-7, OCTOBER 1, 1982.) HOWEVER, THE GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS AUTHORIZE SUCH REIMBURSEMENT ONLY FOR TAXICABS, PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, OR MILEAGE AND PARKING FEES IF YOU USE YOUR OWN CAR. (WE ARE NOT CONCERNED, HOWEVER, ABOUT THE PORTION OF THE TRIP FROM THE AIRPORT TO THE OFFICE OR, LATER IN THE DAY, FROM THE OFFICE TO THE AIRPORT. THE STATUTE PROHIBITS THE USE OF A GOVERNMENT CAR ONLY WHEN THE CAR IS DRIVEN TO OR FROM THE EMPLOYEE'S HOME.)

THE SECOND INSTANCE YOU MENTION IS A TRIP FROM YOUR HOME TO A CUSTOMS MEETING IN ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA. (AGAIN, WE DO NOT QUESTION THE RIDE BACK TO THE OFFICE FROM THE MEETING.) AS A GENERAL RULE, THERE IS NO EXCEPTION IN THE LAW FOR GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION FROM AN EMPLOYEE'S HOME TO AN OFFICIAL MEETING, EVEN THOUGH IT IS HELD AWAY FROM HIS REGULAR OFFICE. ALTHOUGH, AS YOU STATE, "PEOPLE IN THE AGENCY WHO WERE IN A POSITION TO KNOW THE CONDITIONS FOR HOME-TO-WORK VEHICLE USE," TOLD YOU IT WAS ENTIRELY A MATTER OF AGENCY DISCRETION TO AUTHORIZE SUCH USE, THOSE PEOPLE WERE MISTAKEN.

YOUR LETTER SUGGESTS ONE POSSIBLE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD CHANGE THAT CONCLUSION. YOU MENTION THAT YOUR DRIVER WAS ALSO AN AGENT AUTHORIZED TO HAVE A CAR FOR "FIELD WORK." THE "FIELD WORK" EXCEPTION IS VERY NARROW IN SCOPE, BOTH IN THE PREVIOUS LAW AND IN THE NEW AMENDMENTS TO 31 U.S.C. SEC. 3614 MADE BY PUB.L. NO. 99-550, ENACTED ON OCTOBER 26, 1986. I SUGGEST THAT YOU READ THE HOUSE REPORT ON THE NEW AMENDMENTS WHICH EXPLAIN IN SOME DETAIL WHAT IS INVOLVED IN DETERMINING THAT AN EMPLOYEE IS ENGAGED IN "FIELD WORK." (SEE H. REPT. NO. 99 451, 99TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 7 & 8.) SINCE THIS IS THE SAME CRITERIA USED BY THE GAO TO DETERMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FIELD WORK EXCEPTION PRIOR TO ENACTMENT OF THE NEW AMENDMENTS, WE WOULD BE SATISFIED WITH A DETERMINATION BY THE HEAD OF YOUR AGENCY OR HIS DELEGATE THAT THIS AGENT WAS IN FACT ENGAGED IN "FIELD WORK," AS DEFINED IN THE HOUSE REPORT.

THERE IS ONE OTHER CONDITION WHICH YOU MAY ALSO BE ABLE TO SATISFY. OUR 1983 DECISION (62 COMP.GEN. 438, 447), WE MENTIONED THAT WE HAD NO OBJECTION TO AN EMPLOYEE RIDING WITH ANOTHER EMPLOYEE WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO HAVE A GOVERNMENT CAR FOR HOME-TO-WORK TRAVEL AS LONG AS THE AUTHORIZED EMPLOYEE DOES NOT GO OUT OF HIS WAY TO PICK UP THE UNAUTHORIZED EMPLOYEE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ADDED PASSENGER MAY NOT RESULT IN AN ADDITIONAL EXPENSE TO THE GOVERNMENT.

IN SUMMARY, IF YOUR DRIVER CAN PROPERLY BE FOUND TO BE ENGAGED IN "FIELD WORK" AND IF THE STOP AT YOUR HOUSE TO PICK YOU UP FOR THE MEETING DID NOT INVOLVE ANY APPRECIABLE EXTRA MILEAGE OR OTHER COST TO THE GOVERNMENT, YOU WOULD NOT NEED TO REPAY THE COSTS OF THAT TRIP TO THE GOVERNMENT.

I HAVE ENCLOSED A COPY OF A DECISION ADDRESSED TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC) AND TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD (FHLBB), ISSUED ON MARCH 10, 1987. THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FHLBB MAKES SOME ARGUMENTS WHICH ARE VERY SIMILAR TO YOURS. I THOUGHT THAT YOU MIGHT FIND THE DISCUSSION IN THAT DECISION HELPFUL.