B-118653, JUL. 15, 1969

B-118653: Jul 15, 1969

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Shirley Jones
(202) 512-8156
jonessa@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

THEY ARE NOT ADEQUATE TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES. WAS SUCH THAT THE BUREAU SHOULD TAKE ALL REASONABLE STEPS TO FACILITATE THE CREATION OF STATE PROGRAMS. WAS TO ASSURE THE STATES THAT. THE BUREAU WILL NOT ATTEMPT TO RECLAIM ANY QUESTIONABLE PAYMENTS. IT WILL NOT APPROVE A RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM UNLESS THE STATE FIRST COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS' INSTRUCTIONAL MEMORANDUM 80-1-68 * * *. SHOULD IT APPEAR FROM THIS AUDIT THAT THE RELOCATION PAYMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED. APPROPRIATE WARNINGS WILL BE ISSUED. THE BUREAU WILL ACT TO RECOVER ANY AMOUNTS ERRONEOUSLY PAID. IT IS FELT THAT THIS WILL ADEQUATELY CONTROL THE STATE RELOCATION PROGRAMS.

B-118653, JUL. 15, 1969

FEDERAL RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS - REGULATION PROPRIETY DECISION TO SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION CONCERNING PROPRIETY OF A PROPOSED MEMORANDAM IMPLEMENTING RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS UNDER FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT OF 1968, 23 U.S.C. 501-511. SINCE THE PROPOSED INSTRUCTIONS DO NOT REQUIRE COMPLETE COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND DO NOT REQUIRE RECOVERY FROM RECIPIENTS OF IMPROPER OR ERRONEOUS PAYMENTS, THEY ARE NOT ADEQUATE TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES.

TO MR. SECRETARY:

YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 7, 1969, SUBMITS FOR OUR VIEWS A PROPOSED CIRCULAR MEMORANDUM OF THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS, TOGETHER WITH A SUPPORTING OPINION PREPARED BY THE CHIEF COUNSEL, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (FHWA). YOU STATE THAT AS NOTED IN THE MEMORANDUM, IMPLEMENTATION OF RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS UNDER CHAPTER 5 OF TITLE 23, U.S.C. AS ENACTED BY THE FEDERAL AID HIGHWAY ACT OF 1968, 23 U.S.C. 501-511, HAS BEEN HINDERED BY THE INABILITY OF MANY STATES TO EXPEND STATE FUNDS PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF ENABLING LEGISLATION. YOU ADVISE THAT EVEN WITH 100 PERCENT FEDERAL PARTICIPATION, THE EXISTING BUREAU PROCEDURES WITH RESPECT TO RECLAMATION OF ERRONEOUS PAYMENTS COULD REQUIRE AN EXPENDITURE OF STATE FUNDS IN SOME CASES. YOU FEEL THAT THE URGENCY OF THE NEED FOR RELOCATION, AS EXPRESSED BY THE CONGRESS, WAS SUCH THAT THE BUREAU SHOULD TAKE ALL REASONABLE STEPS TO FACILITATE THE CREATION OF STATE PROGRAMS. YOU ADVISE THAT ONE SUCH STEP, PROPOSED BY SEVERAL STATES, WAS TO ASSURE THE STATES THAT, ONCE A RELOCATION PROGRAM HAD BEEN APPROVED FOR A FEDERAL -AID PROJECT, THE BUREAU WOULD NOT FOLLOW ITS USUAL POLICY OF CITATION AND RECLAMATION.

YOUR LETTER CONTINUES: "THE ENCLOSED MEMORANDUM PROVIDES THE BASIC ASSURANCE REQUESTED BY THE STATES WHILE RETAINING EFFECTIVE CONTROL OVER THE EXPENDITURE OF FEDERAL FUNDS. IF THE STATES EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE IN THE MAKING OF RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS, THE BUREAU WILL NOT ATTEMPT TO RECLAIM ANY QUESTIONABLE PAYMENTS. HOWEVER, IT WILL NOT APPROVE A RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM UNLESS THE STATE FIRST COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS' INSTRUCTIONAL MEMORANDUM 80-1-68 * * *. ONCE APPROVED, THE RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME AUDIT AS ANY OTHER PHASE OF A FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROJECT. SHOULD IT APPEAR FROM THIS AUDIT THAT THE RELOCATION PAYMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED, APPROPRIATE WARNINGS WILL BE ISSUED. IF IT APPEARS THAT THE STATE HAS FAILED TO EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF PAYMENTS, THE BUREAU WILL ACT TO RECOVER ANY AMOUNTS ERRONEOUSLY PAID. IT IS FELT THAT THIS WILL ADEQUATELY CONTROL THE STATE RELOCATION PROGRAMS, BUT NOT IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO RETARD THEIR ESTABLISHMENT.'

OUR OPINION IS REQUESTED AS TO THE ADEQUACY OF THE POLICY EXPRESSED IN THE PROPOSED MEMORANDUM. 82 STAT. 831, 23 U.S.C. 504, READS, IN PERTINENT PART, AS FOLLOWS---

SECTION 30 OF THE FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT OF 1968, PUB.L. 90-495, QUOTING FROM THE CODE:

"/A) THE SECRETARY SHALL APPROVE, AS A PART OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF A PROJECT UNDER ANY FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM WHICH HE ADMINISTERS, THE COST OF PROVIDING THE PAYMENTS AND SERVICES DESCRIBED IN SECTION 502, EXCEPT THAT NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, THE FEDERAL SHARE OF THE FIRST $25,000 OF SUCH PAYMENTS TO ANY PERSON, ON ACCOUNT OF ANY REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION OR DISPLACEMENT OCCURRING PRIOR TO JULY 1, 1970, SHALL BE INCREASED TO 100 PERCENTUM OF SUCH COST.' UNDER THE ABOVE-QUOTED PROVISION OF LAW THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION IS, IN EFFECT, REQUIRED TO REIMBURSE A STATE THE COST OF PROVIDING THE PAYMENTS AND SERVICES INCIDENT TO RELOCATION WHICH ARE DESCRIBED IN 23 U.S.C. 502.

SECTION 502 OF CHAPTER 5, TITLE 23, PROVIDES GENERALLY--- AS FAR AS PERTINENT HERE--- THAT FAIR AND REASONABLE RELOCATION AND OTHER PAYMENTS SHALL BE AFFORDED DISPLACED PERSONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTIONS 505, 506 AND 507 OF TITLE 23.

SECTION 510 OF TITLE 23, READS AS FOLLOWS:

"/A) TO CARRY INTO EFFECT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER, THE SECRETARY IS AUTHORIZED TO MAKE SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS AS HE MAY DETERMINE TO BE NECESSARY TO ASSURE

"/1) THAT THE PAYMENTS AUTHORIZED BY THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE FAIR AND REASONABLE AND AS UNIFORM AS PRACTICABLE;

"/2) THAT A DISPLACED PERSON WHO MAKES PROPER APPLICATION FOR A PAYMENT AUTHORIZED FOR SUCH PERSON BY THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE PAID PROMPTLY AFTER A MOVE OR, IN HARDSHIP CASES, BE PAID IN ADVANCE; AND

"/3) THAT ANY PERSON AGGRIEVED BY A DETERMINATION AS TO ELIGIBILITY FOR A PAYMENT AUTHORIZED BY THIS CHAPTER, OR THE AMOUNT OF A PAYMENT, MAY HAVE HIS APPLICATION REVIEWED BY THE HEAD OF THE STATE AGENCY MAKING SUCH DETERMINATION.

"/B) THE SECRETARY MAY MAKE SUCH OTHER RULES AND REGULATIONS CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER AS HE DEEMS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO CARRY OUT THIS CHAPTER.'

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAST-CITED PROVISION OF LAW (I.E., 23 U.S.C. 510) INSTRUCTIONAL MEMORANDUM (IM) 80-1-68 HAS BEEN ISSUED BY FHWA TO IMPLEMENT THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 5 OF TITLE 23, U.S.C.

THE POLICY SET FORTH IN THE PROPOSED CIRCULAR MEMORANDUM, BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC ROADS, APPEARS TO BE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSURING THE STATES THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL PAY 100 PERCENT OF THE RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS MADE BY THEM, UP TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED BY LAW, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER A LATER AUDIT OF THE PAYMENTS DETERMINES THE PAYMENTS TO BE ERRONEOUS OR OTHERWISE IMPROPER. UNDER THE PROPOSED CIRCULAR MEMORANDUM, THE ONLY RECOURSE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE FOR RECOVERING INELIGIBLE OR OTHERWISE ERRONEOUS OR IMPROPER PAYMENTS WOULD BE IF THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS MADE A DETERMINATION THAT THE STATE HAD EXCEEDED THE STATUTORY MAXIMUMS OR THAT IT HAD NOT EXERCISED "DUE DILIGENCE" IN DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY AND MAKING PAYMENTS. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE PROPOSED MEMORANDUM HOW IT WILL BE DETERMINED WHETHER A STATE HAS EXERCISED "DUE DILIGENCE" EXCEPT THAT RELOCATION PAYMENTS IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM APPARENTLY WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL PARTICIPATION.

IN THE SUPPORTING OPINION PREPARED BY THE CHIEF COUNSEL OF FHWA THE VIEW IS EXPRESSED THAT THE POLICY OF THE MEMORANDUM IS SUPPORTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE 1968 ACT, THAT IT IS WITHIN THE AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY UNDER CHAPTER 5, AND THAT THE POLICY IS NOT OTHERWISE CONTRARY TO LAW.

ALSO, IN THE CHIEF COUNSEL'S OPINION IT IS STATED THAT THERE IS PRECEDENT FOR THE PROPOSED RULE IN OTHER EXECUTIVE AGENCIES AND SPECIFIC REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE STATUTE GOVERNING THE AID FOR DEPENDENT CHILDREN PROGRAM SUPERVISED BY THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE STATUTE INVOLVED PROVIDES THAT A STATE'S PLAN "WILL PROVIDE THAT NO AID WILL BE FURNISHED ANY INDIVIDUAL UNDER THE PLAN WITH RESPECT TO ANY PERIOD TO WHICH HE IS RECEIVING OLD-AGE ASSISTANCE.' U.S.C. 602 (A) (12). UNDER ANOTHER SECTION, 42 U.S.C. 604 (A) (2), THE SECRETARY MAY TERMINATE ASSISTANCE UNDER AN APPROVED PLAN IF THE STATE HAS FAILED TO COMPLY TO THE CHIEF COUNSEL--- THE STATUTE IS SILENT AS TO WHAT ACTION WILL SUBSTANTIALLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 602 (A) BUT--- ACCORDING BE TAKEN WITH RESPECT TO PAYMENTS IMPROPERLY MADE. THE CHIEF COUNSEL THEN POINTS OUT THAT HEW HAS PROVIDED IN ITS "HANDBOOK OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE MINISTRATION," PARAGRAPH 5512, THAT: "* * * EVEN WHEN THESE STANDARDS HAVE BEEN MET, HOWEVER, SOME INSTANCES MAY OCCUR IN WHICH SUBSEQUENT INFORMATION WILL SHOW THAT THE AGENCY'S PREVIOUS DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY WAS INCORRECT, OR THAT THE RECIPIENT'S CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE CHANGED WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE AGENCY. WHEN A STATE HAS TAKEN NECESSARY ADMINISTRATIVE STEPS TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY, NO QUESTION WILL ARISE REGARDING PAYMENTS UP TO THE TIME THE STATE TAKES CORRECTIVE ACTION, PROVIDED SUCH ACTION IS TAKEN PROMPTLY. * * * IN CASES WHERE ACTION WAS NOT TAKEN TO DETERMINE CONTINUING ELIGIBILITY, FEDERAL PARTICIPATION WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR PERIODS OF INELIGIBILITY SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIME WHEN THE STATE COULD REASONABLY HAVE BEEN EXPECTED TO TAKE ACTION.'

THE CHIEF COUNSEL STATES THAT THE RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF HEW IS MORE LIMITED THAN THAT OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION UNDER SECTION 510. HIS BASIS FOR THIS CONCLUSION IS AS FOLLOWS: "THE RULE MAKING AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1302 IS MORE LIMITED THAN THAT OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION UNDER SECTION 510. THE FORMER HAS AUTHORITY TO MAKE SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS, -NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS CHAPTER, AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO THE EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF THE FUNCTIONS WITH WHICH HE IS CHARGED.- THE LATTER IS NOT LIMITED TO RULES CONCERNING -EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION,- BUT MAY ADOPT SUCH RULES AS HE DEEMS -NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE- TO CARRY OUT THE CHAPTER. THE SECRETARY'S AUTHORITY TO ADOPT A POLICY SUCH AS THAT OF THE CIRCULAR MEMORANDUM IS AMPLY SUPPORTED BY THE PRECEDENT SET BY THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE ACTING UNDER SIMILAR AUTHORITY.'

WHILE, AS INDICATED IN THE CHIEF COUNSEL'S LEGAL MEMORANDUM, 23 U.S.C. 510, VESTS BROAD AUTHORITY IN THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION TO ADOPT SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS AS HE DEEMS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO CARRY OUT CHAPTER 5, THE SECTION IS NOT DISSIMILAR TO NUMEROUS PROVISIONS IN OTHER LEGISLATIVE ACTS AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF REGULATIONS. MOREOVER, WE FOUND NOTHING IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE 1968 ACT TO INDICATE THAT THE AUTHORITY CONTAINED IN 23 U.S.C. 510 MAY BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO AUTHORIZE YOU TO ISSUE REGULATIONS WAIVING RECOVERY OF RELOCATION PAYMENTS THAT ARE MADE IN CONTRAVENTION OF REGULATIONS, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ISSUED TO GOVERN SUCH PAYMENTS.

INSOFAR AS PARAGRAPH 5512 OF HEW'S ABOVE-CITED HANDBOOK IS CONCERNED, THAT PARAGRAPH READS IN FULL AS FOLLOWS:

"5512. INTERPRETATION "STATE AGENCIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING INITIAL AND CONTINUING ELIGIBILITY FOR ALL PAYMENTS IN WHICH FEDERAL FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION IS CLAIMED. MINIMUM STANDARDS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR THE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY AS WELL AS MINIMUM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS AFFECTING THE DETERMINATION OF CONTINUING ELIGIBILITY. WHEN THESE STANDARDS ARE MET FEW QUESTIONS OF FEDERAL FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION WILL ARISE REGARDING ELIGIBILITY. EVEN WHEN THESE STANDARDS HAVE BEEN MET, HOWEVER, SOME INSTANCES MAY OCCUR IN WHICH SUBSEQUENT INFORMATION WILL SHOW THAT THE AGENCY'S PREVIOUS DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY WAS INCORRECT, OR THAT THE RECIPIENT'S CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE CHANGED WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE AGENCY. WHEN A STATE HAS TAKEN NECESSARY ADMINISTRATIVE STEPS TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY, NO QUESTION WILL ARISE REGARDING PAYMENTS UP TO THE TIME THE STATE TAKES CORRECTIVE ACTION, PROVIDED SUCH ACTION IS TAKEN PROMPTLY. (SEE IV-5514 ITEMS 2A,B,C.) CASES WHERE ACTION WAS NOT TAKEN TO DETERMINE CONTINUING ELIGIBILITY, FEDERAL PARTICIPATION WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR PERIODS OF INELIGIBILITY SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIME WHEN THE STATE COULD REASONABLY HAVE BEEN EXPECTED TO TAKE ACTION.'

AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1968, PARAGRAPH 5514 OF THE SAME REGULATIONS PROVIDED THAT:

"5514. FEDERAL FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION "THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL PARTICIPATE IN ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS MADE TO A RECIPIENT OR TO A PARENT OF A DEPENDENT CHILD DETERMINED TO BE ELIGIBLE BY A STATE AGENCY UP TO THE DATE OF DISCONTINUANCE OF OR REDUCTION IN THE AWARD BY THE STATE AGENCY IF SUCH PAYMENTS ARE OTHERWISE MATCHABLE, PROVIDED:

"1. ELIGIBILITY WAS ESTABLISHED AS OF THE DATE OF THE FIRST PAYMENT ON THE BASIS OF RECORDED FACTS, SECURED BY INVESTIGATION:

"A. IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE AGENCY STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN THE APPROVED STATE PLAN IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT, OR

"B. IF THE STATE PLAN DOES NOT CONTAIN SPECIFIC STANDARDS, DEFINITIONS, AND PROCEDURES OR IF SUCH STATE STANDARDS ARE MORE LIMITING THAN FEDERAL STANDARDS, THEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARDS, DEFINITIONS, AND PROCEDURES APPROVED BY THE ADMINISTRATION AS BEING ADEQUATE FOR ACCEPTABLE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY.'

THE HEW REGULATION REFERRED TO BY THE CHIEF COUNSEL GOES ONLY TO THE QUESTION OF DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE MAKING OF PAYMENTS AND PROVIDES, IN EFFECT, THAT IF A STATE HAS TAKEN ALL NECESSARY AND REQUIRED ADMINISTRATIVE STEPS TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY, NO QUESTION REGARDING PAYMENTS WILL BE RAISED IF IT IS LATER DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF SUBSEQUENT INFORMATION THAT THE ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION WAS INCORRECT. IT APPEARS, HOWEVER, THE INCORRECT ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DUE TO ANY ERRORS MADE BY, OR NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF, THE STATE OR ANY OF ITS EMPLOYEES, IN DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY OR IN MAKING PAYMENTS, OTHERWISE FEDERAL PARTICIPATION WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR SUCH PERIOD OF INELIGIBILITY.

IN THIS SAME CONNECTION WE HAVE BEEN INFORMALLY ADVISED BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF HEW THAT PARAGRAPH 5512 OF THE HANDBOOK CONTEMPLATES COMPLIANCE BY THE STATE WITH ALL PERTINENT STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES IN MAKING PAYMENTS UNDER THE PROGRAM INVOLVED. THE PERTINENT REGULATIONS, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ARE NOT COMPLIED WITH BY THE STATE OR A MISTAKE OR ERROR IS MADE BY THE STATE IN DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY SO THAT A PAYMENT IS MADE WHICH IS ERRONEOUS OR OTHERWISE IMPROPER, HEW DOES NOT PARTICIPATE IN SUCH PAYMENT, OR IF IT HAS PARTICIPATED, IT TAKES RECOVERY ACTION AGAINST THE STATE, GENERALLY BY WAY OF SETOFF. IN OTHER WORDS, HEW WOULD NOT CONSIDER A STATE AS HAVING EXERCISED "DUE DILIGENCE" IF THERE WAS A FAILURE BY THE STATE (THROUGH ITS EMPLOYEES) TO COMPLY WITH ALL PERTINENT REGULATIONS, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES (STATE OR FEDERAL), OR IF A MISTAKE BY A STATE EMPLOYEE RESULTED IN AN ERRONEOUS OR OTHERWISE IMPROPER PAYMENT. THUS, IT APPEARS THAT HEW WAIVES COLLECTION OF ERRONEOUS OR IMPROPER PAYMENTS BY A STATE ONLY IN CASE WHERE THE STATE (I.E., ITS EMPLOYEES) WAS WITHOUT FAULT IN MAKING SUCH PAYMENT. WE WERE ALSO INFORMALLY ADVISED THAT IF A STATE RECOVERS ALL OR ANY PART OF AN ERRONEOUS OR OTHERWISE IMPROPER PAYMENT FROM THE RECIPIENT THEREOF, THE UNITED STATES RECEIVES APPROPRIATE CREDIT, IF IT PARTICIPATED IN SUCH PAYMENT. INSOFAR AS THE SPECIFIC HEW EXAMPLE IS CONCERNED, THE STATES MAKES BOTH THE AID-TO-DEPENDENT CHILDREN PAYMENTS AND OLD-AGE ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS. THUS, IF A STATE MADE AN AID TO- DEPENDENT CHILDREN PROGRAM PAYMENT TO AN INDIVIDUAL RECEIVING OLD AGE ASSISTANCE, THE STATE WOULD NOT BE WITHOUT FAULT IN THE MATTER, SINCE INFORMATION IN POSSESSION OF THE STATE WOULD HAVE DISCLOSED THE FACT THE INDIVIDUAL WAS RECEIVING OLD-AGE ASSISTANCE. HENCE, HEW IN SUCH A CASE SHOULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE AID-TO-DEPENDENT CHILDREN PAYMENT.

THE PROPOSED CIRCULAR MEMORANDUM DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR 100 PERCENT FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN RELOCATION PAYMENTS A STATE MUST COMPLY WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF IM 80 1-68 AND ANY OTHER APPLICABLE STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, IN DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR, AND IN MAKING SUCH PAYMENTS; AND DOES NOT REQUIRE RECOVERY ACTION BY A STATE FROM THE RECIPIENTS OF IMPROPER OR ERRONEOUS PAYMENTS WHERE FEASIBLE. HENCE, IT IS OUR VIEW THAT THE PROPOSED CIRCULAR MEMORANDUM IS NOT ADEQUATE TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES.