18326 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

41 CFR Parts 300–3, 300–70, 302–1, 

302–2, 302–3, 302–4, 302–5, 302–6, 

302–7, 302–9, 302–11, 302–12, 302–15, 

and 302–16 

[FTR Amendment 2011–01; FTR Cases 

2007–304 and 2003–309; Docket Number 

2007–0002, Sequence 7] 

RIN 3090–AI37 

Federal Travel Regulation; FTR Cases 

2007–304 and 2003–309, Relocation 

Allowances 

AGENCY: Office of Governmentwide 

Policy, General Services Administration 

(GSA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The General Services 

Administration (GSA), Office of 

Governmentwide Policy (OGP) 

continually reviews and adjusts policies 

as part of its ongoing mission to provide 

policy assistance to Government 

agencies subject to the Federal Travel 

Regulation (FTR). This final rule is a 

combination of two previous proposed 

rules that were published in the Federal 

Register on November 23, 2004 and 

August 3, 2007. The result is a unified, 

single final rule that addresses a wide 

range of relocation issues. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective August 1, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

General Services Administration, 

Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), 1275 

First Street NE., Washington, DC 20417, 

(202) 501–4755, for information 

pertaining to status or publication 

schedules. For clarification of content, 

contact Ms. Pam Silvis-Zelasko, Office 

of Travel, Transportation and Asset 

Management (MT), General Services 

Administration at (202) 219–7749 or email at pamela.silvis-zelasko@gsa.gov. 

Please cite FTR Amendment 2011–01; 

FTR cases 2003–309 and 2007–304. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

The GSA Office of Governmentwide 

Policy (OGP) routinely reviews the 

relocation regulations under its purview 

to address current Government 

relocation needs, to incorporate private 

industry policies and best practices that 

fit well into the Federal setting, and to 

adapt to changes in the marketplace. 

In 2002, GSA created the Relocation 

Best Practices Committee (RBPC), 

consisting of Government and private 

industry relocation experts, to examine 

Government relocation policy. After 

benchmarking with the private sector 

experts, the RBPC Government policy 

experts created a proposed rule 

summarizing the work of the RBPC. 

The GSA then chartered the 

Governmentwide Relocation Advisory 

Board (GRAB) through the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act, on July 9, 

2004, to allow for the use of private 

industry expertise in both the 

rulemaking process and possible 

legislative actions involving 

Government relocation policy. As a part 

of its wide-ranging mission, the GRAB 

reviewed and updated the RBPC’s 

proposals. The resulting proposed rule, 

based primarily on the RBPC’s 

recommendations, was published in the 

Federal Register on November 23, 2004 

(69 FR 68111). 

The GRAB submitted its 

comprehensive Findings and 

Recommendations on September 15, 

2005. If fully implemented through 

regulation, legislation, and operations, 

the 100-plus recommendations of the 

GRAB would align Government 

relocation practices with private sector 

best practices. They also would improve 

the overall management of Government 

relocation programs and reduce costs. 

The GRAB Findings and 

Recommendations and corresponding 

documents may be accessed at GSA’s 

Web site at http://www.gsa.gov/grab. 

GSA’s relocation experts analyzed the 

GRAB regulatory changes and 

developed a second proposed rule, 

which was published in the Federal 

Register on August 3, 2007 (72 FR 

43216). 

Due to the long policy-development 

process, GSA combined the RBPC and 

GRAB proposed rules into this one final 

rule. This final rule implements many of 

the changes sought by both committees 

and contains additional changes to the 

FTR. 

B. Summary of Comments Received 

GSA extends its thanks to all the 

interested parties that commented on 

the RBPC proposed rule (69 FR 68111, 

November 23, 2004) and the GRAB 

proposed rule (72 FR 43216, August 3, 

2007). 

In response to the RBPC proposed 

rule, GSA received over 100 pages of 

comments from 26 different entities (13 

Federal agencies, 6 private industry 

companies, 4 individuals, 2 unions, and 

1 trade association). In response to the 

GRAB proposed rule, GSA received 

comments from 9 entities (4 Federal 

agencies, 1 trade association, 1 provider 

of support and technical assistance, and 

3 relocation services companies). 

The comments generally were 

supportive of the work of the RBPC and 

the GRAB, although some comments 

disagreed with specific aspects. All 

comments were carefully considered in 

the development of this final rule. 

The discussion of comments below is 

arranged according to the section of the 

regulation affected by this final rule. 

GSA has not included four issues 

from the proposed rules in this final 

rule, and the explanation of why they 

are not included appears at the end of 

this ‘‘Summary of Comments Received’’ 

section. 

Terms and Conditions 

This final rule adds the following 

definitions to section 300–3.1: 

Accompanied baggage, amended value 

sale, appraised value sale, buyer value 

option (BVO), and relocation services 

company (RSC). It also revises the 

definitions of non-foreign area and 

household goods. 

The complexity of many of these 

terms can be confusing. Several of the 

comments raised this and provided 

suggestions in order to clarify the 

definitions. In particular, the definition 

of an amended value sale in the 

proposed rule insisted on a selling price 

higher than or equal to the appraised 

value offer. Several comments 

demonstrated that with proper use of 

home marketing incentive programs, the 

actual selling price might be lower and 

still acceptable to both parties. GSA 

agrees and changed the definition. 

Data Systems, Reporting, and 

Relocation Program Management 

The RBPC proposed rule included 

seven new sections for part 302–2, 

subpart B. Those changes would have 

established new agency responsibilities 

related to the successful management of 

agency relocation programs. FTR section 

302–2.200 in the RBPC proposed rule 

also gave general guidance for relocation 

program management. 

GSA received a wide range of 

comments on these proposed sections. 

GSA wrote this final rule in a manner 

that did not require inclusion of these 

seven sections from the RBPC proposed 

rule. Instead, GSA has revised part 300– 

70, subpart A, and added a subpart B to 

part 302–1. 

Several comments asked GSA to 

clarify the terms ‘‘relocation 

management program,’’ ‘‘relocation 

payment system,’’ and ‘‘relocation 

management reporting system.’’ In 

addition, many comments expressed 

concern about the due date for the first 

required reports. 

In response to these comments, GSA 

has written three new sections and 

placed them in part 302–1, General 

Rules, rather than part 302–2. The new 

sections describe a comprehensive 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18327 

relocation management program and 

urge agencies to move toward 

integrating all relocation processes into 

a single electronic environment. 

Also, GSA removed the due date for 

agencies to report relocation data from 

the regulation and changed from 

biennial reports to annual reports. Use 

of a 2-year reporting period results in 

stale data that are less useful in policy 

creation. GSA will work with agencies 

to develop the list of data elements to 

be reported and to select the best startup 

date for annual reporting. More 

information on this section will be 

available in FTR Bulletins issued 

periodically by OGP and available on 

the Internet at http://www.gsa.gov/ 

ftrbulletins. 

Some comments expressed concerns 

that GSA was leaning towards a sole 

source contract with a relocation data 

service provider; this is not GSA’s 

intent. GSA envisions agencies using 

commercial off-the-shelf software, data 

warehousing systems, or tools built by 

the agency and/or contracting to meet 

their needs for data management, all 

obtained through competition. 

Commute to New Job Location via 

Commonly Traveled Routes 

This final rule amends sections 

302–2.6 and 302–11.2 to bring the FTR 

into conformance with the distance test 

guidelines in Internal Revenue Service 

Publication 521, Moving Expenses. The 

distance test is met when the new 

official station is at least 50 miles 

further from the employee’s current 

residence than the old official station is 

from the same residence. For example, 

if the old official station is 3 miles from 

the current residence, then the new 

official station must be at least 53 miles 

from that same residence in order to 

receive relocation expenses for 

residence transactions. The distance 

between the official station and 

residence is the shortest of the 

commonly traveled routes between 

them. The distance test does not take 

into consideration the location of a new 

residence. 

Reduction in Time for Relocations and 

Relocation Extensions 

GSA received seven comments on the 

RBPC proposal to reduce the time for 

settling relocation transactions from two 

years to one year. GSA received 

essentially the same comments from the 

same seven organizations on the 

proposal to reduce extensions from two 

years to one year. These proposals affect 

FTR sections 302–2.8 through 302–2.11, 

302–2.110, 302–11.21, 302–11.22, 

302–11.404, 302–11.420, 302–11.421, 

and 302–15.10. 

Three organizations supported the 

proposals, with all of them indicating 

that the proposals should reduce 

outstanding obligations and ensure that 

transferees will move into their new 

positions and begin work quickly. Four 

organizations objected to the proposals. 

All that objected argued that it may be 

difficult for some transferees to 

complete their residence transactions in 

one year. 

GSA recognizes that reducing the 

maximum time to one year plus a 1-year 

extension may be challenging for some 

agencies; however, GSA believes that 

this risk is less significant than the 

potential benefits. The most significant 

benefit is moving transferees into their 

new positions as quickly as possible, 

which is a basic objective of Federal 

relocation policy. Giving most 

transferees only one year to complete 

their residence transactions will assist 

in meeting this objective. 

The other significant benefit of 

reducing the time limit is reducing the 

number of years in which an employee 

may incur a debt against the 

Government. Funds used for relocation 

are, in most cases, obtained from monies 

that were appropriated for a specific 

year. Allowing employees to incur debts 

against the Government for four years, 

as currently permitted by the FTR, is a 

challenge for Federal finance managers. 

One comment noted that claims for 

reimbursement against the Government 

can be made for up to six years, under 

Title 31 of the United States Code, 

Chapter 37. This six-year period is a 

statutory requirement, which GSA does 

not possess the ability to change, and 

will therefore remain the same. 

Disclosure Statements 

This final rule amends section 

302–2.12, adds two new sections to part 

302–2, subpart A, and amends section 

302–2.100 to require disclosure 

statements as part of the service 

agreement, which will prevent 

duplication of funding between two 

agencies or a private source. Most of the 

comments received regarding this part 

of the RBPC proposed rule favored its 

inclusion. One comment suggested that 

GSA direct the agencies to add this 

disclosure statement to relocations that 

are currently underway. GSA does not 

want to change the premise that a 

relocation must follow the provisions in 

place at the time of initiation, so this 

suggestion has not been adopted. 

Required Counseling 

This final rule amends section 

302–2.103 to require that agencies 

provide counseling to relocating 

employees. The agencies should offer 

the counseling at the earliest possible 

time. If the agency chooses, this 

counseling may take place after the 

selection but prior to the acceptance of 

the job offer. This counseling is 

important because it can assist 

employees in making more informed 

decisions and allow them to play a more 

active role in their relocation. It is very 

important that employees understand 

their options when selling and/or 

buying a residence because of the 

enormous financial implications. This 

counseling can be provided by either 

the agencies or contractors. 

Separation Travel Timing and 

Extensions 

The portion of the RBPC proposed 

rule relating to separation travel timing 

and extensions for Senior Executive 

Service personnel did not generate any 

negative comments; therefore it is 

included with substantially the same 

language in this final rule. However, 

GSA has made minor revisions to the 

proposed language of the RBPC to create 

a more efficient solution and avoid 

potential confusion. These changes are 

found in this final rule in revised 

section 302–3.315. 

Househunting Trip (HHT) Per Diems 

This final rule amends section 

302–5.13, and adds a reference to it in 

the current section 302–4.100, to make 

the standard CONUS rate the operative 

per diem rate for calculating actual 

expense househunting trips 

reimbursement and clarifies the 

availability and use of lump-sum 

reimbursements. The GRAB final report 

explains: 

* * *, the implementing regulations for 

FETRA [Federal Employee Travel Reform 

Act] * * * created an unfortunate 

inconsistency between HHT and TQSE 

[temporary quarters subsistence expense] 

benefits. From that time and continuing 

today, the traditional method for claiming 

HHT expenses is linked to the locality rate 

(FTR Part [sic] 302–5.13 and Part [sic] 

301–11.100), while the traditional method for 

claiming TQSE expenses is linked to the 

CONUS [Continental United States] rate (FTR 

Part [sic] 302–6.102). Not only is this 

inconsistent from a practical and logical 

point of view, it creates an unintended 

constraint on encouraging the use of a more 

cost-effective lump sum HHT reimbursement 

method: Why should any transferee use the 

lump sum benefit granting 5 days’ worth of 

the locality rate [actually, the lump sum 

method uses a multiplier of 6.25 days for an 

employee and spouse going on the trip or a 

multiplier of 5 days for only one person going 

on the HHT], when they could use the 

traditional method and receive up to 10 days’ 

[sic] worth of the locality rate? Simply saving 

the trouble of submitting receipts is not a 

sufficient motivator to forego 5 days’ [sic] 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
18328 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

worth of the locality rate. Even if transferees 

found that the ease of paperwork and the 

benefit of having their reimbursement paid 

up-front convinced them to use the lump 

sum benefit anyway, the fact that the FTR 

contains this inconsistency is reason enough 

to make the change. 

This situation arose when the FTR 

was converted to its present plain 

language format. In the previous edition 

of the FTR, the HHT regulation mirrored 

the temporary quarters subsistence 

expense (TQSE) process, where the 

agency either reimbursed the 

employee’s actual expenses for up to 

120 days at the lower standard CONUS 

rate or calculated a lump sum 

reimbursement for up to 30 days, at the 

higher locality rate. 

Transferees do actually choose the 

lump sum option for TQSE, but they do 

not tend to choose the lump sum for 

HHTs because the error removed the 

intended economic incentive. Agencies 

report that because of the error, the 

lump sum option for HHTs is 

underutilized, while the lump sum 

option for TQSE is frequently chosen. 

By emulating the TQSE regulations 

and correcting the error that GSA made 

regarding the existing HHT regulation, 

real economic incentives will be 

realized that will assist employees to 

manage their HHTs more efficiently and 

economically. Additionally, this 

provides employees some latitude in 

allocating those funds to meet an 

employee’s unique needs that may not 

be specifically allowed under the 

reimbursement method; these might 

include, for example, childcare or pet 

kenneling. 

While this change reduces the HHT 

benefit for those selecting the actual 

expense option, the purpose of this 

change is to correct an error in the 

regulation and to support the use of 

lump sum HHT payments for this 

agency-optional benefit. Several 

agencies viewed this proposed change 

as a reduction of benefits and voiced 

their opposition. GSA believes that the 

correction is appropriate, because it 

establishes the right incentives. As a 

result, GSA is changing the FTR as 

stated in the GRAB proposed rule. 

One private industry comment noted 

that while the use of CONUS rates for 

actual expense TQSE may make sense, 

there may be a problem when the lesser 

CONUS amount is given to an employee 

on a short duration HHT because the 

HHT is closer to a TDY, and it may be 

difficult to find long term lodging that 

will be less expensive. GSA’s response 

is that the lump sum option gives the 

employee an incentive to make the trip 

quickly and efficiently, without the 

administrative burden of monitoring the 

receipts and the higher cost of an actual 

expense HHT. 

Two Government comments correctly 

noted the multiplier for a spouse and an 

employee on a HHT should be 1.75 and 

not 2. GSA agrees and is making the 

change. 

The Terms Fixed Amount/Lump Sum 

No one objected to changing the term 

‘‘fixed amount’’ to ‘‘lump sum,’’ because 

‘‘lump sum’’ is a standard industry term. 

This change is, therefore, incorporated 

into this final rule as initially proposed 

in the RBPC proposed rule. It affects a 

number of sections in parts 302–5 and 

302–6. 

Mode of Transportation for 

Househunting Trips 

This final rule revises section 302– 

5.14 in subpart A, and adds a new 

section to part 302–5, subpart B, to 

establish a threshold for determining 

which mode of transportation (POV or 

common carrier) should be authorized 

for househunting trips. This final rule 

sets a threshold of 250 miles, below 

which the agency normally will 

authorize driving a POV. Several 

comments on the RBPC proposed rule 

noted the Government cannot force an 

employee to drive a POV. While FTR 

section 302–5.14 does allow limiting 

transportation reimbursement to the 

authorized modes, including POV, this 

final rule recognizes exceptions and 

offers several examples of circumstances 

in which restricting an employee 

reimbursement to POV mileage may not 

be appropriate. 

Lump Sum Payments for TQSE 

This final rule revises part 302–6, 

subpart C, to encourage the use of lump 

sum payments for TQSE, to allow the 

agency to require proof that temporary 

quarters (TQ) were actually occupied, 

and to simplify the discussion of factors 

to consider related to lump sum TQSE. 

Some comments based on the RBPC 

proposed rule asked GSA to require 

proof that the employee occupied TQ in 

every case. Other comments stated that 

the option for agencies to request proof 

did not need to exist at all. GSA has 

decided to make this proof something 

that an agency may choose, retaining the 

language from the proposed rule on this 

point. 

Other comments asked that GSA 

provide the language and/or a form for 

the proof that the agency may require. 

GSA has decided to give the agencies 

the discretion to choose what form of 

proof they will accept due to the wide 

variation of systems and processes 

amongst agencies. GSA will, as always, 

offer its assistance to any agency that 

needs it, but does not feel that a 

mandate would clarify this issue. 

Factors To Consider When Offering 

Lump Sum Payments 

GSA received no objections to the 

RBPC proposed revision to section 302– 

6.304, which explains the factors an 

agency should consider when 

determining whether to offer an 

employee a lump sum payment option 

for TQSE; therefore, the language in the 

RBPC proposed rule is retained without 

change. 

Lump Sum TQSE/Certification of TQSE 

Expenses 

This final rule adds new section 302– 

6.305 based on the RBPC proposed rule. 

This new section requires that agencies 

obtain a statement, in advance, from 

employees who select lump sum TQSE 

reimbursement. This statement will 

certify that TQSE expenses will be 

incurred in order to receive the lump 

sum payment. Three agencies supported 

the use of these certifying statements. 

Three other comments centered on 

the difficulty in creating a distinct 

document for those receiving TQSE. 

This is not the intention of this rule. 

Similar to the addition of disclosure 

statements in section 302–2.100, the 

intent here is for agencies to make this 

statement part of the initial service 

agreement rather than a separate 

document. A lump sum program is 

based upon simplicity and any lump 

sum program should maintain this 

simplicity in its implementation. 

Two additional comments stated that 

this certification is too simple a 

threshold to meet and that any agency 

program providing TQSE that is too 

expensive should correct their internal 

process without burdening the other 

agencies. GSA agrees that this 

certification does not free any agency 

from monitoring their TQSE program 

and eliminating the actual (or lump sum 

option) if it is abused by agency 

employees. GSA also believes that 

adding the statement to the service 

agreement is not a significant burden for 

any agency. 

Payment to the Employees of a TQSE 

Lump Sum 

New section 302–3.306 requires that a 

TQSE lump sum payment be made to an 

employee prior to occupancy of 

temporary quarters (TQ). The main 

advantage of using lump sum TQSE is 

that an employee will know exactly 

what he or she is going to receive for 

subsistence expenses and how long the 

money has to last. This removes some 

of the confusion inherent in actual 

expense TQSE. GSA received few 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18329 

comments on this point, thus, the 

language from the RBPC proposed rule 

has been retained in this final rule. 

Definition of ‘‘18,000 Pounds Net’’ 

The lack of a definition for ‘‘18,000 

pounds net’’ in section 302–7.2 has 

caused frequent confusion. All of the 

comments received in regards to this 

subject either favored the change in the 

RBPC proposed rule or asked for small 

revisions that GSA has adopted. 

However, the RBPC proposed rule’s 

definition of ‘‘net’’ was not clear as it 

could be interpreted to apply only to the 

weight of the household goods or to the 

difference in the weight between the 

unloaded weight of the truck and the 

loaded weight of the truck (the latter of 

which would include the weight of the 

truck, the household goods, and any 

necessary packing materials). GSA has 

chosen to establish a simple rule that 

allows for up to 2,000 pounds of 

packing materials for uncrated or van 

line shipments, in the newly designated 

section 302–7.13(a). Thus, in most 

circumstances, the Government will pay 

for the shipment of up to 18,000 net 

pounds of uncrated household goods 

plus up to 2,000 pounds of packing 

materials. The employee will be 

responsible for the cost of packing and 

shipping anything over the 18,000 

pounds net weight allowance. 

GSA recognizes that some agencies 

impose lower weight limits in special 

circumstances, especially when 

transferring employees into governmentfurnished quarters in CONUS or 

OCONUS. This final rule explicitly 

allows agencies to impose lower limits 

as appropriate, including lower limits 

on the weight of packing materials. 

Rules for Shipping Professional Books, 

Papers, and Equipment (PBP&E) 

Since there were no comments about 

the proposed changes to sections 302– 

7.4 and § 302–7.5, relating to PBP&E, the 

language in the RBPC proposed rule is 

retained without change. 

Authorized Origin and Destination 

Points for the Transportation of 

Household Goods (HHG) and PBP&E 

DoD requested that section 302–7.6 

further define the authorized origin and 

destination points for household goods 

shipments. GSA agreed with the request 

and has refined the chart in this section. 

This action is not a change in policy but 

rather a clarification of practices that 

already exist. 

Where Household Goods (HHG) May Be 

Temporarily Stored 

The RBPC proposed rule clarified 

where HHG may be temporarily stored 

(section 302–7.8). This received 

favorable comments. Two comments 

suggested further modifications that 

would have made storage at the 

destination the primary choice. GSA has 

chosen to keep this new paragraph as 

simple as possible, so it remains 

unchanged from the proposed rule. 

Limit on Time HHG Can Be Temporarily 

Stored 

GSA received 23 comments on both 

proposed rules to change the current 

section 302–7.8, which would reduce 

the overall time allowed for temporary 

storage. 

GSA received 19 comments on the 

RBPC proposal to reduce the overall 

time allowed for temporary storage from 

90 days plus a possible 90-day 

extension to 60 days plus a possible 90- 

day extension. The proposed rule also 

stated: ‘‘The number of days authorized 

for HHG storage must coincide with the 

number of days authorized for TQSE.’’ 

The summary of comments received on 

the RBPC proposal is as follows: 

• Three comments favored the 

changes as proposed. 

• Four comments asked that GSA 

reverse the pairing, so that the initial 

period would be 90 days and the 

possible extension would be 60 days. 

• One comment said that 150 days 

overall can be too short for moves 

involving OCONUS locations. GSA 

resolved this by making the 60-day 

period apply only to CONUS to CONUS 

moves. 

• Seven comments said that the 

number of TQSE days should not be 

linked to the number of temporary 

storage days. 

• Four comments opposed the change 

(with three of them stating that TQSE 

days and temporary storage days should 

not be linked). 

The GRAB proposed an even greater 

reduction than the RBPC proposal. GSA 

received four comments on the GRAB 

proposal to reduce the overall time 

allowed for temporary storage to 60 days 

plus a possible 30-day extension. 

• One comment suggested changing 

the time allowed for temporary storage 

to 45 days with a possible 45-day 

extension. 

• One comment suggested linking the 

temporary storage days to TQSE. 

• One comment said the number of 

days allowed should be left at ninety 

days, but also requested the ability to 

grant a waiver for an indefinite time 

period in extenuating circumstances. 

• One comment rejected the changes. 

In summary, most comments opposed 

linking the number of storage days and 

the number of TQSE days, and most 

comments expressly or implicitly agreed 

with reducing the total number of days 

allowed to 150. GSA agrees that the two 

should not be linked, but GSA disagrees 

with the comments that suggested 

reversing the pairing. GSA believes that 

the initial 60-day period sends the right 

message to the employee regarding the 

intended purpose of temporary storage, 

while the longer possible extension 

allows the agency to deal with a wider 

variety of special circumstances. 

Thus, this final rule does not link 

HHG storage days to TQSE days. This 

final rule allows an initial period of 60 

days with a possible extension of up to 

90 days for CONUS to CONUS moves, 

and it keeps the 90 days with a possible 

90-day extension for moves that have an 

authorized origin and/or destination 

that is OCONUS. 

The changes above appear in the 

newly redesignated sections 302–7.9 

and 302–7.10. 

Method of Shipment for HHG, PBP&E, 

and Temporary Storage 

GSA received no relevant comment 

on the RBPC proposal to clarify section 

302–7.16, so this final rule includes the 

text as initially proposed. 

Responsibility for Payment of Weight 

Additives 

The RBPC proposed rule, regarding 

the newly redesignated section 302– 

7.21, detailed the employee’s 

responsibility for payment of weight 

additives. Weight additives are 

additional costs charged by the carrier 

for oversized or bulky items. These costs 

are generally assessed by the carrier in 

terms of additional weight to the 

shipment, so that the number of pounds 

charged often exceeds the actual weight 

of the item(s). The existing § 302–7.20 

conflicts with a General Services Board 

of Contract Appeals (GSBCA) decision 

(GSBCA 16131–RELO, July 21, 2003). 

This final rule adopts the rationale of 

the GSBCA decision, thereby not 

making the transferee responsible for 

the extra weight caused by using weight 

additives. Since weight additives are not 

related to the true weight of the items 

shipped, they should not be included in 

the statutorily based 18,000 pound net 

limit. 

One comment stated that, as written, 

the proposed rule held the employee 

responsible for both the extra weight 

and the preparation charges. This final 

rule makes the employee responsible for 

the cost of building any special packing 

or crating, as well as the cost of any 

special handling that the weight 

additive items require; at the same time, 

only their actual weight will be 

considered in determining whether the 

employee has exceeded the 18,000 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
18330 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

pounds net weight allowance for 

shipping purposes. 

Unaccompanied Air Baggage (UAB) 

The sections of the RBPC proposed 

rule that dealt with Unaccompanied Air 

Baggage (UAB) received generally 

positive comments. One Government 

comment did ask for authority to set 

individual agency limits on the weight 

of UAB. GSA did not include a 

provision to do this as UAB is already 

limited by being included in the overall 

HHG weight limit. This final rule 

redesignates part 302–7, subpart D, as 

subpart E (Agency Responsibilities) and 

adds a new subpart D (Baggage 

Allowance) to incorporate policies for 

including UAB as part of, and not in 

addition to, the HHG weight allowance 

for moves from a CONUS (Continental 

United States) location to an OCONUS 

(Other than Continental United States) 

location, OCONUS to OCONUS, and 

OCONUS to CONUS. GSA has 

addressed the remaining comments by 

making a number of minor textual 

additions. 

The RBPC proposed rule would have 

added UAB to the discussion of PBP&E 

in section 302–7.4. In this final rule, 

GSA has chosen not to discuss UAB in 

this section, because PBP&E is not part 

of the 18,000 pounds net weight 

allowance for HHG (though it is often 

included in the HHG shipment), while 

UAB is always part of the allowance. 

GSA prefers, for regulatory consistency, 

to keep all of the material related to 

UAB together, in part 302–7, subpart D. 

It is important for agencies to note 

that any UAB reduces the amount of 

HHG that can be shipped, because the 

statutes that govern the FTR do not 

provide for a separate allowance for 

UAB above and beyond the 18,000 

pounds net HHG allowance. Another 

important point to note is that the FTR 

does not permit UAB for domestic 

(CONUS to CONUS) relocations. 

Two comments stated a preference for 

using the lower UAB weights that the 

Department of State (DoS) prescribes for 

members of the Foreign Service, as 

opposed to those provided for 

uniformed personnel by the DoD in the 

Joint Federal Travel Regulations (DoS 

allows 250 pounds for the employee, 

while DoD allows 350 pounds). In 

section 302–7.302, GSA is adopting the 

more generous DoD UAB weights, 

choosing to provide more flexibility for 

agencies despite the small added cost. 

Agencies subject to the FTR that are 

authorized to use and have incorporated 

the DoS Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) 

into their internal agency regulations for 

overseas travel will continue to receive 

lesser amounts of UAB in conformity 

with the FAM. However, under the 

FAM, UAB is not part of the 18,000 

pounds net weight allowance. The FAM 

limits would continue in use unless 

these agencies choose to change their 

internal policies to adopt the FTR UAB 

limits. 

Arranging and Paying for 

Transportation of HHG and UAB 

This final rule adds a new section, 

section 302–7.405, which regulates the 

arranging and paying for transportation 

of HHG and UAB. As several comments 

noted, the RBPC proposed rule included 

an erroneous table for constructing the 

cost of this transportation. This final 

rule replaces this table with a simple 

formula. 

Number of POVs That May Be 

Transported Within CONUS at 

Government Expense 

This final rule amends section 302– 

9.302, and adds a new section to part 

302–9, subpart F, to limit the number of 

POVs that may be transported within 

CONUS at Government expense to two. 

The current limit of one POV for the 

transportation, at Government expense, 

for OCONUS remains unchanged. 

Two commenters on the RBPC 

proposed rule stated that agencies 

should be able to make a decision to 

ship more than two POVs on a case by 

case basis. GSA, the RBPC, and two 

other comments believe the proposed 

limit of two POVs for CONUS 

relocations is a reasonable requirement 

to add to the regulation. A limit is 

necessary, and two was the consensus of 

the agencies involved in the RPBC. 

GSA received strong negative 

comments on the proposed rule 

provision in sections 302–9.301, 302– 

9.504, and 302–9.505, that a POV 

shipped must have a value larger than 

the shipping cost. Instead, this final rule 

requires an agency to consider whether 

the POV is in operating order and is 

legally titled and tagged prior to 

authorizing transportation of the POV. 

The Phrase ‘‘With Appropriate 

Supporting Documentation Provided by 

You’’ 

The RBPC proposed rule replaced the 

introductory paragraph in section 302– 

11.200 to re-emphasize that residence 

transaction costs may not exceed those 

customarily charged in the locality 

where the residence is located. One 

comment suggested that the burden of 

proof be placed on the employee; this 

has always been true, but the FTR did 

not say this explicitly. 

Therefore, this final rule adds the 

phrase ‘‘with appropriate supporting 

documentation provided by you,’’ to 

clarify that the burden of proof 

regarding a customary expense in a 

geographic area rests with the employee. 

This change to section 302–11.200 

strengthens the wording to ensure that 

the employee understands that he/she 

must provide appropriate supporting 

documentation to support a claim for 

reimbursement. 

A single comment was made against 

this provision, preferring language 

stating, ‘‘as long as the employee is 

acting within reason, the transaction 

fees should be reimbursed.’’ This is a 

weaker standard, which GSA chose not 

to adopt because it does not provide a 

uniformly clear standard to measure 

against. 

Homesale Counseling 

The GRAB proposed rule, in part 302– 

12, included a requirement that 

employees enrolled in a homesale 

program agree to participate in 

counseling. 

One problem inherent in homesale 

programs is the complexity of the 

various programs. Direct 

reimbursement, by contrast, can be 

much easier to understand. If savings 

are going to be realized through the use 

of homesale programs, employees must 

understand the options thoroughly, 

preferably before making the decision to 

participate in a homesale program. The 

best way to enhance the employee’s 

understanding is by having the 

employee participate in counseling that 

details the process and options. The 

counseling helps the agency, the 

relocation services company (RSC), and 

the employee, because it clarifies what 

the employee must do to participate in 

the program and what options the 

employee should consider while selling 

his or her home. The agency has a 

responsibility to monitor these 

counseling sessions and to ensure that 

the materials, and the way that they are 

presented, are fair and useful to the 

employee. 

The comments on the GRAB proposed 

rule were generally supportive of 

mandatory counseling. However, several 

of the comments asked that the 

regulation require that the counseling 

sessions occur before the employee is 

permitted to list their residence for sale. 

GSA recognizes this as a best practice 

that fits many situations, and agencies 

are welcome to include this requirement 

as a provision in contracts with RSCs. 

However, GSA believes that mandating 

this on a Governmentwide basis would 

be inappropriate, because there are 

many situations in which such a 

requirement may impose a serious 

burden on the agency and/or the 

employee. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18331 

One comment to this provision asked 

what venues would be permissible for 

the required counseling. GSA has 

addressed this in section 302–12.3 by 

stating that counseling may be provided 

by the agency or the RSC and may occur 

electronically or in person. 

Evaluation of Relocation Programs 

This final rule requires that agencies 

regularly examine and evaluate the 

objectives and relative costs of their 

relocation benefits and management 

processes to determine whether or not a 

comprehensive homesale program 

should be part of their relocation 

programs, under section 302–12.105. 

The Government is significantly 

different from private industry in their 

contracts with RSCs for administering 

homesale programs. The Government 

cannot legally assume title to the 

property from a homesale program, 

while most private sector companies 

using RSCs do assume title. Therefore, 

the RSCs charge the Government more 

than they charge private companies, to 

cover the additional risk that the RSC 

assumes for each property. This 

incorrectly gives the appearance to 

agencies that RSC-managed homesale 

programs are more expensive than 

direct reimbursement for homesale 

costs. Other factors also make the 

homesale programs appear more 

expensive to Government managers. As 

the GRAB final report states: 

Most agencies that do not offer their 

transferees access to a home-sale program 

base the decision on a perception that 

reimbursements of direct home-sale costs are 

lower than the fees generally associated with 

a RMC [RSC] home-sale program (e.g., up to 

10% of the home-sale price for direct 

reimbursement versus up to 23.5% for a RMC 

[RSC] home-sale program under [GSA 

Multiple Awards] Schedule 48). This 

perception ignores the fact that direct 

reimbursements are taxable income to the 

employee and, therefore, typically require 

added reimbursement from the Government 

to cover that tax liability, whereas properly 

structured RMC-[RSC-] assisted homesales 

are not. 

The GRAB recommended that the 

FTR make it mandatory that each 

agency implement a comprehensive 

homesale program, including amended, 

appraised, and BVO sales. GSA strongly 

supports homesale programs but does 

not have statutory authority to mandate 

that all agencies implement a homesale 

program. Under current statutes, the 

employee always has the right to 

demand direct reimbursement; that is, 

the employee cannot be forced into a 

homesale program. 

This final rule includes a number of 

provisions to address homesale 

programs, as discussed further 

throughout this final rule section. 

Agency Flexibility in Broker Selection 

The GRAB and various commenters to 

the GRAB proposed rule recommended 

that GSA mandate transferees to use 

brokers provided by the RSC. While 

GSA recognizes that many private sector 

companies include this requirement in 

their contracts, GSA does not believe 

that it should be mandatory across the 

Government. GSA has, therefore, in 

section 302–12.111, given agencies 

express permission to include this 

provision in their contracts without a 

Governmentwide mandate. 

One comment asked: ‘‘Who provides 

the broker?’’ GSA does not believe it is 

appropriate to mandate an answer to 

this question. Rather, this should be 

either a contractual issue between the 

agency and the relocation services 

provider, or it should be left to the 

determination of the employee. 

Agency Flexibility in Mortgage Service 

Provider Selection 

The GRAB and various commenters to 

the GRAB proposed rule recommended 

that GSA mandate transferees to use 

mortgage service providers provided by 

the RSC. This is prohibited under the 

Real Estate Procedures Settlement Act 

(RESPA), and this regulation cites that 

prohibition in the new section 

302–12.112. 

Potential Tax Issues From a Homesale 

Program 

A comment accurately stated that the 

tax implications of the BVO option are 

still unclear. GSA is carefully 

monitoring the ongoing discussions 

between the RSCs and the IRS. GSA 

believes that a properly structured 

homesale program will typically relieve 

the employee and agency of taxes on the 

homesale costs, thereby reducing the 

overall cost to the agency that is funding 

the relocation. This rule also reminds 

the agencies, in section 302–12.113(a), 

to consider the tax implications in 

structuring their homesale programs. 

Direct Payment of Property Management 

Service Fees 

Only one comment to the GRAB 

proposed rule even noted the revision of 

section 302–15.70, which clarifies the 

allowance for direct payment of 

property management service fees to the 

Government employee, so this change is 

included in this final rule as initially 

proposed. 

Allow Broader Use of the Miscellaneous 

Expense Allowance (MEA) Under Part 

302–16 

The FTR currently limits the MEA to 

expenses related to discontinuing or 

establishing a residence. The GRAB 

recommended that this limitation be 

removed, so that the transferee would be 

able to use the MEA to cover any 

expenses that emerge in a relocation, 

whether they are prior to or after the 

residence transactions. Quoting from the 

GRAB final report: 

Currently, the FTR does not provide any 

reimbursement mechanism for expenses 

incurred by employees relating to pet care, 

child care, or adult care for aging parents 

who are dependents of the relocating 

employee. The employee typically incurs 

these costs while taking a househunting trip. 

Additionally, employees are ‘challenged’ as 

the FTR does not provide for any 

reimbursement for children to accompany 

the employee on a househunting trip. 

Much like the lump sum 

househunting payments mentioned 

above, the employee should be free to 

use his or her judgment to make sure the 

MEA money is used wisely. In private 

industry, such payments are used to 

give transferees monies to handle their 

needs without having to voucher for 

reimbursement. This change also 

eliminates the need for the Government 

to specify what is covered by the MEA. 

A standard payment for private 

industry is based on a month’s salary, 

capped at a specified amount, such as 

$7,500. At this time, the MEA payment 

to Federal employees remains 

statutorily limited to one or two week’s 

salary for a GS–13 step 10, depending 

upon family status. GSA has addressed 

this limitation in a legislative proposal 

that would give the Administrator 

authority to set an appropriate rate 

without the current rigid restrictions. 

GSA received no negative comments 

on the above proposal in the GRAB 

proposed rule and several positive 

comments from both industry and 

Federal agencies. Thus, GSA is adopting 

this proposal as final. 

This final rule incorporates one 

additional change in the MEA section, 

using the phrase ‘‘and similar items’’ 

when referring to a list of various items. 

The General Services Board of Contract 

Appeals (now the Civilian Board of 

Contract Appeals) prefers this language 

to the phrase ‘‘including but not limited 

to’’ that the FTR currently uses. 

Proposed Change Handled by Another 

Final Rule and Not Addressed in This 

Rule: Mileage Reimbursement Rate 

The POV mileage rate for PCS travel 

in section 302–4.300, which GSA 

initially included in the RBPC proposed 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
18332 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

rule, was addressed in final rules 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 27, 2007 (72 FR 35187) and on 

December 11, 2007 (72 FR 70234). 

Proposed Changes That Were Not 

Retained in the Final Rule 

Days Allowed for HHT 

The RBPC proposed rule would have 

reduced the maximum number of days 

allowed for a househunting trip under 

section 302–5.11 from 10 to 8. Based on 

the large number of negative comments 

GSA received on this provision and the 

internal discussions that followed, GSA 

agrees not to reduce the number of days 

for a househunting trip from 10 to 8 in 

this final rule. This section remains as 

currently stated in the regulation. 

Actual Reimbursement for TQSE 

In the RBPC proposed rule, GSA 

failed to highlight an important 

proposed change in the actual expenses 

reimbursement for TQSE. Specifically, 

GSA proposed to reduce the TQSE 

reimbursement in part 302–6, subpart B, 

for any authorized period in TQ above 

30 days but failed to include this change 

in the list of proposed changes in the 

Preamble. This was an inadvertent error 

which unfortunately deprived GSA of 

most input. 

In response to this error, one 

comment stated: ‘‘This is a major change 

and was easily left out of the 

background, if not intentionally 

hidden.’’ This was not GSA’s intention. 

In the current economic environment, 

GSA believes that reducing the TQSE 

reimbursement will not assist agencies 

or employees because of the slow sales 

of residential properties. Scenarios 

where Government employees must be 

in TQ for longer than 30 days have 

become much more common. For these 

reasons, GSA is not at present reducing 

the TQSE reimbursement after 30 days. 

Clarifying the Difference Between 

Mandatory and Discretionary 

Relocation Allowances 

The GRAB wanted to ensure that the 

FTR highlights which relocation 

benefits are mandatory and which are 

discretionary. To do this, the GRAB 

identified two errors that needed to be 

corrected in the tables outlining 

benefits. GSA received no comments on 

this item in the GRAB proposed rule. 

However, in the time since publication 

of the proposed rule, GSA has 

discovered at least three additional 

errors in the tables. Therefore, to ensure 

that the tables and associated regulatory 

language are entirely correct, and to 

expedite these critical components of 

the FTR, GSA will address these items 

in their own separate rule. 

Calculating Constructive Cost 

GSA received several comments about 

RBPC proposed Appendix A to part 

302–7. The proposed Appendix 

attempted to clarify the calculation of 

constructive cost. The comments all 

indicated the proposed new language 

would have created more confusion 

than clarity. GSA agrees; therefore, the 

RBPC proposed Appendix A to part 

302–7 was not adopted. 

Conditions Required for Use of a RSC 

The GRAB proposed rule at section 

302–12.3 contained several conditions 

to which an employee must agree before 

entering a contract with a RSC. These 

conditions are no longer considered best 

practices and therefore are not included 

in the new section 302–12.3 of this final 

rule. GSA also wishes to maintain 

flexibility during rapidly changing 

economic conditions; therefore, GSA 

will issue further guidance about RSCs 

by publishing a bulletin available at 

http://www.gsa.gov/ftrbulletins. 

Standard RSC Contract Provisions 

The GRAB proposed rule said that 

agencies should give first consideration 

to BVO and second consideration to 

amended value sales. GSA’s review of 

the comments and internal discussions 

of this provision led to a different 

approach which, GSA believes, will 

accomplish the same objective in a more 

straightforward manner. Examples of 

RSC contract provisions are contained 

in new section 302–12.4, but these 

provisions are not to be considered 

mandatory. New section 302–12.4 also 

provides agencies with the flexibility to 

choose the RSC contract provisions that 

will work best for their own individual 

home sale programs. GSA will issue 

periodic bulletins at a later date, 

available at http://www.gsa.gov/ 

ftrbulletins, to further address standard 

RSC contract provisions and to create a 

template for agencies to use when 

developing home sale programs. GSA is 

addressing this issue in bulletins 

instead of in this final rule to ensure 

that agencies can maintain maximum 

flexibility. 

Agency Flexibilities in Listing Periods 

and Percentage of Guaranteed Offer 

GSA initially intended to set the 

contract timeframes in a template that 

would have been included in the 

question and answer portion of the FTR. 

Because of changing market conditions, 

and several comments from the GRAB 

proposed rule noting different 

percentages and time periods, both 

higher and lower, it seems appropriate 

for GSA to avoid overly rigid rules. 

Instead, GSA has chosen to include this 

type of information in future FTR 

Bulletins and/or handbooks. 

Issues Mentioned in Comments But Not 

Addressed in This Final Rule 

Many of the remaining comments 

received are clearly of interest, but GSA 

is unable at this time to incorporate 

them into this final rule because of lack 

of legislative authority or because the 

comment was outside the scope of 

either proposed rule. 

Change the Storage Allowance for the 

Temporary Storage of Household Goods 

by Amending Section 302–7.8 

In a comment to the GRAB proposed 

rule, one Government agency asked 

GSA to extend the 180-day limit for 

temporary storage. GSA accommodated 

this request by granting the agency a 

waiver addressing the specific situation 

involved with this need. 

Prepayment Fees on Residence 

Transactions 

One comment to the RBPC proposed 

rule suggested that part 302–11, subpart 

C, be amended to cap prepayment 

penalty fees on residence transactions to 

three months interest on the loan 

balance, not to exceed $6,000 per 

property. This was a growing problem 

when interest rates were rising and it 

continues to be a problem for transferees 

selling refinanced properties. GSA is 

reviewing the issue, but will need more 

information about its prevalence before 

including this in the FTR. 

Single Employees 

One comment to the RBPC proposed 

rule pointed out that the proposed rule 

failed to address many issues that single 

employees face in transferring because, 

unlike a family, they do not have 

multiple TQSE payments to equal a 

larger sum. This issue is especially 

prevalent in transfers to higher cost 

areas. However, no statutory authority 

exists to treat single employees 

differently than married employees. 

Relocation Income Tax Allowance 

(RITA) Calculation and Reimbursement 

One comment to the RBPC proposed 

rule addressed a specific case 

concerning an agency’s failure to 

perform the RITA calculation and 

reimbursement in an appropriate 

timeframe. The RITA section is 

currently being rewritten, and the team 

is aware of this comment. 

Cost Analysis 

Two comments to the RBPC proposed 

rule expressed concern because the 

proposed rule did not include a cost 

analysis of the regulatory changes. The 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18333 

purpose of the new sections in sections 

302–1.100 through 302–1.110 is to make 

it more likely that the agency reporting 

requirements in part 300–70 result in 

delivery of relocation cost data to GSA 

and the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) in a timely, accurate, and 

useful manner. The agency reporting 

requirements are currently mandatory, 

but not widely followed. As soon as 

agencies begin providing accurate and 

complete data, GSA and OMB will have 

the facts and figures to build stronger 

arguments to support regulatory and 

legislative changes based upon cost 

analyses. In the current Government 

environment, reliable data regarding 

relocations is not available without 

laborious voucher-by-voucher 

examination. 

One of the two comments on cost 

analysis specifically compared the IRSdriven private industry practice to the 

Government relocation regulation 

practice, and stated that the RBPC and 

GRAB proposed rules would not reduce 

regulatory burden. It is GSA’s and 

GRAB’s position that in private 

industry, relocation is driven as much 

by human resource considerations as by 

IRS considerations, if not more so. Many 

private industry relocation packages, 

especially for individuals in executive 

or senior management positions, are 

tailored to the position. This is much 

less true in the Government, where as a 

general rule, one-size-fits-all regardless 

of position. By emulating private 

industry practices to the extent that 

makes legal and fiscal sense, the 

Government makes it easier to include 

a relocation package as part of a 

comprehensive human capital planning 

and retention program, as envisioned by 

the GRAB. 

Spousal Employment Assistance 

One comment on the RBPC proposed 

rule suggested that a provision for 

spousal employment assistance be 

included in the FTR. The comment said: 

‘‘This assistance is needed most urgently 

by the military spouses who relocate 

more frequently than private sector 

spouses.’’ Spousal employment 

assistance would require a legislative 

change before GSA could incorporate it 

into the FTR. Therefore, GSA has 

included a provision to cover spousal 

employment assistance in its legislative 

proposal. 

C. Changes to Current FTR 

This final rule— 

• Corrects the authority citation for 

part 300–3; 

• Amends section 300–3.1 to add the 

terms and definitions for ‘‘Accompanied 

Baggage,’’ ‘‘Amended Value Sale,’’ 

‘‘Appraised Value Sale,’’ ‘‘Buyer Value 

Option,’’ and ‘‘Relocation Services 

Company,’’ and revises the definitions 

for ‘‘Non-foreign area,’’ and ‘‘Household 

Goods (HHG),’’ to include 

‘‘Unaccompanied Air Baggage (UAB)’’; 

• Corrects the authority citation for 

part 300–70; 

• Revises sections 300–70.1 and 300– 

70.2 to incorporate data collection 

requirements; 

• Adds a subpart B to part 302–1, 

containing three sections that describe a 

comprehensive relocation management 

system, urge agencies to adopt a 

comprehensive relocation management 

system, and reiterate the requirement to 

report to GSA on relocation activities. 

This final rule changes the report’s 

frequency to annually but removes the 

specific due date for those reports from 

the FTR. Instead it specifies that the due 

date will be provided in future FTR 

Bulletins; 

• Amends section 302–2.6 to follow 

the distance guidelines stated in 

Internal Revenue Service Publication 

521, Moving Expenses, by requiring that 

the commute to the employee’s new job 

location from his/her old residence 

increase by at least 50 miles, via the 

shortest commonly traveled routes, to be 

eligible for relocation benefits; 

• Amends sections 302–2.8, 302–2.9, 

302–2.10, 302–2.11, and 302–2.110 to 

reduce the length of time to complete a 

relocation from two years to one year; 

• Further amends sections 302–2.11 

and 302–2.110 to reduce the length of 

time for relocation extensions from two 

years to one year; 

• Amends section 302–2.12 to 

include the duplicate disclosure 

statement as part of the service 

agreement; 

• Adds new sections 302–2.20 and 

302–2.21 to part 302–2, subpart A, 

redesignates current sections 302–2.20 

through 302–2.22 as sections 302–2.22 

through 302–2.24, and amends section 

302–2.100, to require disclosure 

statements so that one Federal agency 

will not pay for relocation expenses that 

are being paid for by another 

Government agency or private source; 

• Amends section 302–2.103 by 

adding paragraph (e) to require 

counseling of every relocating employee 

and to recommend counseling before an 

employee accepts a new position that 

requires relocation; 

• Revises section 302–3.315 relating 

to separation travel timing and 

extensions; 

• Amends section 302–4.100 to 

include a reference to section 302–5.13; 

• Corrects the authority citation for 

41 CFR part 302–5; 

• Amends the chart in section 302– 

5.13 to make the standard CONUS rate 

the operative per diem rate for 

calculating actual expense 

househunting trip per diems, and 

clarifies the availability and use of lump 

sum reimbursements; 

• Amends sections 302–5.15, 302– 

5.16, 302–5.18, 302–5.101, 302–5.103 

(to be redesignated as sections 302– 

5.104, 302–6.11, 302–6.12, 302–6.301 

and 302–6.304, respectively) by 

replacing the term ‘‘fixed amount’’ with 

the term ‘‘lump sum’’ and by other 

administrative changes, where 

applicable; 

• Revises section 302–5.14, 

redesignates current section 302–5.103 

as section 302–5.104, and inserts a new 

section 302–5.103, all to establish a 250- 

mile threshold for determining the 

mode of transportation (POV or 

common carrier) to be authorized for a 

househunting trip; 

• Corrects the authority citation for 

41 CFR part 302–6; 

• Amends section 302–6.15 to correct 

citations; 

• Amends part 302–6, subpart C, 

including adding a new section, to 

encourage the use of lump sum 

payments because of the administrative 

efficiency, as well as the potential for 

cost savings; 

• Amends section 302–6.304 by 

revising it to explain the factors to 

consider when deciding to offer lump 

sum payments; 

• Redesignates section 302–6.305 as 

section 302–6.307 and adds two new 

sections to subpart D, regarding TQSE 

payments, requiring employees who 

select lump sum TQSE reimbursement 

to certify that TQSE expenses will be 

incurred, and ensuring that payment to 

the employee of TQSE lump sum will be 

made prior to occupancy of TQ; 

• Corrects the authority citation for 

part 302–7; 

• Amends section 302–7.1(d) by 

adding citations; 

• Revises section 302–7.2 and the 

table in newly designated 302–7.13 to 

clarify that the definition of 18,000 

pounds net weight allowance for 

household goods does not include 

packing materials for uncrated and van 

line shipments; 

• Replaces sections 302–7.4 and 302– 

7.5 to clarify who pays for shipping 

professional books, papers and 

equipment (PBP&E) and to explain what 

happens when a HHG shipment 

includes PBP&E and exceeds the net 

weight allowance; 

• Replaces the current section 302– 

7.6 with a new section 302–7.6, which 

more clearly delineates authorized 

origin and destination points for HHG; 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
18334 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

• Adds a new section 302–7.8 to 

clarify where HHG may be temporarily 

stored and redesignates sections 302–7.8 

through 302–7.20 as sections 302–7.9 

through 7.21; 

• Amends the redesignated sections 

302–7.9 and 302–7.10 to limit HHG 

storage to 60 days with a possible 90- 

day extension for CONUS to CONUS 

moves and keeps the 90 days with a 

possible 90-day extension for moves 

that have an authorized non-CONUS 

origin and/or destination; 

• Revises newly designated section 

302–7.16 to clarify the selection of the 

method of shipment as designated by 

agency; 

• Revises newly designated section 

302–7.21 to specify the responsibility 

for payment of weight additives; 

• Redesignates and amends part 302– 

7, subpart D, as subpart E (Agency 

Responsibilities) and adds a new 

subpart D (Baggage Allowance) to 

incorporate policies for including 

unaccompanied air baggage in the HHG 

weight allowance; 

• Amends the newly designated 

section 302–7.400 to revise three of the 

existing conditions and add three new 

conditions that agencies must consider 

in their policies and procedures; 

• Revises the newly designated 

sections 302–7.401 through 302–7.403 

to conform with other changes to part 

302–7; 

• Corrects the authority citation for 

part 302–9; 

• Adds a new section 302–7.405, 

which provides guidance on arranging 

and paying for the transportation of 

HHG and unaccompanied air baggage; 

• Amends sections 302–9.11, 302– 

9.140, and 302–9.170 to correct 

citations; 

• Adds two additional conditions to 

section 302–9.301 that agencies must 

consider before authorizing 

transportation of a privately owned 

vehicle (POV) within CONUS, to ensure 

that agencies are not domestically 

transporting a POV unless it is in 

operating order and legally titled and 

tagged for driving; 

• Amends section 302–9.302 to 

establish a limit for the number of 

POV’s that may be transported within 

CONUS at Government expense at two; 

• Redesignates current sections 302– 

9.501 through 302–9.505 as sections 

302–9.502 through 302–9.506 and adds 

a new section 302–9.501 to incorporate 

the limit of 2 POVs shipped at 

Government expense; 

• Revises the newly designated 

sections 302–9.505 and 302–9.506 to 

ensure that agencies are not 

domestically transporting a POV unless 

it is in operating order and legally titled 

and tagged for driving and to limit 

agency shipment of a POV to a distance 

of 600 miles or more; 

• Revises section 302–11.2 and adds 

the requirement of agencies to follow 

the distance test specified in section 

302–2.6; 

• Revises section 302–11.21 to reduce 

the time limit for settlement of 

residence transactions from two years to 

one year; 

• Revises section 302–11.22 to reduce 

the time limit for extensions for 

settlement of residence transactions 

from two years to one year; 

• Amends section 302–11.200 by 

revising the introductory paragraph to 

clarify that reimbursement of residence 

transaction expenses is limited to 

amounts customarily charged where the 

residences are located with the 

requirement that the employee provide 

appropriate supporting documentation; 

• Revises section 302–11.404 to 

reduce the time limit for settlement of 

residence transactions from two years to 

one year; 

• Revises section 302–11.420 to 

reduce the time limit for extensions for 

settlement of residence transactions 

from two years to one year; 

• Revises section 302–11.421 to 

reduce the time limit for extensions for 

settlement of residence transactions 

from two years to one year; 

• Amends part 302–12, subpart A, to 

establish a requirement for counseling 

all employees who participate in 

homesale programs, to update the 

conditions under which an employee 

may use the agency’s relocation service 

company contract, and to provide 

examples of contract terms the 

employee may be required to agree to; 

• Amends part 302–12, subpart B to 

require that agencies examine and 

evaluate the objectives and relative costs 

of their relocation benefits and 

management processes to determine 

whether they should have a 

comprehensive homesale program, and 

to list the policies and procedures that 

an agency must have as part of their 

comprehensive homesale program; 

• Corrects the authority citation for 

part 302–15; 

• Revises section 302–15.2 to correct 

a grammatical error; 

• Revises section 302–15.10 to reduce 

the time limit for agency payment of 

property management services from two 

years with the possibility of a 2-year 

extension to one year with the 

possibility of a 1-year extension; 

• Revises section 302–15.70 to allow 

for direct payment of property 

management service fees to the 

relocating Government employee, when 

appropriate; 

• Amends authority citation for 

section 302–16; and 

• Amends sections 302–16.1 and 

302–16.2 by switching the order of the 

two sections to make a better logical 

point and by removing the connection 

between the miscellaneous expense 

allowance and the establishment and 

discontinuance of a residence. 

Because of the insertion of several 

new sections in the existing regulation, 

some existing sections will be 

redesignated, and therefore, several 

cross-references will also be changed. 

This final rule makes those changes. 

D. Executive Order 12866 

This regulation is excepted from the 

definition of ‘‘regulation’’ or ‘‘rule’’ under 

section 3(d)(3) of Executive Order 

12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 

dated September 30, 1993 and, 

therefore, was not subject to review 

under section 6(b) of that Executive 

Order. 

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This final rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

within the meaning of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., 

because the revisions are not considered 

substantive. This final rule is also 

exempt from the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act per 5 U.S.C. 553 (a)(2) because it 

applies to agency management or 

personnel. However, this final rule is 

being published to provide transparency 

in the promulgation of Federal policies. 

F. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act does 

not apply because the changes to the 

Federal Travel Regulation do not 

impose recordkeeping or information 

collection requirements, or the 

collection of information from offerors, 

contractors, or members of the public 

that require the approval of the Office of 

Management and Budget under 44 

U.S.C. 3501, et seq. 

G. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

This final rule is also exempt from 

congressional review prescribed under 5 

U.S.C. 801 since it relates solely to 

agency management and personnel. 

List of Subjects in 41 CFR Parts 300–3, 

300–70, 302–1, 302–2, 302–3, 302–4, 

302–5, 302–6, 302–7, 302–9, 302–11, 

302–12, 302–15, and 302–16 

Government employees, Travel and 

relocation allowances. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18335 

Dated: January 28, 2011. 

Martha Johnson, 

Administrator of General Services. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, under 5 U.S.C. 5701–5738, 

GSA amends 41 CFR parts 300–3, 

300–70, 302–1, 302–2, 302–3, 302–4, 

302–5, 302–6, 302–7, 302–9, 302–11, 

301–12, 302–15, and 302–16 as set forth 

below: 

PART 300–3—GLOSSARY OF TERMS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 41 CFR 

part 300–3 is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5707; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 

49 U.S.C. 40118; 5 U.S.C. 5738; 5 U.S.C. 

5741–5742; 20 U.S.C. 905(a); 31 U.S.C. 1353; 

E.O 11609, as amended, 3 CFR, 1971–1975 

Comp., p. 586, Office of Management and 

Budget Circular No. A–126, revised May 22, 

1992. 

■ 2. Amend § 300–3.1 by— 

■ a. Adding, in alphabetical order, the 

definitions ‘‘Accompanied baggage,’’ 

‘‘Amended value sale,’’ ‘‘Appraised value 

sale,’’ ‘‘Buyer value option (BVO),’’ and 

‘‘Relocation service company (RSC)’’; 

■ b. Adding paragraph (1)(vii) to the 

definition of ‘‘Household Goods (HHG)’’; 

and 

■ c. Revising the definition ‘‘Non-foreign 

area.’’ 

The added and revised text reads as 

follows: 

§ 300–3.1 What do the following terms 

mean? 

Accompanied baggage—Government 

property and personal property of the 

traveler necessary for official travel. 

* * * * * 

Amended value sale—Type of home 

sale transaction that occurs when the 

relocating employee receives a bona fide 

offer from a qualified buyer before the 

employee has accepted an appraised 

value offer from the relocation services 

company (RSC). The RSC amends its 

offer to match the outside sale price. An 

amended value sale is different from an 

amended from zero sale because an 

amended value sale occurs after an 

appraised value offer while an amended 

from zero sale occurs before an 

appraised value offer. 

Appraised value sale—Type of home 

sale transaction that occurs when the 

relocating employee accepts the offer 

from the RSC to buy the employee’s 

home based upon the average of a 

specific number of appraisals conducted 

by designated certified appraisers. 

* * * * * 

Buyer value option (BVO)—Type of 

home sale program with procedures the 

same as the amended value program, 

except that the RSC does not initially 

appraise the employee’s home or make 

a guaranteed buy-out offer. The buy-out 

offer from the contractor is based on a 

bona fide offer received by the employee 

from a qualified buyer after marketing 

by the employee. Once a bona fide offer 

is received by the employee, the 

contractor offers to buy the home from 

the employee at a price based on the 

outside sale price. 

* * * * * 

Household Goods (HHG)— 

(1) * * * 

(vii) Unaccompanied Air Baggage 

(UAB)—Unaccompanied air baggage 

includes personal items and equipment 

(e.g., pots, pans, light housekeeping 

items, collapsible items such as cribs, 

playpens, and baby carriages, and other 

articles required for the care of the 

family) that may be shipped by air in 

accordance with Chapter 302 of this 

Subtitle. Household items (i.e., 

refrigerators, washing machines, and 

other major appliances or furniture) are 

not eligible as UAB. 

* * * * * 

Non-foreign area—The states of 

Alaska and Hawaii, the Commonwealths 

of Puerto Rico and the Northern 

Mariana Islands, Guam, the U.S. Virgin 

Islands, and the territories and 

possessions of the United States 

(excludes the former Trust Territories of 

the Pacific Islands, which are 

considered foreign areas for the 

purposes of the FTR). 

* * * * * 

Relocation service company (RSC)—A 

third-party supplier under contract with 

an agency to assist a transferred 

employee in relocating to the new 

official station. Services may include: 

Homesale programs, home inspection, 

home marketing assistance, home 

finding assistance, property 

management services, shipment and 

storage of household goods, voucher 

review and payment, relocation 

counseling, and similar items. 

* * * * * 

PART 300–70—AGENCY REPORTING 

REQUIREMENTS 

■ 3. The authority citation for 41 CFR 

part 300–70 is revised to read as 

follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5707; 5 U.S.C. 5738; 

5 U.S.C. 5741–5742; 20 U.S.C. 905(a); 

31 U.S.C. 1353; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 49 U.S.C. 

40118; E.O. 11609, as amended, 3 CFR, 

1971–1975 Comp., p. 586. 

■ 4. Revise §§ 300–70.1 and 300–70.2 to 

read as follows: 

§ 300–70.1 What are the requirements for 

reporting payments for employee travel and 

relocation? 

Agencies (as defined in § 301–1.1 of 

this subtitle) that spent more than 

$5 million on travel and transportation 

payments, including relocation, during 

the fiscal year immediately preceding 

the survey year must report such total 

agency payments annually, as described 

in this part: 

(a) Specific information on reporting 

payments for temporary duty travel are 

in this subpart. 

(b) Specific information on reporting 

payments for employee relocation are in 

part 302–1 of this subtitle. 

§ 300–70.2 What information must we 

report, and when must we report it? 

GSA provides the list of data 

elements, the report formats, and the 

due dates in a series of FTR Bulletins. 

GSA coordinates these FTR Bulletins 

with the affected agencies and updates 

them as necessary. FTR Bulletins are 

available through: http://www.gsa.gov/ 

ftr. 

PART 302–1—GENERAL RULES 

■ 5. The authority citation for 41 CFR 

part 302–1 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5738; 20 U.S.C. 905(a). 

■ 6. Add subpart B to part 302–1 to read 

as follows: 

Subpart B—Requirement to Report 

Agency Data for Employee Relocation 

Sec. 

302–1.100 What is a comprehensive, 

automated relocation management 

system? 

302–1.101 What actions are agencies 

expected to take concerning the 

comprehensive, automated relocation 

management system? 

302–1.102 Are agencies required to report 

their employee relocation activities to 

GSA? 

Subpart B—Requirement to Report 

Agency Data for Employee Relocation 

§ 302–1.100 What is a comprehensive, 

automated relocation management system? 

A comprehensive, automated 

relocation management system is a 

system that integrates into a single, 

electronic environment, information 

related to all aspects of employee 

relocation, including these and similar 

items: 

(a) Authorizations; 

(b) Reimbursements to employees and 

service providers; 

(c) Househunting trips; 

(d) Travel to the new permanent duty 

station; 

(e) Temporary quarters; 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
18336 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

(f) Transportation and storage of 

property; 

(g) Residence transactions; 

(h) Use of relocation services 

companies; 

(i) Property management services; 

(j) Miscellaneous expenses; 

(k) Relocation income taxes and 

allowances; 

(l) Appropriate electronic connections 

to agency payment and finance 

processes for all of the above; and 

(m) Standard and unique reports for 

use by agency relocation managers, 

agency executives, GSA, and others as 

needed. 

§ 302–1.101 What actions are agencies 

expected to take concerning the 

comprehensive, automated relocation 

management system? 

Agencies should work toward 

unifying all aspects of relocation into a 

comprehensive, automated relocation 

management system. 

§ 302–1.102 Are agencies required to 

report their employee relocation activities 

to GSA? 

Yes, every agency that spends more 

than $5 million a year on travel and 

transportation payments, including 

relocation, during the fiscal year 

immediately preceding the survey year, 

must annually report their employee 

relocation activities to GSA. GSA works 

with the agencies to develop and refine 

the data elements, report format, and 

due dates for these reports. GSA 

publishes these specific requirements in 

a series of FTR Bulletins. 

PART 302–2—EMPLOYEE ELIGIBILITY 

REQUIREMENTS 

■ 7. The authority citation for 41 CFR 

part 302–2 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5738; 20 U.S.C. 905(a). 

■ 8. Revise § 302–2.6 to read as follows: 

§ 302–2.6 May I be reimbursed for 

relocation expenses if I relocate to a new 

official station that does not meet the 50- 

mile distance test? 

Generally no; you may not be 

reimbursed for relocation expenses if 

you relocate to a new official station 

that does not meet the 50-mile distance 

test. 

(a) The distance test is met when the 

new official station is at least 50 miles 

further from the employee’s current 

residence than the old official station is 

from the same residence. For example, 

if the old official station is 3 miles from 

the current residence, then the new 

official station must be at least 53 miles 

from that same residence in order to 

receive relocation expenses for 

residence transactions. The distance 

between the official station and 

residence is the shortest of the 

commonly traveled routes between 

them. The distance test does not take 

into consideration the location of a new 

residence. This follows the distance 

guidelines found in Internal Revenue 

Service Publication 521, Moving 

Expenses. 

(b) The head of your agency or 

designee may authorize an exception to 

the 50-mile threshold on a case-by-case 

basis when he/she determines that it is 

in the best interest of the Government. 

However, the agency cannot waive the 

applicability of the IRC; that is, all 

reimbursed expenses would be taxable 

income to you, and the agency would 

have to reimburse those taxes. 

(c) Any relocation must be incidental 

to the transfer and not for the 

convenience of the employee. 

§ 302–2.8 [Amended] 

■ 9. Amend § 302–2.8 by removing the 

words ‘‘two years’’ and adding the words 

‘‘one year’’ in its place. 

§ 302–2.9 [Amended] 

■ 10. Amend § 302–2.9 by removing ‘‘2- 

year’’ and adding ‘‘1-year’’ in its place. 

§ 302–2.10 [Amended] 

■ 11. Amend § 302–2.10 by removing 

‘‘2-year’’ in both the heading and the text 

and adding ‘‘1-year’’ in its place. 

§ 302–2.11 [Amended] 

■ 12. Amend § 302–2.11 by— 

■ a. Removing ‘‘2-year’’ in both the 

heading and the text and adding ‘‘1- 

year’’ in its place; and 

■ b. Removing ‘‘2 additional years’’ and 

adding the words ‘‘one additional year’’ 

in its place. 

■ 13. Revise the undesignated center 

heading appearing immediately before 

§ 302–2.12 to read as follows: 

Service Agreement and Disclosure 

Statement 

■ 14. Amend § 302–2.12 by adding a 

sentence at the end of the paragraph to 

read as follows: 

§ 302–2.12 What is a service agreement? 

* * * A service agreement must also 

include the duplicate reimbursement 

disclosure statement specified in 

§§ 302–2.20, 302–2.21, and 302– 

2.100(g). 

§§ 302–2.20, 302–2.21, 302–2.22 

[Redesignated as §§ 302–2.22, 302–2.23, 

302–2.24] 

■ 15. Redesignate §§ 302–2.20, 302– 

2.21, and 302–2.22 as §§ 302–2.22, 302– 

2.23, and 302–2.24, respectively. 

■ 16. Move the undesignated center 

heading ‘‘Advancement of Funds’’ to 

precede the newly designated § 302– 

2.22. 

■ 17. Add new §§ 302–2.20 and 302– 

2.21, to read as follows: 

§ 302–2.20 What is a duplicate 

reimbursement disclosure statement? 

A duplicate reimbursement disclosure 

statement is a written statement signed 

by you and submitted to your agency. It 

states that you and/or your immediate 

family have not accepted, and will not 

accept, duplicate reimbursement for 

relocation expenses. Furthermore, it 

states that, to the best of your 

knowledge, no third party has accepted 

duplicate reimbursement for your 

relocation expenses. The duplicate 

reimbursement disclosure statement 

must be incorporated into your service 

agreement. 

§ 302–2.21 Must I sign a duplicate 

reimbursement disclosure statement? 

Yes, you must sign a duplicate 

reimbursement disclosure statement to 

receive any relocation benefits. 

■ 18. Amend § 302–2.100 by— 

■ a. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ at the end 

of paragraph (e); 

■ b. Removing the period at the end of 

paragraph (f) and adding ‘‘; and’’ in its 

place; and 

■ c. Adding paragraph (g) to read as 

follows: 

§ 302–2.100 What internal policies must 

we establish before authorizing a relocation 

allowance? 

* * * * * 

(g) How you will ensure that all 

relocating employees sign a duplicate 

reimbursement disclosure statement, 

which is to be incorporated into their 

relocation service agreements (see 

§ 302–2.21). 

§ 302–2.103 [Amended] 

■ 19. Amend § 302–2.103 by— 

■ a. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ at the end 

of paragraph (c); 

■ b. Removing the period at the end of 

paragraph (d) and adding ‘‘; and’’ in its 

place; and 

■ c. Adding paragraph (e) to read as 

follows: 

§ 302–2.103 How must we administer the 

authorization for relocation of an 

employee? 

* * * * * 

(e) Provide counseling about 

relocation benefits to all relocating 

employees. In addition, you should offer 

counseling as early as possible during 

the relocation process and you should 

consider offering counseling to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18337 

employees who are contemplating 

acceptance of a job that would require 

them to relocate. 

§ 302–2.110 [Amended] 

■ 20. Amend § 302–2.110 by removing 

‘‘2-year’’ both times it appears in the 

introductory text and adding ‘‘1-year’’ in 

its place. 

PART 302–3—RELOCATION 

ALLOWANCE BY SPECIFIC TYPE 

■ 21. The authority citation for 41 CFR 

part 302–3 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5738; 20 U.S.C. 905(a). 

■ 22. Revise § 302–3.315 to read as 

follows: 

§ 302–3.315 May I be granted an extension 

to the time limit for beginning my 

separation travel? 

Yes, your agency may grant you or 

your immediate family member(s) (in 

case of your death) an extension to the 

time limit for beginning your separation 

travel, for up to two years from your 

effective date of separation or death, if 

death occurs before separation. 

PART 302–4—ALLOWANCES FOR 

SUBSISTENCE AND 

TRANSPORTATION 

■ 23. The authority citation for 41 CFR 

part 302–4 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5738; 20 U.S.C. 905(a); 

E.O. 11609, 36 FR 13747, 3 CFR, 1971–1973 

Comp., p. 586. 

■ 24. Amend § 302–4.100 by removing 

‘‘§ 302–4.202’’ and adding ‘‘§§ 302–4.202 

and 302–5.13’’ in its place. 

PART 302–5—ALLOWANCE FOR 

HOUSEHUNTING TRIP EXPENSES 

■ 25. The authority citation for 41 CFR 

part 302–5 is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5738; 20 U.S.C. 905(a); 

E.O. 11609, as amended, 3 CFR, 1971–1975 

Comp., p. 586. 

■ 26. Amend § 302–5.13 by revising the 

table to read as follows: 

§ 302–5.13 What methods may my agency 

use to reimburse me for househunting trip 

expenses? 

* * * * * 

For You are reimbursed 

You and/or your spouse’s transportation expenses.Your actual transportation costs. 

You and/or your spouse’s subsistence expenses.One of the following two: 

(a) A per diem allowance at the standard CONUS rate (see http://www.gsa.gov/perdiem), for 

you and/or your spouse if you travel separately, or if you both travel together, the standard 

CONUS rate multiplied by 1.75), for the 10 days or less that your agency authorizes for you; 

or 

(b) Only if offered by your agency and chosen by you, a lump sum, as follows: 

(1) If you perform a househunting trip and your spouse does not, or if your spouse performs a househunting trip and you do not, multiply the applicable locality per diem rate 

by 5.00 (see http://www.gsa.gov/perdiem). 

(2) If you and your spouse both perform a househunting trip, together or separately, multiply the applicable locality per diem rate by 6.25 (see http://www.gsa.gov/perdiem). 

■ 27. Revise § 302–5.14 to read as 

follows: 

§ 302–5.14 What transportation expenses 

will my agency pay? 

(a) Your agency will authorize you to 

travel by any transportation mode(s) 

(e.g., common carrier or POV) that it 

determines to be advantageous to the 

Government. Your agency will pay for 

your transportation expenses by the 

authorized mode(s). If you travel by one 

or more mode(s) other than the one(s) 

authorized by your agency, your agency 

will pay your transportation expenses 

up to the constructive cost of 

transportation by the authorized 

mode(s). For trips of less than 250 miles, 

your agency will authorize travel by 

POV, unless there are reasons for not 

using a POV that are acceptable to the 

agency (e.g., traveler is physically 

impaired, does not own or lease a POV, 

has only one POV that is used for family 

transportation, or the POV is not 

roadworthy for such a trip). POV 

mileage reimbursement will be in 

accordance with § 302–4.300 of this 

chapter. 

(b) Unless the agency performs a 

written cost comparison that 

demonstrates cost savings, only 

common carrier may be authorized for 

trips with a distance of 250 miles or 

more. 

§ 302–5.15 [Amended] 

■ 28. Amend § 302–5.15 by removing 

the words ‘‘fixed amount’’ and adding 

the words ‘‘lump sum’’ in its place. 

§ 302–5.16 [Amended] 

■ 29. Amend § 302–5.16 by— 

■ a. Removing ‘‘§ 302–2.20’’ and adding 

‘‘§§ 302–2.22, 302–2.23, and 302–2.24’’ 

in its place; and 

■ b. Removing the words ‘‘fixed amount’’ 

and adding the words ‘‘lump sum’’ in its 

place. 

§ 302–5.18 [Amended] 

■ 30. Amend § 302–5.18 by— 

■ a. Removing the words ‘‘fixed amount’’ 

from the section heading and adding the 

words ‘‘lump sum’’ in its place; and 

■ b. Removing the word ‘‘fixed’’ and 

adding the words ‘‘lump sum’’ in its 

place. 

§ 302–5.101 [Amended] 

■ 31. Amend § 302–5.101, paragraph (c), 

by removing the words ‘‘fixed amount’’ 

and adding the words ‘‘lump sum’’ in its 

place. 

§ 302–5.103 [Redesignated as § 302–5.104] 

■ 32. Redesignate § 302–5.103 as § 302– 

5.104. 

■ 33. Add a new § 302–5.103 to read as 

follows: 

§ 302–5.103 What modes of transportation 

may we authorize for a househunting trip? 

(a) When the new official station is 

less than 250 miles from the old official 

station, the required mode of 

transportation is POV, unless there are 

reasons for not using a POV that are 

acceptable to the you (e.g., traveler is 

physically impaired, does not own or 

lease a POV, has only one POV which 

is used for family transportation, or the 

POV is not roadworthy for such a trip). 

Reimbursement for POV mileage is at 

the rate prescribed in § 302–4.300 of this 

subchapter. 

(b) When the new official station is 

250 miles or more from the old official 

station, the preferred mode of 

transportation is common carrier. 

However, you may authorize the use of 

POV for a househunting trip longer than 

250 miles, provided you complete a 

written cost comparison in accordance 

with § 302–5.14(b). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
18338 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 302–5.104 [Amended] 

■ 34. Amend the newly redesignated 

§ 302–5.104 by removing the words 

‘‘Fixed amount’’ and adding the words 

‘‘Lump sum’’ in their place in paragraph 

(a); and by removing the words ‘‘fixed 

amount’’ and adding the words ‘‘lump 

sum’’ in their place each time it appears. 

PART 302–6—ALLOWANCE FOR 

TEMPORARY QUARTERS 

SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES 

[AMENDED] 

■ 35. The authority citation for 41 CFR 

part 302–6 is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5738; 20 U.S.C. 905(a); 

E.O. 11609, as amended, 3 CFR, 1971–1975 

Comp., p. 586. 

§ 302–6.11 [Amended] 

■ 36A. Amend § 302–6.11 by removing 

the words ‘‘fixed amount’’ and adding 

the words ‘‘lump sum’’ in their place. 

§ 302–6.12 [Amended] 

■ 36B. Amend § 302–6.12 by removing 

the words ‘‘fixed amount’’ and adding 

the words ‘‘lump sum’’ in its place. 

§ 302–6.15 [Amended] 

■ 37. Amend § 302–6.15 by removing 

‘‘§ 302–2.20’’ and adding ‘‘§§ 302–2.22, 

302–2.23, and 302–2.24’’ in its place. 

■ 38. Revise subpart C to read as 

follows: 

Subpart C—Lump Sum Payment 

Sec. 

302–6.200 What am I paid under the TQSE 

lump sum payment method? 

302–6.201 How do I determine the amount 

of my TQSE lump sum payment? 

302–6.202 Will I receive additional TQSE 

reimbursement if my TQSE lump sum 

payment is not adequate to cover my 

actual TQSE? 

302–6.203 May I retain any balance left 

over from my TQSE lump sum payment 

if such payment is more than adequate? 

302–6.204 Am I required to file a voucher 

after occupying temporary quarters if I 

selected the TQSE lump sum payment? 

Subpart C—Lump Sum Payment 

§ 302–6.200 What am I paid under the 

TQSE lump sum payment method? 

If your agency offers, and you select 

the lump sum TQSE payment, you are 

paid a lump sum for each day 

authorized up to 30 days. The maximum 

number of days that may be used for the 

TQSE lump sum calculation is 30; no 

extensions are allowed under the lump 

sum payment method. 

§ 302–6.201 How do I determine the 

amount of my TQSE lump sum payment? 

(a) For yourself, multiply the number 

of days your agency authorizes TQSE by 

.75 times the maximum per diem rate 

(that is, lodging plus meals and 

incidental expenses) prescribed by 

§ 301–11.6 of this subtitle for the 

locality at the old or new official station 

or combination thereof, wherever TQ 

will be occupied. Please note that for 

non-foreign OCONUS, the Department 

of Defense Per Diem, Travel and 

Transportation Allowances Committee 

establishes the per diem rate, and for 

foreign OCONUS, the Department of 

State establishes the per diem rates. 

(b) For each member of your 

immediate family, multiply the same 

number of days by .25 times the same 

per diem rate, as described in paragraph 

(a) of this section. 

(c) Your lump sum payment will be 

the sum of the calculations in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. 

§ 302–6.202 Will I receive additional TQSE 

reimbursement if my TQSE lump sum 

payment is not adequate to cover my actual 

TQSE? 

No, you will not receive additional 

TQSE reimbursement if the lump sum 

payment is not adequate to cover your 

actual TQSE. 

§ 302–6.203 May I retain any balance left 

over from my TQSE lump sum payment if 

such payment is more than adequate? 

Yes, if your lump sum TQSE payment 

is more than adequate to cover your 

actual TQSE expenses, any balance 

belongs to you. (E.g., if your agency 

authorizes and you accept a lump sum 

payment for 15 days of TQSE and you 

vacate TQ after 10 days for any reason, 

you would retain the remaining balance 

for the 5 days of TQSE not incurred). 

§ 302–6.204 Am I required to file a voucher 

after occupying temporary quarters if I 

selected the TQSE lump sum payment? 

No, you are not required to file a 

voucher after occupying temporary 

quarters if you have selected the lump 

sum payment. The intent of the lump 

sum payment is to simplify the process 

and eliminate the need for filing a 

voucher. However, your agency may 

require that you sign a voucher or other 

document before they pay your lump 

sum TQSE to you, and your agency may 

at any time request proof that you 

actually occupied TQ, even if not for the 

full length of time on which the lump 

sum calculation was based. In the 

absence of sufficient proof of TQSE 

occupancy, your agency may demand 

repayment of the TQSE lump sum 

payment in accordance with § 302– 

6.305. 

§ 302–6.301 [Amended] 

■ 39. Amend § 302–6.301, paragraph (c), 

by removing the words ‘‘fixed amount’’ 

and adding the words ‘‘lump sum’’ in its 

place. 

■ 40. Revise § 302–6.304 to read as 

follows: 

§ 302–6.304 What factors should we 

consider in determining whether to offer an 

employee a lump sum payment option for 

TQSE? 

When determining whether to offer an 

employee the lump sum payment option 

for TQSE the following factors should 

be considered: 

(a) Ease of administration. A lump 

sum for TQSE is paid to the employee 

prior to the occupancy of TQ, and the 

after the fact voucher process is 

eliminated under this method. Actual 

TQSE reimbursement requires an 

agency to review claims for the validity, 

accuracy, and reasonableness of each 

expense amount. 

(b) Cost consideration. You should 

weigh the cost of each alternative. 

Actual TQSE reimbursement may 

extend up to 120 days, while the lump 

sum payment is limited to a maximum 

of 30 days. 

(c) Treatment of employee. The 

employee is allowed to choose between 

actual TQSE reimbursement and the 

lump sum TQSE payment when you 

offer the lump sum payment method. 

You therefore should weigh employee 

morale and productivity considerations 

against actual cost considerations in 

determining which method to offer. 

§ 302–6.305 [Redesignated as § 302–6.307] 

■ 41. Redesignate § 302–6.305 as § 302– 

6.307. 

■ 42. Add new §§ 302–6.305 and 302– 

6.306 to read as follows: 

§ 302–6.305 Must we require transferees to 

sign a statement that TQSE will be 

incurred? 

Yes, transferees electing the TQSE 

lump sum payment option must sign a 

statement, which should be included as 

part of the service agreement, asserting 

that they will occupy TQ and will incur 

TQSE. If no TQSE are incurred, the 

transferee must return all monies 

advanced for the lump sum TQSE 

payment to the agency. 

§ 302–6.306 When must we make the lump 

sum TQSE payment to the transferee? 

You must pay the transferee the lump 

sum TQSE payment prior to the 

occupancy of TQ. You should make the 

lump sum TQSE payment as close as is 

reasonably possible to the time that the 

transferee will begin occupancy of TQ. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18339 

PART 302–7—TRANSPORTATION AND 

TEMPORARY STORAGE OF 

HOUSEHOLD GOODS, 

PROFESSIONAL BOOKS, PAPERS, 

AND EQUIPMENT, AND BAGGAGE 

ALLOWANCE [AMENDED] 

■ 43. The authority citation for 41 CFR 

part 302–7 is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5738; 20 U.S.C. 905(a); 

E.O. 11609, as amended, 3 CFR, 1971–1975 

Comp., p. 586. 

§ 302–7.1 [Amended] 

■ 44. Amend § 302–7.1, paragraph (d), 

by removing ‘‘§ 302–3.304’’ and adding 

‘‘§§ 302–3.304 through 302–3.315’’ in its 

place. 

■ 45. Revise § 302–7.2 to read as 

follows: 

§ 302–7.2 What is the maximum weight of 

HHG that may be transported or stored at 

Government expense? 

(a) The maximum weight allowance of 

HHG that may be shipped or stored at 

Government expense is 18,000 pounds 

net weight. For uncrated or van line 

shipments, a 2,000 pound allowance is 

added to the 18,000 pounds net weight 

allowance to cover packing materials for 

the shipment. In no case may a 

shipment weigh over 20,000 gross 

pounds (the 18,000 pounds net weight 

of the uncrated HHG plus the 2,000 

pound allowance for packing materials). 

The relocating employee is responsible 

for reimbursing the Government for all 

costs incurred if the shipment is 

overweight. For determining the weight 

of crated shipments, containerized 

shipments, and constructive weight for 

other types of household good 

shipments, please see the chart in 

§ 302–7.13. 

(b) An agency may establish a lower 

net weight allowance and a lower 

allowance for packing materials in 

special circumstances, such as 

transferring an employee into 

government-furnished quarters. 

■ 46. Revise §§ 302–7.4, 302–7.5, and 

302–7.6 to read as follows: 

§ 302–7.4 Who pays for shipping 

professional books, papers, and equipment 

(PBP&E)? 

The agency may pay for shipping 

PBP&E as a discretionary item. When 

authorized, shipping PBP&E is 

considered an administrative cost to the 

agency. However, for ease of 

administration in calculating this 

allowance, PBP&E should be included 

as part of the HHG shipment, if possible. 

That is, if the net weight of the HHG 

plus the PBP&E is less than 18,000 

pounds, the agency should ship the 

items together and pay for the HHG 

shipment in one payment. 

§ 302–7.5 What happens if the HHG 

shipment includes PBP&E, and it might 

exceed, or did exceed, the 18,000 pounds 

net weight allowance? 

(a) Separate the PBP&E and have the 

HHG carrier estimate the weight of the 

PBP&E before the HHG shipment is 

picked up. Subtract 110 percent of the 

estimated PBP&E weight (to adjust for 

packing materials) from the estimated 

gross weight as shown on the shipping 

documents (i.e., net weight minus the 

PBP&E minus 10 percent of the PBP&E). 

If the result is more than the 18,000 

pounds net weight allowance, then the 

shipment exceeds the net weight 

allowance. 

(b) If you did not discover that the 

HHG shipment exceeded the net weight 

allowance in advance, and if you did 

not weigh or estimate the PBP&E before 

shipping it, then weigh the PBP&E 

before it is delivered. Determine if the 

shipment exceeds the net weight 

allowance by applying the formula in 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

(c) If the calculation in paragraph (a) 

of this section shows that the shipment 

does not exceed the net weight 

allowance, then the agency may 

transport and pay for shipping the 

PBP&E plus packing materials with the 

household goods. 

(d) However, if the calculation in 

paragraph (a) of this section shows that 

the shipment may exceed the net weight 

allowance, and if the employee was 

authorized PBP&E, then the employee 

must pay for shipping all weight that 

exceeds the net weight allowance for 

their HHG, minus the PBP&E and 

packing materials for both. The agency 

may then pay for shipping the PBP&E as 

an administrative expense. 

(e) The agency may require reasonable 

documentation of the items requesting 

to be shipped as PBP&E and the weight 

of the PBP&E. 

§ 302–7.6 What are the authorized origin 

and destination points for the 

transportation of HHG and PBP&E? 

The authorized origin and destination 

points for the transportation of HHG and 

PBP&E vary by category of employee 

and are listed in the following table: 

TRANSPORTATION OF HHG AND PBP&E 

Category of employee Authorized origin/destination 

(a) Employee transferred between official stations .................................. Between the old and new official stations (including to/from extended 

storage location when authorized). 

(b) New appointee .................................................................................... From place of actual residence to new official station (including to location of extended storage when authorized). 

(c) Employee returning from outside CONUS assignment for separation 

from Government service.

Last official station and extended storage location, when authorized, to 

place of actual residence. 

(d) Employee authorized separation travel at Government expense to 

actual residence but retiring at the OCONUS official station or an alternate location.

From any location, including actual residence and extended storage location to any other location (including the OCONUS official station), 

not to exceed the constructive transportation cost from the official 

station and extended storage location (respectively) to the actual residence. 

(e) SES last move home benefits ............................................................ From the last official station and extended storage location, when authorized, to the place of selection. 

(f) Temporary change of official station (TCS) ......................................... From the current official station to the TCS location and return (includes to and from extended storage location when authorized). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
18340 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

§§ 302–7.8 through 302–7.20 

[Redesignated as §§ 302–7.9 through 302– 

7.21] 

■ 47. Redesignate §§ 302–7.8 through 

302–7.20 as §§ 302–7.9 through 302– 

7.21, respectively. 

■ 48. Add a new § 302–7.8 to read as 

follows: 

§ 302–7.8 At what location can CONUS-toCONUS or OCONUS-to-CONUS HHG 

shipments be temporarily stored? 

Your HHG may be placed in 

temporary storage at origin, in transit, at 

destination, or any combination thereof 

upon agency approval. 

■ 49. Revise newly redesignated § 302– 

7.9 and § 302–7.10 to read as follows: 

§ 302–7.9 What are the time limits for the 

temporary storage of authorized HHG 

shipments? 

(a) For CONUS to CONUS shipments. 

The initial period of temporary storage 

at Government expense may not exceed 

60 days. You may request additional 

time, up to a maximum of 90 days, and 

you must make such a request prior to 

the expiration of the original 60 days. 

This extension must be approved by the 

agency official designated for such 

requests. Under no circumstances may 

temporary storage at Government 

expense for CONUS to CONUS 

shipments exceed a total of 150 days. 

(b) For shipments that include an 

OCONUS origin or destination. The 

initial period of temporary storage at 

Government expense may not exceed 90 

days. You may request additional time, 

up to a maximum of 90 days, and you 

must make such a request prior to the 

expiration of the original 90 days. This 

extension must be approved by the 

agency official designated for such 

requests. Under no circumstances may 

temporary storage for shipments at 

Government expense that include an 

OCONUS origin or destination exceed a 

total of 180 days. 

§ 302–7.10 What are the reasons that 

would justify the additional storage beyond 

the initial 60 days CONUS and 90 days 

OCONUS limits? 

Reasons for justifying temporary 

storage beyond the initial limit include, 

but are not limited to: 

(a) An intervening temporary duty or 

long-term training assignment; 

(b) Non-availability of suitable 

housing; 

(c) Completion of residence under 

construction; 

(d) Serious illness of employee or 

illness or death of a dependent; or 

(e) Strikes, acts of God, or other 

circumstances beyond the control of the 

employee. 

§ 302–7.13 [Amended] 

■ 50. Amend newly designated § 302– 

7.13, in the second column of the table, 

by revising the first entry (opposite 

entry (a) in the first column), to read 

‘‘An allowance of up to 2,000 pounds, 

exclusive of the 18,000 pounds net 

weight of HHG shipment, is used for the 

packing weight covering barrels, boxes, 

cartons, and similar material but does 

not include pads, chains, dollies and 

other equipment to load and secure the 

shipment.’’ 

■ 51. Revise newly redesignated § 302– 

7.16 to read as follows: 

§ 302–7.16 Must I use the methods 

selected by my agency for transportation 

and temporary storage of my HHG and 

PBP&E? 

No, you do not have to use the 

method selected (see § 302–7.401) by 

your agency for transportation and 

temporary storage of your HHG and 

PBP&E. You may pursue other methods; 

however, your reimbursement is limited 

to the actual cost incurred, not to exceed 

what the Government would have 

incurred under the method selected by 

your agency. 

■ 52. Revise newly redesignated § 302– 

7.21 to read as follows: 

§ 302–7.21 If my HHG shipment includes 

an item for which a weight additive is 

assessed by the HHG carrier (e.g., boat, 

trailer, ultralight vehicle), am I responsible 

for payment? 

(a) No, you will not be responsible for 

the shipping charges that result from a 

weight additive so long as the actual 

weight of your HHG without the 

additive does not exceed the 18,000 

pound net weight allowance for 

relocation. However you are responsible 

for any amount your HHG exceeds the 

18,000 pound net weight allowance 

prior to the addition of the weight 

additive (e.g., when a weight additive of 

700 pounds is imposed by a HHG carrier 

for a 65-pound canoe and the total net 

weight of the HHG, including the weight 

additive, is 18,765 pounds, you are only 

responsible for the 65 pounds actually 

added by the canoe). 

(b) You are also responsible for the 

cost of special packing, crating, and 

handling of the weight additive items, if 

any. See § 302–7.200 on how charges are 

paid and who makes the shipping 

arrangements. 

Subpart D [Redesignated as Subpart E] 

■ 53. Redesignate subpart D consisting 

of §§ 302–7.300 through 302–7.304 as 

new subpart E consisting of §§ 302– 

7.400 through 302–7.404. 

■ 54. Add a new subpart D consisting of 

§§ 302–7.300 through 302–7.305 to read 

as follows: 

Subpart D—Baggage Allowance 

Sec. 

302–7.300 When may I be authorized an 

unaccompanied air baggage (UAB) 

shipment? 

302–7.301 Is my UAB shipment in addition 

to the 18,000 pounds net weight of the 

HHG weight allowance? 

302–7.302 What is the maximum weight 

allowance for a UAB shipment? 

302–7.303 When may my agency authorize 

the shipment of UAB by expedited 

means? 

302–7.304 Who makes arrangements for 

transporting my UAB? 

302–7.305 When must my agency ship my 

UAB? 

Subpart D—Baggage Allowance 

§ 302–7.300 When may I be authorized an 

unaccompanied air baggage (UAB) 

shipment? 

UAB is used in connection with 

permanent change of station OCONUS, 

renewal agreement travel, and 

temporary change of station. You may 

be authorized a UAB shipment prior to 

transferring from a CONUS location to 

an OCONUS location, between 

OCONUS locations, or from an 

OCONUS location to a CONUS location. 

UAB for CONUS to CONUS shipments 

is not allowed under the FTR. 

§ 302–7.301 Is my UAB shipment in 

addition to the 18,000 pounds net weight of 

the HHG weight allowance? 

No, for all shipments made under the 

authority of the FTR, the UAB shipment 

is part of, not in addition to, the 18,000 

pounds net weight allowance for HHG. 

§ 302–7.302 What is the maximum weight 

allowance for a UAB shipment? 

The maximum weight allowance your 

agency may grant for a UAB shipment 

is— 

(a) Up to 350 pounds actual weight 

(including the weight of the luggage or 

packing material) for the employee and 

each immediate family member 12 years 

of age and over; or 

(b) Up to 175 pounds actual weight 

(including the weight of the luggage or 

packing material) for each immediate 

family member under 12 years of age. 

§ 302–7.303 When may my agency 

authorize the shipment of UAB by expedited 

means? 

Your agency may authorize the 

shipment of UAB by expedited means 

when: 

(a) Shipment by a lower cost mode 

cannot deliver the items being shipped 

by the time they will be needed by the 

employee and/or the employee’s 

immediate family; or 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18341 

(b) You certify that expedited 

shipment of your UAB is necessary to 

carry out your assigned duties; or 

(c) Your agency determines that an 

expedited shipment is necessary to 

prevent undue hardship to you and 

members of your immediate family. 

§ 302–7.304 Who makes arrangements for 

transporting my UAB? 

Your agency or your agency’s 

designee should arrange for the 

transport of your UAB. In limited 

situations, the agency may ask the 

employee to make the arrangements for 

a UAB shipment. 

§ 302–7.305 When must my agency ship 

my UAB? 

Your agency must ship your UAB in 

time to ensure that your shipment 

arrives by the time you (and/or your 

family) report to your new official 

station. Arrangements should begin 

prior to your and/or your family’s 

departure to your new official station. 

■ 55. Revise newly designated subpart E 

to read as follows: 

Subpart E—Agency Responsibilities 

Sec. 

302–7.400 What policies and procedures 

must we establish for this subpart? 

302–7.401 What method of transportation 

and payment should we authorize for 

shipment and temporary storage of HHG? 

302–7.402 What method of transportation 

and payment should we authorize for 

shipment of PBP&E and UAB? 

302–7.403 What guidelines must we follow 

when authorizing transportation of 

PBP&E as an administrative expense? 

302–7.404 Are separate weight certificates 

required when HHG are shipped under 

the actual expense method and PBP&E 

are shipped as an administrative expense 

in the same lot? 

302–7.405 How must we arrange and pay 

for transportation of HHG and UAB, if 

we have authorized actual expense for 

transportation? 

Subpart E—Agency Responsibilities 

Note to Subpart E: Use of pronouns ‘‘we,’’ 

‘‘you,’’ and their variants throughout this 

Subpart refers to the agency. 

§ 302–7.400 What policies and procedures 

must we establish for this subpart? 

You must establish policies and 

procedures as required for this subpart, 

including who will: 

(a) Administer your household goods 

program; 

(b) Authorize commuted rate or actual 

expense for transportation and payment 

for HHG, PBP&E, and temporary storage; 

(c) Authorize PBP&E to be transported 

as an agency administrative expense in 

accordance with FTR guidelines 

(usually the authorizing official for 

PBP&E will be at the employee’s new 

official station); 

(d) Authorize an employee to ship 

UAB; 

(e) Collect any excess costs or charges; 

(f) Advise the employee on the 

Government’s liability for any personal 

property damage or loss claims (See 31 

U.S.C. 3721, et seq.); 

(g) Ensure that international HHG 

shipments by water are made on ships 

registered under the laws of the United 

States whenever such ships are 

available (see The Cargo Preference Act 

of 1904 (10 U.S.C. 2631) and The Cargo 

Preference Act of 1954 (46 U.S.C. 

55302)); 

(h) Authorize temporary storage in 

excess of the initial 60-day limit for 

CONUS shipments or 90-day limit for 

OCONUS shipments; and 

(i) Ensure pre-payment audits are 

completed. 

§ 302–7.401 What method of 

transportation and payment should we 

authorize for shipment and temporary 

storage of HHG? 

There are two methods of arranging 

and paying for shipment of HHG and 

providing for temporary storage: actual 

expense and commuted rate. You must 

authorize actual expense or commuted 

rate, depending on which is less costly 

to the Government. You must then 

specify the selected method on the 

relocation travel authorization. 

(a) Actual expense method. Under the 

actual expense method, the Government 

assumes the responsibility for arranging 

and paying for the actual expenses of all 

aspects of shipping the employee’s 

HHG, including PBP&E, if any. These 

expenses may include but are not 

limited to: Packing/unpacking, crating/ 

uncrating, pickup/delivery, weighing, 

line-haul, drayage, and temporary 

storage. This method is used for all 

shipments to/from/between OCONUS, 

and within CONUS where deemed 

economical to the Government. 

(b) Commuted rate system. 

(1) Under the commuted rate system, 

the employee assumes total 

responsibility for arranging and paying 

for the expenses of all aspects of 

shipping the employee’s HHG, 

including PBP&E, if any. These 

expenses may include but are not 

limited to: Packing/unpacking, crating/ 

uncrating, pickup/delivery, weighing, 

line-haul, drayage, and temporary 

storage. This method is used only for 

shipments within CONUS, and only 

where it is less costly to the Government 

than actual expense. The employee may 

arrange for shipment with a commercial 

HHG carrier or may rent self-drive 

equipment for a do-it-yourself move. 

(2) The commuted rate is calculated 

based on published HHG tariffs applied 

to the actual weight of the goods being 

shipped (subject also to the weight 

limitation in §§ 302–7.2 through 302– 

7.5). 

(3) If a PBP&E shipment causes the 

weight of a shipment under the 

commuted rate method to exceed the 

18,000 pounds net weight allowance for 

HHG, then the actual cost of shipping 

that excess weight attributed to the 

PBP&E may be paid as an administrative 

expense of the agency. In this case, all 

related transportation arrangements 

(e.g., packing/unpacking, crating/ 

uncrating, pickup/delivery, weighing, 

temporary storage, etc.) associated with 

shipping this excess weight will be 

handled and paid for by the agency (see 

§ 302–7.5 for the process of determining 

what will paid for by the agency). 

§ 302–7.402 What method of 

transportation and payment should we 

authorize for shipment of PBP&E and UAB? 

(a) You should authorize the actual 

expense method for shipping an 

employee’s PBP&E only when the 

weight of the PBP&E causes the 

employee’s shipment to exceed the 

maximum 18,000 pounds net HHG 

weight limitation and in accordance 

with § 302–7.403. Preferably, PBP&E 

should be identified and weighed prior 

to shipment, so the weight can easily be 

deducted from the 18,000 pounds net 

weight allowance. In cases where the 

weight of the PBP&E causes the 

shipment to exceed the 18,000 pounds 

net weight allowance for HHG, the 

PBP&E shipment may be paid for as an 

administrative expense by you, 

provided you authorized PBP&E. 

(b) You should authorize the actual 

expense method for shipping an 

employee’s UAB. UAB should be 

identified, weighed, and shipped prior 

to shipment of HHG. In cases where the 

weight of the UAB causes the shipment 

to exceed the 18,000 pounds net weight 

allowance for HHG, the cost of the 

excess weight is the responsibility of the 

employee. Under the actual expense 

method of shipment, you are 

responsible for paying the bill of lading 

in full and then collecting any excess 

cost from the employee. 

§ 302–7.403 What guidelines must we 

follow when authorizing transportation of 

PBP&E as an administrative expense? 

You have the sole discretion to 

authorize transportation of PBP&E as an 

administrative expense and may do so 

provided that: 

(a) The authorizing official has 

certified that the PBP&E is necessary for 

performance of the employee’s duties at 

the new duty station; 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
18342 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

(b) The authorizing official has 

certified that, if these items were not 

transported, the same or similar items 

would have to be obtained at 

Government expense for the employee’s 

use at the new official station; 

(c) You have acquired evidence that 

transporting the PBP&E would cause the 

employees’ HHG to exceed the 18,000 

pounds net weight allowance; and 

(d) If you have requested it, the 

employee has provided reasonable 

documentation of the items requesting 

to be shipped as PBP&E and the weight 

of the PBP&E for review by the 

authorizing official (who is usually an 

official at the employee’s new official 

station). 

Note to § 302–7.403: PBP&E transported as 

an agency administrative expense to an 

OCONUS location may be returned to 

CONUS as an agency administrative expense 

for an employee separating from Government 

service or returning to the actual place of 

residence and continuing in Government 

service. 

§ 302–7.404 Are separate weight 

certificates required when HHG are shipped 

under the actual expense method and 

PBP&E are shipped as an administrative 

expense in the same lot? 

Yes, separate weight certificates are 

required when the PBP&E and its 

packing allowance pushes the shipment 

over the net weight allowance. 

Otherwise, for administrative efficiency, 

the HHG shipment should be billed and 

paid for as a single shipment. If separate 

weight certificates are required, then the 

weight of PBP&E and the administrative 

appropriation chargeable must be listed 

as separate items on the bill of lading or 

other shipping document. 

§ 302–7.405 How must we arrange and pay 

for transportation of HHG and UAB, if we 

have authorized actual expense for 

transportation? 

When arranging transportation of 

HHG and UAB under the actual expense 

method, you should: 

(a) Determine the constructive cost of 

transporting the HHG plus the UAB, as 

follows: 

(1) Compute the cost of transporting 

the HHG (not including the UAB) in one 

lot, by the most economical means; be 

sure to include the cost of packing and 

unpacking. 

(2) Compute the cost of transporting 

the UAB. 

(3) If the HHG, including the UAB, 

exceeds the 18,000 pounds net weight 

allowance, then compute the cost of 

transporting only the net weight 

allowance as one shipment; again, be 

sure to include the cost of packing and 

unpacking. 

(4) The constructive cost is either that 

described in paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section or the sum of paragraphs (a)(1) 

and (a)(2) of this section, depending on 

whether the weight of the HHG, 

including the UAB, exceeds the net 

weight allowance. 

(b) Limit the employee’s HHG plus 

UAB transportation payment to the 

constructive cost as described in 

paragraph (a)(4) of this section, so long 

as it is equal to or less than the 18,000 

pound net limit of this Chapter; 

(c) Make arrangements for 

transporting the employee’s HHG and 

UAB under two separate bills of lading, 

with direct payment by the agency for 

both; and 

(d) Advise employees of this 

relocation entitlement limitation and its 

potential to result in out-of-pocket 

expenses to the employee. That is, 

advise employees that they will have to 

use their personal funds to pay for 

transporting HHG (including UAB) in 

excess of 18,000 pounds net weight 

allowance. 

PART 302–9—ALLOWANCES FOR 

TRANSPORTATION AND EMERGENCY 

STORAGE OF A PRIVATELY OWNED 

VEHICLE 

■ 56. The authority citation for 41 CFR 

part 302–9 is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5738; 20 U.S.C. 905(a); 

E.O. 11609, as amended, 3 CFR, 1971–1975 

Comp., p. 586. 

§ 302–9.11 [Amended] 

■ 57. Amend § 302–9.11 by removing 

‘‘§ 302–2.20’’ and adding ‘‘§ 302–2.22’’ in 

its place. 

§ 302–9.140 [Amended] 

■ 58. Amend § 302–9.140, paragraph (a), 

by removing ‘‘§ 302–9.503’’ and adding 

‘‘§ 302–9.504’’ in its place. 

§ 302–9.170 [Amended] 

■ 59. Amend § 302–9.170, paragraph 

(d), by removing ‘‘302–9.503’’ and 

adding ‘‘§ 302–9.504’’ in its place. 

■ 60. Amend § 302–9.301 by— 

■ a. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ at the end 

of paragraph (b); 

■ b. Removing the period at the end of 

paragraph (c) and adding ‘‘;’’ in its place; 

and 

■ c. Adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to 

read as follows: 

§ 302–9.301 Under what conditions may 

my agency authorize transportation of my 

POV within CONUS? 

* * * * * 

(d) Your agency determines that the 

POV is in operating order and legally 

titled and tagged for driving; and 

(e) The distance that the POV is to be 

shipped is 600 miles or more. 

■ 61. Revise § 302–9.302 to read as 

follows: 

§ 302–9.302 How many POV’s may I be 

authorized to transport within CONUS? 

You may be authorized to transport 

only the number of POVs equal to the 

number of people on the relocation 

travel orders, who are licensed drivers, 

not to exceed two, while relocating 

within CONUS at Government expense 

under this Chapter. Your agency must 

determine that such transportation is 

advantageous and cost effective to the 

Government in accordance with § 302– 

9.301. A vehicle may not be shipped as 

PBP&E. 

§§ 302–9.501 through 302–9.505 

[Redesignated as §§ 302–9.502 through 

302–9.506] 

■ 62. Redesignate §§ 302–9.501 through 

302–9.505 as §§ 302–9.502 through 302– 

9.506, respectively. 

■ 63. Add a new § 302–9.501 to read as 

follows: 

§ 302–9.501 How many POV’s may we 

authorize for transportation at Government 

expense? 

Within CONUS, you may authorize 

transportation of up to two POVs at 

Government expense, as prescribed in 

§ 302–9.302. For shipments from 

CONUS to OCONUS, OCONUS to 

OCONUS, and OCONUS to CONUS, 

only one POV may be transported at 

Government expense. 

§ 302–9.504 [Amended] 

■ 64. Amend newly designated § 302– 

9.504 by removing ‘‘§ 302–9.504’’ and 

adding ‘‘§ 302–9.505’’ in its place. 

■ 65. Amend the newly designated 

§ 302–9.505 by— 

■ a. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ at the end 

of paragraph (c); 

■ b. Removing the period at the end of 

paragraph (d) and adding ‘‘; and’’ in its 

place; and 

■ c. Adding paragraph (e) to read as 

follows: 

§ 302–9.505 What factors must we 

consider in deciding whether to authorize 

transportation of a POV to a post of duty? 

* * * * * 

(e) The POV is in operating order and 

legally titled and tagged for driving. 

■ 66. Amend newly designated § 302– 

9.506 by: 

■ a. Removing the period at the end of 

paragraph (d) and adding ‘‘; and’’ in its 

place; and 

■ b. Adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to 

read as follows: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18343 

§ 302–9.506 What must we consider in 

determining whether transportation of a 

POV within CONUS is cost effective? 

* * * * * 

(e) The POV is in operating order and 

legally titled and tagged for driving; and 

(f) The distance that the POV is to be 

shipped is greater than 600 miles. 

PART 302–11—ALLOWANCES FOR 

EXPENSES INCURRED IN 

CONNECTION WITH RESIDENCE 

TRANSACTIONS 

■ 67. The authority citation for 41 CFR 

part 302–11 continues to read as 

follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5738 and 20 U.S.C. 

905(c). 

■ 68. Revise § 302–11.2 to read as 

follows: 

§ 302–11.2 Am I eligible to receive an 

allowance for expenses incurred in 

connection with my residence 

transactions? 

(a) You must meet four basic 

conditions to be eligible to receive an 

allowance for expenses incurred in 

connection with your residence 

transactions: 

(1) You must be transferring from one 

official station to another; 

(2) Your relocation must be incidental 

to the transfer (i.e., not for the 

convenience of the employee); 

(3) Your relocation must meet the 

distance test conditions of § 302–2.6; 

and 

(4) Your new official station must be 

within the United States. 

(b) If you previously transferred from 

an official station in the United States 

to a foreign area and you are now 

transferring back to the United States, 

then, in addition to the requirements of 

paragraph (a) of this section, you must 

have completed the time period 

specified in your service agreement for 

your overseas tour of duty. 

§ 302–11.21 [Amended] 

■ 69. Amend § 302–11.21, in the second 

sentence, by removing ‘‘2 years’’ and 

adding ‘‘1 year’’ in its place. 

■ 70. Revise § 302–11.22 to read as 

follows: 

§ 302–11.22 May the 1-year time limitation 

be extended by my agency? 

Yes, your agency may extend the 1- 

year limitation for up to one additional 

year for reasons beyond your control 

and acceptable to your agency. 

■ 71. Amend § 302–11.200 by revising 

the introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 302–11.200 What residence transaction 

expenses will my agency pay? 

Provided the residence transaction 

expenses are customarily charged to the 

seller of a residence in the locality of the 

old official station or paid by the 

purchaser at the new official station, 

your agency will, with appropriate 

supporting documentation provided by 

you, reimburse you for the following 

residence transaction expenses when 

they are incurred by you incident to 

your relocation: 

* * * * * 

§ 302–11.404 [Amended] 

■ 72. Amend § 302–11.404, paragraph 

(c), by removing ‘‘2-year’’ and adding ‘‘1- 

year’’ in its place. 

§ 302–11.420 [Amended] 

■ 73. Amend § 302–11.420 by removing 

‘‘2 years’’ and adding ‘‘1 year’’ in its 

place. 

§ 302–11.421 [Amended] 

■ 74. Amend § 302–11.421, paragraph 

(a), by removing ‘‘two years’’ and adding 

‘‘one year’’ in its place. 

PART 302–12—USE OF A 

RELOCATION SERVICES COMPANY 

(RSC) 

■ 75. The authority citation for 41 CFR 

part 302–12 continues to read as 

follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5738 and 20 U.S.C. 

905(c). 

■ 76. Revise §§ 302–12.1 through 302– 

12.3 to read as follows: 

§ 302–12.1 Who determines if I may use a 

RSC? 

Your agency determines whether you 

may use a RSC and chooses which RSC 

you may use. 

§ 302–12.2 Under what conditions may I 

participate in my agency’s homesale 

program? 

You may participate in your agency’s 

homesale program, through its RSC 

contract, blanket purchase agreement, 

task order, or other formal arrangement 

(for the remainder of this part, all of 

these will be referred to as the contract 

with the RSC) provided you meet all of 

the following conditions: 

(a) You are authorized to relocate; 

(b) Your relocation includes at least 

one residence transaction; 

(c) You have signed a relocation 

service agreement; 

(d) Your agency authorizes you to use 

a RSC with which your agency has a 

contract; 

(e) Your residence is within RSC 

contract scope for type, size, condition, 

and other contractual requirements; 

(f) You meet all conditions 

established by this Chapter for the 

services that the RSC will provide to 

you; and 

(g) You have signed an agreement 

with your agency to enter the agency’s 

homesale program and to abide by all 

terms of the agency’s contract with the 

RSC (see § 302–12.4 for contract term 

examples). 

§ 302–12.3 Am I required to participate in 

homesale counseling? 

Yes, you are required to participate in 

homesale counseling if you are going to 

use the RSC. The RSC and/or your 

agency must provide counseling to help 

you understand the process, select a 

broker, prepare your home for sale, 

identify an appropriate selling price, set 

realistic expectations, etc. This 

counseling may be in person or via an 

electronic medium, at your agency’s 

discretion. Your agency should also 

provide you with relocation 

information/counseling prior to you 

making any decisions to relocate. 

§§ 302–12.4 through 302–12.9 

[Redesignated as §§ 302–12.5 through 302– 

12.10] 

■ 77. Redesignate §§ 302–12.4 through 

302–12.9 as §§ 302–12.5 through 302– 

12.10. 

■ 78. Add a new § 302–12.4 to read as 

follows: 

§ 302–12.4 To what terms of the RSC 

contract am I required to agree? 

Your agency determines the contract 

terms to which you will be required to 

agree. Examples of these contract terms 

may include, but are not limited to, the 

following: 

(a) You will participate in counseling 

provided by the RSC; 

(b) You will seriously consider any 

bona fide offer that you receive during 

the minimum marketing period; 

(c) As a precondition of using its 

relocation services, you will complete 

and submit a disclosure form to the RSC 

to provide thorough information about 

the age and condition of your home and 

its systems. 

■ 79A. Revise §§ 302–12.105 and 302– 

12.106 to read as follows: 

§ 302–12.105 Must we have a contract with 

a RSC that includes a comprehensive 

homesale program? 

No, you are not required to have a 

contract that includes a comprehensive 

homesale program (which, for this 

purpose, is defined as a relocation 

program that includes a contract with a 

RSC that provides for buyer value 

option sales, amended sales, and 

appraised value purchases by the RSC). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
18344 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

However, if you do not have such a 

program, you must examine and 

evaluate the objectives and relative costs 

of your relocation benefits and 

management processes at least once 

every two years to determine whether a 

comprehensive homesale program 

should be part of your relocation 

program. 

§ 302–12.106 What rules must we follow 

when contracting for a comprehensive 

homesale program? 

You must follow the rules contained 

in the Federal Acquisition Regulations 

(FAR) (48 CFR) and/or all other 

acquisition regulations applicable to 

your agency. 

§ 302–12.107 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 79B. Remove and reserve § 302– 

12.107. 

§§ 302–12.108 through 302–12.114 

[Redesignated as §§ 302–12.115 through 

302–12.121] 

■ 80. Redesignate §§ 302–12.108 

through 302–12.114 as §§ 302–12.115 

through 302–12.121. 

■ 81A. Add and reserve § 302–12.108 to 

read as follows: 

§ 302–12.108 [Reserved] 

■ 81B. Add new §§ 302–12.109 to read 

as follows: 

§ 302–12.109 May we require employees to 

participate in counseling before listing their 

homes? 

Yes, you may require that employees 

participate in counseling before listing 

their homes, provided this is written 

into your agency’s relocation policy. 

This is a common practice in the private 

sector. Please note, however, that this 

may exclude from your homesale 

program any employee who lists his/her 

home before the relocation travel 

authorization is approved. If you choose 

to make this part of your agency policy, 

you should make a major, ongoing effort 

to inform as many of your potential 

transferees as possible of this policy. 

■ 81C. Add and reserve § 302–12.110 to 

read as follows: 

§ 302–12.110 [Reserved] 

■ 81D. Add new §§ 302–12.111 through 

302–12.114 to read as follows: 

§ 302–12.111 May we require an employee 

to use a real estate broker specified by the 

RSC? 

Yes, you may require, through your 

contract with the RSC, that every 

employee enrolled in the homesale 

program use a real estate broker 

specified by the RSC. This provision is 

not part of the standard terms for a 

homesale program, but it may provide a 

pricing advantage in negotiations with 

potential RSC, as well as an opportunity 

for better management of the homesale 

process. 

§ 302–12.112 May we require an employee 

to use a mortgage service provider 

specified by the RSC? 

No. Under the Real Estate Procedures 

Settlement Act (RESPA), you may not 

require that the employee obtain any 

mortgage from a lender specified by the 

RSC. The RSC may provide the 

employee access to multiple mortgage 

service providers as long as there is no 

use requirement, and the employee is 

provided a choice. Allowing the RSC to 

provide access to multiple providers is 

not part of the standard terms for a 

homesale program, but it may provide a 

pricing advantage in negotiations with 

potential RSCs, as well as an 

opportunity for better management of 

the homesale process. 

§ 302–12.113 What must we do when 

planning, establishing, and administering a 

RSC contract? 

(a) When planning and establishing a 

RSC contract, you must structure the 

contract so that it provides the best 

possible value to the Government, 

considering costs, tax implications, 

morale, mobility, employee choice, 

productivity, and any other relevant 

considerations. For most agencies and 

most relocations, this structure will 

include the possibility of a BVO sale or 

an amended value sale. 

(b) Once you have a RSC contract, you 

must monitor costs and tax 

consequences and make adjustments as 

necessary, to ensure that your homesale 

program continues to provide the same 

best value to the Government. 

§ 302–12.114 What policies must we 

establish when offering our employees the 

services of a RSC? 

If you choose to offer the services of 

a RSC to your employees, you must 

establish policies governing: 

(a) The conditions under which you 

will authorize an employee to use the 

contract with the RSC; 

(b) Which employees you will allow 

to use the contract with the RSC; 

(c) Which services the RSC will 

provide to the employee; 

(d) Who will determine in each case 

if an employee may use the contract 

with the RSC and which services the 

RSC will provide; 

(e) How you will monitor and 

evaluate the counseling provided by you 

and/or the RSC to your employees; and 

(f) How you will monitor and 

maintain an appropriate balance 

between the three types of homesale 

transactions in your homesale programs 

(appraised value, buyer value option, 

and amended value). 

PART 302–15—ALLOWANCE FOR 

PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES 

■ 82. The authority citation for 41 CFR 

part 302–15 is revised to read as 

follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5738; 20 U.S.C. 905(a); 

E.O. 11609, as amended, 3 CFR, 1971–1975 

Comp., p. 586. 

■ 83. Revise § 302–15.2 to read as 

follows: 

§ 302–15.2 What are the purposes of the 

property management services allowance? 

The purposes of the property 

management services allowance are to: 

(a) Reduce overall Government 

relocation costs by using the property 

management services allowance in place 

of allowances for the sale of the 

employee’s residence; and 

(b) Relieve employees transferred to 

OCONUS duty stations from the costs of 

maintaining a home in CONUS during 

their tour of duty. 

§ 302–15.10 [Amended] 

■ 84. Amend § 302–15.10, paragraph (a), 

by— 

■ a. Removing ‘‘2 years’’ and adding 

‘‘one year’’ in its place; and 

■ b. Removing ‘‘2-year’’ and adding 

‘‘1-year’’ in its place. 

■ 85. Revise § 302–15.70 to read as 

follows: 

§ 302–15.70 What governing policies must 

we establish for the allowance for property 

management services? 

You must establish policies and 

procedures governing: 

(a) When you will authorize payment 

for property management services for an 

employee who transfers in the interest 

of the Government; 

(b) When it is appropriate to authorize 

this service on a reimbursable basis to 

the employee, rather than paying the 

property management company directly, 

as long as any reimbursement is equal 

to or less than the agency negotiated rate 

for this service (agencies may require 

that employees hire only licensed and/ 

or certified property managers). 

(c) Who will determine, for 

relocations to official duty stations in 

the United States, whether payment for 

property management services is more 

advantageous and cost effective than 

sale of an employee’s residence at 

Government expense; 

(d) If and when you will allow an 

employee who was offered and accepted 

payment for property management 

services to change his/her residence at 

Government expense in accordance 

with paragraph (e) of this section; and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18345 

(e) How you will offset expenses you 

have paid for property management 

services against payable expenses for 

sale of the employee’s residence when 

an eligible employee who elected 

payment for property management 

services later changes his/her mind and 

elects instead to sell his/her residence at 

Government expense. 

PART 302–16—ALLOWANCE FOR 

MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES 

■ 86. The authority citation for 41 CFR 

part 302–16 is revised to read as 

follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5738; 20 U.S.C. 905(a); 

E.O. 11609, as amended, 3 CFR, 1971–1975 

Comp., p. 586. 

§§ 302–16.1 and 302–16.2 [Redesignated 

as §§ 302–16.2 and 302–16.1] 

■ 87. Redesignate §§ 302–16.1 and 302– 

16.2 as §§ 302–16.2 and 302–16.1, 

respectively. 

■ 88. Revise newly redesignated §§ 302– 

16.1 and 302–16.2 to read as follows: 

§ 302–16.1 What is the purpose of the 

miscellaneous expenses allowance (MEA)? 

The miscellaneous expenses 

allowance (MEA) is intended to help 

defray some of the costs incurred due to 

relocating. (See part 302–10 of this 

chapter for specific costs normally 

associated with relocation of a mobile 

home dwelling that are covered under 

transportation expenses.) 

§ 302–16.2 What are miscellaneous 

expenses? 

Miscellaneous expenses are: 

(a) Costs associated with relocating 

that are not covered by other relocation 

benefits detailed in Chapter 302. 

(b) Expenses allowable under this 

section include but are not limited to 

the following, and similar, items: 

General expenses Fees/deposits Losses 

Appliances ................................................ Fees for disconnecting/connecting utilities, appliances, 

equipment, or conversion of appliances for operation on 

available utilities.

Rugs, draperies, and curtains .................. Fees for cutting and fitting such items when they are 

moved from one residence quarters to another.

Utilities (For mobile homes, see § 302– 

10.204).

Deposits or fees not offset by eventual refunds. 

Medical, dental, and food locker contracts................................................................................................ Losses that cannot be recovered by 

transfer or refund and are incurred 

due to early termination of a contract. 

Private Institutional care contracts (such 

as that provided for handicapped or invalid dependents only).

............................................................................................... Losses that cannot be recovered by 

transfer or refund and are incurred 

due to early termination of a contract. 

Privately-owned vehicles .......................... Registration, driver’s license, and use taxes imposed when 

bringing vehicles into certain jurisdictions.

Transportation of pets .............................. The only costs included are those normally associated with 

the transportation and handling of dogs, cats, and other 

house pets, as well as costs due to stringent air carrier 

rules. Other animals (horses, fish, birds, reptiles, various 

rodents, etc.) are excluded because of their size, exotic 

nature, restrictions on shipping, host country restrictions, 

and special handling difficulties. Inoculations, examinations, and boarding quarantine costs are excluded.

[FR Doc. 2011–6609 Filed 3–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–14–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3