Federal Travel Regulation; FTR Case 2007-304, Relocation Allowances-Governmentwide Relocation Advisory Board, 43216-43221 [E7-15156]
Download as PDF
43216
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 149 / Friday, August 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6052,
rosenthal.steven@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State’s
SIP submittal as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial
submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the
approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are
received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA
receives adverse comments, the direct
final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed rule. EPA will
not institute a second comment period.
Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph,
or section of this rule, and if that
provision may be severed from the
remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that
are not the subject of an adverse
comment. For additional information,
see the direct final rule which is located
in the Rules section of this Federal
Register.
Dated: July 24, 2007.
Walter W Kovalick Jr.,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E7–15012 Filed 8–2–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
41 CFR Parts 300–3, 302–3, 302–5,
302–7, 302–12, and 302–16
[FTR Case 2007–304; Docket 2007-0002,
Sequence 1]
RIN 3090–AI37
Federal Travel Regulation; FTR Case
2007–304, Relocation Allowances–
Governmentwide Relocation Advisory
Board
Office of Governmentwide
Policy, General Services Administration
(GSA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The General Services
Administration (GSA), Office of
Governmentwide Policy (OGP),
continually reviews and adjusts policies
as a part of its ongoing mission to
provide policy assistance to the
Government agencies subject to the
Federal Travel Regulation (FTR).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:21 Aug 02, 2007
Jkt 211001
Accordingly, GSA created the
Governmentwide Relocation Advisory
Board (GRAB), consisting of
Government and private industry
relocation experts, to examine
Government relocation policy. To allow
for the use of private industry expertise
in the rulemaking and possible
legislative actions, the GRAB was
chartered through the Federal Advisory
Committee Act on July 9, 2004. The
GRAB submitted a final report of its
findings on September 15, 2005. If
implemented, the 100 plus
recommendations of the GRAB would
keep Government relocation practices
aligned with private sector best
practices, as well as improve the overall
management of Government relocation
programs and reduce costs. This
proposed rule transforms many of the
GRAB’s recommendations into FTR
policy. The GRAB Findings and
Recommendations and corresponding
documents may be accessed at GSA’s
Web site at https://www.gsa.gov/grab.
DATES: Interested parties should submit
comments in writing on or before
October 2, 2007 to be considered in the
formulation of a final rule.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments
identified by FTR case 2007–304 by any
of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Search for any
document by first selecting the proper
document types and selecting ‘‘General
Services Administration - All’’ as the
agency of choice. At the ‘‘Keyword’’
prompt, type in the FTR case number
(for example, FTR Case 2007–304) and
click on the ‘‘Submit’’ button. You may
also search for any document by
clicking on the ‘‘Advanced search/
document search’’ tab at the top of the
screen, selecting from the agency field
‘‘General Services Administration All’’, and typing the FTR case number
in the keyword field. Select the
‘‘Submit’’ button.
• Fax: 202–501–4067.
•Mail: General Services
Administration, Regulatory Secretariat
(VIR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035,
ATTN: Laurieann Duarte, Washington,
DC 20405.
Instructions: Please submit comments
only and cite FTR case 2007–304 in all
correspondence related to this case. All
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Ed Davis, Office of Travel,
Transportation and Asset Management
(MT), General Services Administration
at (202) 208–7638 or e-mail at
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ed.davis@gsa.govfor clarification of
content. For information pertaining to
status or publication schedules, contact
the FAR Secretariat at (202) 501–4755.
Please cite FTR case 2007–304.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
The General Services Administration
(GSA), Office of Governmentwide Policy
(OGP), reviews the regulations under its
purview to address current Government
relocation needs and incorporates
private industry policies and best
practices, where appropriate. The
relocation services industry is complex
and changes frequently. Changes in
relocation policy need to be made to
comport with industry best practices.
With the exception of the Relocation
Income Tax Allowance (RITA), which
will be addressed in a subsequent
proposed rule, most of the cost of a
relocation is related to the residence
transactions. The Federal Government
has traditionally reimbursed up to 10
percent of the selling price of the
previous residence and 5 percent of the
purchase price of the new home (this is
known as direct reimbursement).
Currently, the tax implications of this
transaction are handled through a twoyear RITA process, and there are long
delays in getting equity into the hands
of the employee so that a new residence
can be purchased. Through a homesale
program, directed by a contracted
vendor, these two issues can be solved
for the benefit of both the agency and
employee. The result is that the
employee receives equity when selling
to the contracted vendor, and this
transaction if accomplished through a
vendor, is not taxable to the employee.
For smaller relocation expenses such
as the Miscellaneous Expense
Allowance (MEA), much of private
industry uses lump-sum payments.
These payments have a small one-time
administrative cost and do not need to
be reconciled in a post-payment audit.
The administrative savings and
efficiency improvements of such
systems are clear because far less staff
time is needed to administer, monitor,
and audit payments in a lump-sum
scenario.
Private industry spends less time on
its relocation packages because they are
tiered and handle special circumstances
more flexibly. Also, in private industry,
payment or reimbursement of relocation
expenses to the employee or third party
vendor rarely extends beyond one year
because there are few extensions. The
focus is on getting the transferee settled
at the new location in permanent
quarters as quickly as possible. The
main lesson that the Government can
E:\FR\FM\03AUP1.SGM
03AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 149 / Friday, August 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
learn from benchmarking against private
industry is that efficiency is important.
OGP has examined the issues facing
agencies and their relocating employees.
Through GRAB recommendations,
internal GSA discussions, consideration
of Governmentwide policy interests,
and comments added by the Executive
Relocation Steering Committee, this
proposed rule emerged.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
B. Proposed Rule
This proposed rule implements some
of the GRAB’s recommendations. The
changes in part 302 will necessitate the
addition of the following definitions to
part 300–3: amended value sale,
appraised value sale, buyer’s value
option (BVO), fair market value, and
relocation services company (RSC).
The proposed changes to 41 CFR
Chapter 302 are designed to:
Reinforce the difference between
mandatory and discretionary relocation
allowances and clarify the tables in part
302–3- The GRAB wanted to ensure that
the FTR highlights which relocation
benefits are mandatory and which are
discretionary. To do this, several errors
need to be corrected in the tables
outlining benefits.
Use the standard continental United
States (CONUS) per diem for calculating
actual expense per diems for
househunting trips (HHTs) and the
locality rate per diem for calculating
lump-sum HHT benefits in part 302–5 The GRAB final report explains this
issue well:
‘‘. . . , 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 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 both 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‘‘ worth of the locality rate? Simply
saving the trouble of submitting receipts is
not a sufficient motivator to forego 5 days’
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 lumpsum benefit anyway, the fact that the FTR
contains this inconsistency is reason enough
to make the change.’’
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:21 Aug 02, 2007
Jkt 211001
GSA originally intended for the
househunting regulation to mirror the
TQSE process, where the agency either
reimburses actual expenses for up to
120 days at the lower standard CONUS
rate or calculates a lump-sum
reimbursement for up to 30 days, with
the higher locality rate as the multiplier.
This would give the agencies and
transferred employees a real chance to
use the incentives of higher payments
for a shorter timeframe to get the
employees to move into permanent
quarters faster. People do actually
choose the lump sum for TQSE, but they
do not use the lump sum for HHTs
because the error removed the intended
economic incentive. Agencies report
that because of the error, the lump-sum
househunting trips are underutilized,
while the lump sum for TQSE is
frequently utilized.
By emulating the TQSE regulations
and correcting the error that GSA made
in creating the existing househunting
regulation, real economic incentives
will help work towards employees
managing their househunting trips more
economically. Just as with the TQSE,
the use of the higher locality rate for the
lump-sum payment versus the lower
standard CONUS rate for actual expense
reimbursement will incentivize faster
househunting trips managed more
carefully by an employee who has
economic reasons to do so.
Changing the storage allowance for
the temporary storage of Household
Goods by amending section 302–7.8 The GRAB recommended that, instead
of allowing for temporary storage for 90
days with one possible 90–day
extension, as the FTR does today, the
temporary storage benefit should be
more logically planned and utilized.
The GRAB’s recommendation for
temporary storage for CONUS to
CONUS transfers is that temporary
storage would be limited to 60 days,
with no extensions possible. Federal
agencies strongly oppose the loss of any
possible extension because of the
inflexibility this imposes on legitimate
cases.
In consideration of the Federal
agencies’ need for flexibility, we are
proposing that CONUS to CONUS
moves will have their storage reduced to
60 days with a 30–day extension. This
is in line with private industry, which
rarely stores household goods for very
long. However, since transfers to or from
Outside the Continental United States
(OCONUS) locations present greater,
inherent problems, we are proposing to
continue to allow for 90 days with a
possible 90–day extension for any
shipment that has an OCONUS origin or
destination.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43217
It is also important for agencies to
have a management plan for deciding
how and when they will grant
temporary storage extensions. This must
be based on genuine relocation criteria
and not an automatic benefit.
Extensions should only be granted for
legitimate, unanticipated reasons, not
for anything that is the result of poor
planning by the employee.
Require employees to limit the asking
price to 105% of the appraised value
estimate of their home value and to
attend residence transaction counseling
sessions by changing section 302–12.3 The GRAB recommendation allows for
having two 30–day periods in the
marketing of a home in the homesale
program, with the latter period limited
to 105% of the appraised value or
broker’s estimate. This regulation, in
line with the current real estate market,
where houses sit for much longer than
they did when the GRAB was meeting,
sets the time for marketing under the
broker price at 60 days. This is fair to
the home owner, who would have 30
days to let the market justify a belief in
a higher price, and it is fair to the RSC,
who would then have 30 days to market
the house with the price they saw as
more in line with its value.
With mandatory counseling sessions,
agencies ensure that the employees who
are relocating understand the different
transactions involved in a home sale or
purchase. This is an important part of
any comprehensive program because
unless the employee understands the
process, problems regarding
implementation may occur.
Require homes to be listed for 60 days
prior to accepting an appraised value
sale under section 302–12.3(c) - As was
mentioned in the explanation directly
above, of the three major homesale
programs used by private industry, the
appraised value option is the most
costly of the three, even though it is a
valuable tool when compared to direct
reimbursement. The GRAB Report states
that appraised value is used by the
Government for 41% of homesale
program transactions versus the 18% of
private industry homesale transactions.
The GRAB report strongly recommends
that Government homesale programs
drive the balance towards amended and
BVO options.
By requiring that each agency
contracting with an RSC employ a 60–
day listing prior to accepting an
appraised value sale, the number of
appraised value sales will be reduced,
and the Government will shift its mix of
homesale programs to resemble that of
private industry. According to the work
of the Employee Relocation Council’s
auditor, Raffa and Associates, as shown
E:\FR\FM\03AUP1.SGM
03AUP1
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
43218
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 149 / Friday, August 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
in the GRAB Findings and
Recommendations, a shift into the same
portfolio mix as private industry would
save the Government $35.1 million per
year.
A 60–day listing period may seem like
a long time, but it allows for sales in a
slower market. In a heated housing
market, the listing will rarely get to 60
days.
Require employees to use the
homesale marketing counseling services
offered by the homesale contractor
under section 302–12.3(e) - One of the
problems inherent in homesale
programs is the complexity of the
various programs. Direct reimbursement
by contrast can be easier to understand.
If savings are going to be realized
through the use of homesale programs,
the employee must understand the
options thoroughly. An easy way to do
that is by having the employee receive
counseling on the various options
provided by the RSC. The counseling
helps the agency, company, and
employee because it clarifies what
employees must do to participate in the
program and what options the employee
has to consider while dealing with the
sale of one of his or her largest assets.
The agency has a responsibility to
monitor these counseling sessions and
make sure that the materials and
presentation are fair and useful to the
employee. Requiring this counseling is
useful to everyone.
Require that agencies examine and
evaluate their relocation programs and
determine whether or not a
comprehensive homesale program
should be part of their program under
sections 302–12.105 and 302–12.106 The Government has a major difference
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 can assume title.
Therefore, the RSCs charge the
Government slightly more than they
charge private companies, to cover the
additional risk that the RSC assumes on
each property. This gives the
appearance to agencies that RSCmanaged homesale programs are more
expensive than direct reimbursement for
homesale costs, which is the most
common practice among Federal
agencies. 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:21 Aug 02, 2007
Jkt 211001
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’s. Furthermore, the
GRAB recommended that each agency
try to tilt their mix of the three homesale
programs away from the more expensive
appraised value and towards the
amended and BVO style programs,
where actual offers determine the value
of a residence. GSA is in strong support
of this program but is not willing to
mandate that all agencies implement a
homesale program. GSA’s position is
that this would go against the
philosophy that agencies are better
managers of their own programs because
they understand each agency’s culture
and mission better than GSA. However,
use of a comprehensive homesale
program through an RSC should be a
first consideration for all agencies in
designing and administering their
residence transactions, because the
economics of the relocation industry
indicate that direct reimbursement is a
tool that is best used only for cases
where the property is difficult to sell
(i.e., houseboats, mobile homes,
geodesic domes, houses with mold or
artificial stucco, etc.). This proposed
rule would make use of a homesale
program the first consideration.
The other reason that GSA does not
want to mandate homesale programs in
lieu of direct reimbursement is that it
believes market forces are clearly
directing agencies towards doing this as
a business decision. More and more
agencies are contracting with RSCs for
homesale services. GSA also does not
want the regulation to require one
method of residence transaction
reimbursement, because this would
possibly prevent evolution of or
migration to another new method
should one develop. Relocation is a
quickly changing industry and the
regulation must allow agencies
flexibility.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the transferee can 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 would be free to
use his or her judgment to make sure the
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 proposal also
eliminates the need for the Government
from having to specify what is covered
by the MEA.
A standard payment for private
industry is based on a month’s salary.
At this time, the MEA payment to
Federal employees remains legally
limited to one or two week’s salary for
a GS–13 step 10, depending on family
status. GSA is planning to address this
limitation in a legislative proposal.
C. Changes to Current FTR
This proposed rule—
• Adds definitions for amended value
sale, appraised value sale, buyer’s value
option, fair market value and relocation
services companies in section 300–3.1.
• Amends Table B, in section 302–3.2.
• Amends Table H, in section 302–
3.101.
• Amends section 302–5.13 to make
the standard CONUS rate the operative
per diem for calculating actual expense
househunting trips per diems and
clarifies the availability and use of
lump-sum reimbursements.
• Amends section 302–7.8 to limit
household goods (HHG) storage to 60
days with a possible 30–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.
• Amends section 302–12.3 to require
that the employee’s residence, if unsold
after 30 days at a price set by the
employee, be listed at a price no more
than 105% of the appraised value for 30
days when an RSC is used and to
require the employee to attend
relocation counseling sessions.
• Amends sections 302–12.105 and
302–12.106 to require the agencies that
E:\FR\FM\03AUP1.SGM
03AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 149 / Friday, August 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
use a homesale program to administer it
in a manner that will drive the programs
towards the buyer value option and
amended sales, and away from
appraised value sales.
• Amends sections 302–16.1 and 302–
16.2 to remove the connection between
the miscellaneous expense allowance
and the establishment and
disestablishment of a residence and
switches the order of the two sections to
make a better logical point.
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 proposed rule is not required to
be published in the Federal Register for
notice and comment as per the
exemption specified in 5 U.S.C.
553(a)(2); therefore, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.,
does not apply.
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act does
not apply because the proposed changes
to the FTR 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 proposed rule is also exempt
from congressional review prescribed
under 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., since it
relates solely to agency management
and personnel.
List of Subjects in 41 CFR Parts 300–3,
302–3, 302–5, 302–7, 302–12, and 302–
16
Government employees, Travel and
transportation expenses.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Dated: June 19, 2007.
Kevin Messner,
Acting Associate Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, under 5 U.S.C. 5701–5709,
GSA proposes to amend 41 CFR parts
300–3, 302–3, 302–5, 302–7, 302–12,
and 302–16 as set forth below:
PART 300–3—GLOSSARY OF TERMS
1. The authority citation for 41 CFR
part 300–3 continues to read as follows:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:21 Aug 02, 2007
Jkt 211001
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; 36 FR 13747; 3 CFR, 1971–1975
Comp., p. 586, Office of Management and
Budget Circular No. A–126, ‘‘Improving the
Management and Use of Government
Aircraft.’’ Revised May 22, 1992.
2. Amend § 300–3.1 by adding
alphabetically the terms and definitions
‘‘Amended Value Sale’’, ‘‘Appraised
Value Sale’’, ‘‘Buyer’s Value Option
(BVO)’’, ‘‘Fair Market Value’’ and
‘‘Relocation Service Company (RSC)’’ to
read as follows:
§ 300–3.1
mean?
What do the following terms
*
*
*
*
*
Amended Value Sale–A residential
sale where a bona fide outside offer to
buy a residence is accepted by a
relocation services company. This offer
can be equal to or higher than the
guaranteed offer. If the contract is
acceptable, the RSC will sign the
contract and amend its guaranteed offer
to reflect the new value based on the
higher sales price. The RSC will then
disburse the transferee’s equity (or
remaining equity if a portion had been
disbursed earlier) based upon this
amended value, complete the
acquisition of the property, and resell
the home to the outside buyer.
Amended value sales are often called
‘‘amend from zero’’ sales with the RSC
guaranteed offer being the baseline from
which the amendments are made.
Appraised Value Sale–A residential
sale where two or more independent
appraisers set the price for a guaranteed
offer for the purchase of a residence.
Under this option, once a transferee’s
home is placed in the homesale
program, a relocation services company
(RSC) makes a guaranteed offer for the
transferee’s home based on the fair
market value established by
independent appraisers. The offer is
guaranteed for a contract specified
number of calendar days. If the
transferee accepts the guaranteed offer
within the time period, the RSC
purchases the home, takes the home
into its inventory, and disburses the
transferee’s equity (or remaining equity
if a portion had been disbursed earlier)
based upon the offer. It is then the RSC’s
responsibility to sell the home, and the
agency pays the RSC a fee that covers
the closing costs, other expenses, and
the risk that the RSC may lose money on
the resale of the home.
*
*
*
*
*
Buyer Value Option (BVO)–A
residential sale in which a transferee in
consultation with a broker sets the
initial asking price and sells through the
relocation services company (RSC) for
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43219
an acceptable outside offer. If the
transferee receives an offer from an
outside buyer acceptable to the RSC, the
RSC buys the home from the transferee
at that price, disburses the equity (or
remaining equity if a portion had been
disbursed earlier) and then immediately
re-sells it to the outside buyer; the
agency pays the RSC a fee that covers
the closing costs and other RSC
expenses. If, on the other hand, the
transferee does not receive an
acceptable offer within, for example, 30
days, then the home is placed in the
homesale program and the RSC
proceeds with the appraised value
option.
*
*
*
*
*
Fair Market Value–The price at which
a property would most likely sell if
placed on the market for a reasonable
period of time. It is the most likely price
that a well-informed buyer would pay
and a well-informed seller would agree
to accept for a given property if the
property were placed on the market for
a reasonable period of time.
*
*
*
*
*
Relocation Service Company (RSC)–A
third party vendor under contract with
an agency to assist a transferred
employee in relocating to the new
official station. Examples of the
assistance include, but are not limited
to: homesale programs, home marketing
assistance, home finding assistance, and
property management services.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 302–3—RELOCATION
ALLOWANCE BY SPECIFIC TYPE
3. 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).
§ 302–3.2
[Amended]
4. Amend § 302–3.2, Table B, Column
2, by removing entries ‘‘3’’ and ‘‘4’’.
§ 302–3.101
[Amended]
5. Amend § 302–3.101, Table H, by
redesignating entry ‘‘5’’ in Column 1 as
new entry ‘‘3’’ in Column 2; and in
Column 1, redesignating entry ‘‘6’’ and
entry ‘‘7’’ as new entry ‘‘5’’ and new
entry ‘‘6’’ respectively.
PART 302–5—ALLOWANCE FOR
HOUSEHUNTING TRIP EXPENSES
6. The authority citation for 41 CFR
part 302–5 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.
7. Amend § 302–5.13 by revising the
table to read as follows:
E:\FR\FM\03AUP1.SGM
03AUP1
43220
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 149 / Friday, August 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
§ 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.
(a) A per diem allowance at the standard CONUS rate (see https://
www.gsa.gov/perdiem), for you and/or your spouse (i.e., if you
both go together; or if you go separately, the standard CONUS
rate multiplied by 2), 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,
which is dependent upon spousal participation, as follows:
(1) If you go and your spouse does not, or if your spouse goes and
you do not, multiply the applicable locality per diem rate by 5.00
(see https://www.gsa.gov/perdiem).
(2) If you and your spouse both go, together or separately, multiply
the applicable locality per diem rate by 6.25 (see https://
www.gsa.gov/perdiem).
Part 302–7—TRANSPORTATION AND
TEMPORARY STORAGE OF
HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND
PROFESSIONAL BOOKS, PAPER, AND
EQUIPMENT (PBP&E)
PART 302–12—USE OF A
RELOCATION SERVICES COMPANY
8. The authority citation for 41 CFR
part 302–7 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5738 and 20 U.S.C.
905(c).
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.
11. Amend § 302–12.3 by removing
‘‘and’’ in paragraph (b), redesignating
paragraph (c) as paragraph (f), and
adding new paragraphs (c), (d), and (e)
to read as follows:
9. Revise § 302–7.8 to read as follows:
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
§ 302–7.8 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 30 days; such a
request 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 90 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; such a
request 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.
(c) For all shipments, your HHG may
be placed in temporary storage at origin,
in transit, at destination, or any
combination of these, so long as storage
at Government expense does not exceed
the applicable time limit.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:21 Aug 02, 2007
Jkt 211001
10. The authority citation for 41 CFR
part 302–12 continues to read as
follows:
(c) Monitor costs and make
adjustments as necessary to ensure that
your homesale program continues to
provide the best possible value to the
Government, considering costs,
employee morale and mobility, and
other relevant considerations.
13. Amend § 302–12.106, by removing
‘‘and’’ in paragraph (c), redesignating
paragraph (d) as paragraph (e), and
adding a new paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
§ 302–12.3 Under what conditions may I
use a relocation services company?
§ 302–12.106 What policies must we
establish when offering our employees the
services of a relocation services company?
*
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Agree that once an RSC presents a
guaranteed offer through a home buyout
program, you must list your residence
on the market to the public for 30 days,
at a price of no more than 105% of the
guaranteed offer;
(d) Agree that if you receive a bona
fide offer from an outside buyer that is
at or above the guaranteed offer and
acceptable to the RSC, you may take the
Amended Value sale option;
(e) Attend homesale marketing
counseling sessions provided by the
chosen RSC; and
*
*
*
*
*
12. Revise § 302–12.105 to read as
follows:
§ 302–12.105 How must we administer a
relocation services contract?
If you have a relocation services
contract you must:
(a) Administer your homesale
program to give first consideration
towards the use of the buyer’s value
option (BVO).
(b) Administer your homesale
program to give second consideration to
amended value sales.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
*
*
*
*
(d) How you monitor and balance
between the three kinds of homesale
programs (appraised value, buyer’s
value option, and amended value); and
*
*
*
*
*
PART 302–16—ALLOWANCE FOR
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES
14. The authority citation for 41 CFR
part 302–16 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, 1971–1975
Comp., p. 586.
§§ 302–16.1 and 302–16.2 [Redesignated
as §§ 302–16.2 and 302–16.1]
15. Redesignate §§ 302–16.1 and 302–
16.2 as §§ 302–16.2 and 302–16.1
respectively; and 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 to help defray some
of the costs incurred due to relocating.
(See part 302–10 of this chapter for
E:\FR\FM\03AUP1.SGM
03AUP1
43221
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 149 / Friday, August 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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 of chapter 302.
General Expenses
Appliances
Rugs, draperies, and
curtains
Utilities (For mobile
homes, see § 30210.204)
Medical, dental, and
food locker contracts
Private Institutional
care contracts
(such as that provided for handicapped or invalid
dependents only)
Privately-owned vehicles
Transportation of
pets
(b) Expenses allowable under this
section including, but not limited to the
following:
Fees/Deposits
Losses
Fees for disconnecting/connecting appliances, equipment, or conversion of appliances for operation on available utilities.
Fees for cutting and fitting such items when they are moved from one residence quarters to another.
Deposits or fees not offset by eventual refunds. .............................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
Registration, Driver’s license, and use taxes imposed when bringing into certain jurisdictions. ....
The only costs included are those normally associated with transportation and handling of dogs,
cats, and other house pets, as well as costs due to stringent air carrier rules. Inoculations, examinations, and boarding quarantine costs are excluded. Also excluded are costs associated
with large or exotic animals, costs associated with host country restrictions, and costs arising
from special handling difficulties.
[FR Doc. E7–15156 Filed 8–2–07; 8:45 am]
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 6820–14–S
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:21 Aug 02, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03AUP1.SGM
03AUP1
Losses that cannot
be recovered by
transfer or refund
and are due to
early termination
of a contract.
Losses that cannot
be recovered by
transfer or refund
and are due to
early termination
of a contract.
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 149 (Friday, August 3, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43216-43221]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-15156]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
41 CFR Parts 300-3, 302-3, 302-5, 302-7, 302-12, and 302-16
[FTR Case 2007-304; Docket 2007-0002, Sequence 1]
RIN 3090-AI37
Federal Travel Regulation; FTR Case 2007-304, Relocation
Allowances-Governmentwide Relocation Advisory Board
AGENCY: Office of Governmentwide Policy, General Services
Administration (GSA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The General Services Administration (GSA), Office of
Governmentwide Policy (OGP), continually reviews and adjusts policies
as a part of its ongoing mission to provide policy assistance to the
Government agencies subject to the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR).
Accordingly, GSA created the Governmentwide Relocation Advisory Board
(GRAB), consisting of Government and private industry relocation
experts, to examine Government relocation policy. To allow for the use
of private industry expertise in the rulemaking and possible
legislative actions, the GRAB was chartered through the Federal
Advisory Committee Act on July 9, 2004. The GRAB submitted a final
report of its findings on September 15, 2005. If implemented, the 100
plus recommendations of the GRAB would keep Government relocation
practices aligned with private sector best practices, as well as
improve the overall management of Government relocation programs and
reduce costs. This proposed rule transforms many of the GRAB's
recommendations into FTR policy. The GRAB Findings and Recommendations
and corresponding documents may be accessed at GSA's Web site at http:/
/www.gsa.gov/grab.
DATES: Interested parties should submit comments in writing on or
before October 2, 2007 to be considered in the formulation of a final
rule.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments identified by FTR case 2007-304 by any of
the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Search for any document by first selecting the proper document types
and selecting ``General Services Administration - All'' as the agency
of choice. At the ``Keyword'' prompt, type in the FTR case number (for
example, FTR Case 2007-304) and click on the ``Submit'' button. You may
also search for any document by clicking on the ``Advanced search/
document search'' tab at the top of the screen, selecting from the
agency field ``General Services Administration - All'', and typing the
FTR case number in the keyword field. Select the ``Submit'' button.
Fax: 202-501-4067.
Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory
Secretariat (VIR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, ATTN: Laurieann
Duarte, Washington, DC 20405.
Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite FTR case 2007-
304 in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received
will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ed Davis, Office of Travel,
Transportation and Asset Management (MT), General Services
Administration at (202) 208-7638 or e-mail at ed.davis@gsa.govfor
clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or
publication schedules, contact the FAR Secretariat at (202) 501-4755.
Please cite FTR case 2007-304.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
The General Services Administration (GSA), Office of Governmentwide
Policy (OGP), reviews the regulations under its purview to address
current Government relocation needs and incorporates private industry
policies and best practices, where appropriate. The relocation services
industry is complex and changes frequently. Changes in relocation
policy need to be made to comport with industry best practices.
With the exception of the Relocation Income Tax Allowance (RITA),
which will be addressed in a subsequent proposed rule, most of the cost
of a relocation is related to the residence transactions. The Federal
Government has traditionally reimbursed up to 10 percent of the selling
price of the previous residence and 5 percent of the purchase price of
the new home (this is known as direct reimbursement). Currently, the
tax implications of this transaction are handled through a two-year
RITA process, and there are long delays in getting equity into the
hands of the employee so that a new residence can be purchased. Through
a homesale program, directed by a contracted vendor, these two issues
can be solved for the benefit of both the agency and employee. The
result is that the employee receives equity when selling to the
contracted vendor, and this transaction if accomplished through a
vendor, is not taxable to the employee.
For smaller relocation expenses such as the Miscellaneous Expense
Allowance (MEA), much of private industry uses lump-sum payments. These
payments have a small one-time administrative cost and do not need to
be reconciled in a post-payment audit. The administrative savings and
efficiency improvements of such systems are clear because far less
staff time is needed to administer, monitor, and audit payments in a
lump-sum scenario.
Private industry spends less time on its relocation packages
because they are tiered and handle special circumstances more flexibly.
Also, in private industry, payment or reimbursement of relocation
expenses to the employee or third party vendor rarely extends beyond
one year because there are few extensions. The focus is on getting the
transferee settled at the new location in permanent quarters as quickly
as possible. The main lesson that the Government can
[[Page 43217]]
learn from benchmarking against private industry is that efficiency is
important.
OGP has examined the issues facing agencies and their relocating
employees. Through GRAB recommendations, internal GSA discussions,
consideration of Governmentwide policy interests, and comments added by
the Executive Relocation Steering Committee, this proposed rule
emerged.
B. Proposed Rule
This proposed rule implements some of the GRAB's recommendations.
The changes in part 302 will necessitate the addition of the following
definitions to part 300-3: amended value sale, appraised value sale,
buyer's value option (BVO), fair market value, and relocation services
company (RSC).
The proposed changes to 41 CFR Chapter 302 are designed to:
Reinforce the difference between mandatory and discretionary
relocation allowances and clarify the tables in part 302-3- The GRAB
wanted to ensure that the FTR highlights which relocation benefits are
mandatory and which are discretionary. To do this, several errors need
to be corrected in the tables outlining benefits.
Use the standard continental United States (CONUS) per diem for
calculating actual expense per diems for househunting trips (HHTs) and
the locality rate per diem for calculating lump-sum HHT benefits in
part 302-5 - The GRAB final report explains this issue well:
``. . . , 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 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 both 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`` worth of the locality
rate? Simply saving the trouble of submitting receipts is not a
sufficient motivator to forego 5 days' 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.''
GSA originally intended for the househunting regulation to mirror
the TQSE process, where the agency either reimburses actual expenses
for up to 120 days at the lower standard CONUS rate or calculates a
lump-sum reimbursement for up to 30 days, with the higher locality rate
as the multiplier. This would give the agencies and transferred
employees a real chance to use the incentives of higher payments for a
shorter timeframe to get the employees to move into permanent quarters
faster. People do actually choose the lump sum for TQSE, but they do
not use the lump sum for HHTs because the error removed the intended
economic incentive. Agencies report that because of the error, the
lump-sum househunting trips are underutilized, while the lump sum for
TQSE is frequently utilized.
By emulating the TQSE regulations and correcting the error that GSA
made in creating the existing househunting regulation, real economic
incentives will help work towards employees managing their househunting
trips more economically. Just as with the TQSE, the use of the higher
locality rate for the lump-sum payment versus the lower standard CONUS
rate for actual expense reimbursement will incentivize faster
househunting trips managed more carefully by an employee who has
economic reasons to do so.
Changing the storage allowance for the temporary storage of
Household Goods by amending section 302-7.8 - The GRAB recommended
that, instead of allowing for temporary storage for 90 days with one
possible 90-day extension, as the FTR does today, the temporary storage
benefit should be more logically planned and utilized. The GRAB's
recommendation for temporary storage for CONUS to CONUS transfers is
that temporary storage would be limited to 60 days, with no extensions
possible. Federal agencies strongly oppose the loss of any possible
extension because of the inflexibility this imposes on legitimate
cases.
In consideration of the Federal agencies' need for flexibility, we
are proposing that CONUS to CONUS moves will have their storage reduced
to 60 days with a 30-day extension. This is in line with private
industry, which rarely stores household goods for very long. However,
since transfers to or from Outside the Continental United States
(OCONUS) locations present greater, inherent problems, we are proposing
to continue to allow for 90 days with a possible 90-day extension for
any shipment that has an OCONUS origin or destination.
It is also important for agencies to have a management plan for
deciding how and when they will grant temporary storage extensions.
This must be based on genuine relocation criteria and not an automatic
benefit. Extensions should only be granted for legitimate,
unanticipated reasons, not for anything that is the result of poor
planning by the employee.
Require employees to limit the asking price to 105% of the
appraised value estimate of their home value and to attend residence
transaction counseling sessions by changing section 302-12.3 - The GRAB
recommendation allows for having two 30-day periods in the marketing of
a home in the homesale program, with the latter period limited to 105%
of the appraised value or broker's estimate. This regulation, in line
with the current real estate market, where houses sit for much longer
than they did when the GRAB was meeting, sets the time for marketing
under the broker price at 60 days. This is fair to the home owner, who
would have 30 days to let the market justify a belief in a higher
price, and it is fair to the RSC, who would then have 30 days to market
the house with the price they saw as more in line with its value.
With mandatory counseling sessions, agencies ensure that the
employees who are relocating understand the different transactions
involved in a home sale or purchase. This is an important part of any
comprehensive program because unless the employee understands the
process, problems regarding implementation may occur.
Require homes to be listed for 60 days prior to accepting an
appraised value sale under section 302-12.3(c) - As was mentioned in
the explanation directly above, of the three major homesale programs
used by private industry, the appraised value option is the most costly
of the three, even though it is a valuable tool when compared to direct
reimbursement. The GRAB Report states that appraised value is used by
the Government for 41% of homesale program transactions versus the 18%
of private industry homesale transactions. The GRAB report strongly
recommends that Government homesale programs drive the balance towards
amended and BVO options.
By requiring that each agency contracting with an RSC employ a 60-
day listing prior to accepting an appraised value sale, the number of
appraised value sales will be reduced, and the Government will shift
its mix of homesale programs to resemble that of private industry.
According to the work of the Employee Relocation Council's auditor,
Raffa and Associates, as shown
[[Page 43218]]
in the GRAB Findings and Recommendations, a shift into the same
portfolio mix as private industry would save the Government $35.1
million per year.
A 60-day listing period may seem like a long time, but it allows
for sales in a slower market. In a heated housing market, the listing
will rarely get to 60 days.
Require employees to use the homesale marketing counseling services
offered by the homesale contractor under section 302-12.3(e) - One of
the problems inherent in homesale programs is the complexity of the
various programs. Direct reimbursement by contrast can be easier to
understand. If savings are going to be realized through the use of
homesale programs, the employee must understand the options thoroughly.
An easy way to do that is by having the employee receive counseling on
the various options provided by the RSC. The counseling helps the
agency, company, and employee because it clarifies what employees must
do to participate in the program and what options the employee has to
consider while dealing with the sale of one of his or her largest
assets. The agency has a responsibility to monitor these counseling
sessions and make sure that the materials and presentation are fair and
useful to the employee. Requiring this counseling is useful to
everyone.
Require that agencies examine and evaluate their relocation
programs and determine whether or not a comprehensive homesale program
should be part of their program under sections 302-12.105 and 302-
12.106 - The Government has a major difference 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 can assume title.
Therefore, the RSCs charge the Government slightly more than they
charge private companies, to cover the additional risk that the RSC
assumes on each property. This gives the appearance to agencies that
RSC-managed homesale programs are more expensive than direct
reimbursement for homesale costs, which is the most common practice
among Federal agencies. 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's. Furthermore, the GRAB recommended that each
agency try to tilt their mix of the three homesale programs away from
the more expensive appraised value and towards the amended and BVO
style programs, where actual offers determine the value of a residence.
GSA is in strong support of this program but is not willing to mandate
that all agencies implement a homesale program. GSA's position is that
this would go against the philosophy that agencies are better managers
of their own programs because they understand each agency's culture and
mission better than GSA. However, use of a comprehensive homesale
program through an RSC should be a first consideration for all agencies
in designing and administering their residence transactions, because
the economics of the relocation industry indicate that direct
reimbursement is a tool that is best used only for cases where the
property is difficult to sell (i.e., houseboats, mobile homes, geodesic
domes, houses with mold or artificial stucco, etc.). This proposed rule
would make use of a homesale program the first consideration.
The other reason that GSA does not want to mandate homesale
programs in lieu of direct reimbursement is that it believes market
forces are clearly directing agencies towards doing this as a business
decision. More and more agencies are contracting with RSCs for homesale
services. GSA also does not want the regulation to require one method
of residence transaction reimbursement, because this would possibly
prevent evolution of or migration to another new method should one
develop. Relocation is a quickly changing industry and the regulation
must allow agencies flexibility.
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 can
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 would be free to use his or her judgment to make sure the
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 proposal also eliminates the need for the
Government from having to specify what is covered by the MEA.
A standard payment for private industry is based on a month's
salary. At this time, the MEA payment to Federal employees remains
legally limited to one or two week's salary for a GS-13 step 10,
depending on family status. GSA is planning to address this limitation
in a legislative proposal.
C. Changes to Current FTR
This proposed rule--
Adds definitions for amended value sale, appraised value
sale, buyer's value option, fair market value and relocation services
companies in section 300-3.1.
Amends Table B, in section 302-3.2.
Amends Table H, in section 302-3.101.
Amends section 302-5.13 to make the standard CONUS rate
the operative per diem for calculating actual expense househunting
trips per diems and clarifies the availability and use of lump-sum
reimbursements.
Amends section 302-7.8 to limit household goods (HHG)
storage to 60 days with a possible 30-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.
Amends section 302-12.3 to require that the employee's
residence, if unsold after 30 days at a price set by the employee, be
listed at a price no more than 105% of the appraised value for 30 days
when an RSC is used and to require the employee to attend relocation
counseling sessions.
Amends sections 302-12.105 and 302-12.106 to require the
agencies that
[[Page 43219]]
use a homesale program to administer it in a manner that will drive the
programs towards the buyer value option and amended sales, and away
from appraised value sales.
Amends sections 302-16.1 and 302-16.2 to remove the
connection between the miscellaneous expense allowance and the
establishment and disestablishment of a residence and switches the
order of the two sections to make a better logical point.
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 proposed rule is not required to be published in the Federal
Register for notice and comment as per the exemption specified in 5
U.S.C. 553(a)(2); therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.
601, et seq., does not apply.
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the proposed
changes to the FTR 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 proposed rule is also exempt from congressional review
prescribed under 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., since it relates solely to
agency management and personnel.
List of Subjects in 41 CFR Parts 300-3, 302-3, 302-5, 302-7, 302-
12, and 302-16
Government employees, Travel and transportation expenses.
Dated: June 19, 2007.
Kevin Messner,
Acting Associate Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, under 5 U.S.C. 5701-
5709, GSA proposes to amend 41 CFR parts 300-3, 302-3, 302-5, 302-7,
302-12, and 302-16 as set forth below:
PART 300-3--GLOSSARY OF TERMS
1. The authority citation for 41 CFR part 300-3 continues 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; 36 FR 13747; 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp., p. 586, Office of
Management and Budget Circular No. A-126, ``Improving the Management
and Use of Government Aircraft.'' Revised May 22, 1992.
2. Amend Sec. 300-3.1 by adding alphabetically the terms and
definitions ``Amended Value Sale'', ``Appraised Value Sale'', ``Buyer's
Value Option (BVO)'', ``Fair Market Value'' and ``Relocation Service
Company (RSC)'' to read as follows:
Sec. 300-3.1 What do the following terms mean?
* * * * *
Amended Value Sale-A residential sale where a bona fide outside
offer to buy a residence is accepted by a relocation services company.
This offer can be equal to or higher than the guaranteed offer. If the
contract is acceptable, the RSC will sign the contract and amend its
guaranteed offer to reflect the new value based on the higher sales
price. The RSC will then disburse the transferee's equity (or remaining
equity if a portion had been disbursed earlier) based upon this amended
value, complete the acquisition of the property, and resell the home to
the outside buyer. Amended value sales are often called ``amend from
zero'' sales with the RSC guaranteed offer being the baseline from
which the amendments are made.
Appraised Value Sale-A residential sale where two or more
independent appraisers set the price for a guaranteed offer for the
purchase of a residence. Under this option, once a transferee's home is
placed in the homesale program, a relocation services company (RSC)
makes a guaranteed offer for the transferee's home based on the fair
market value established by independent appraisers. The offer is
guaranteed for a contract specified number of calendar days. If the
transferee accepts the guaranteed offer within the time period, the RSC
purchases the home, takes the home into its inventory, and disburses
the transferee's equity (or remaining equity if a portion had been
disbursed earlier) based upon the offer. It is then the RSC's
responsibility to sell the home, and the agency pays the RSC a fee that
covers the closing costs, other expenses, and the risk that the RSC may
lose money on the resale of the home.
* * * * *
Buyer Value Option (BVO)-A residential sale in which a transferee
in consultation with a broker sets the initial asking price and sells
through the relocation services company (RSC) for an acceptable outside
offer. If the transferee receives an offer from an outside buyer
acceptable to the RSC, the RSC buys the home from the transferee at
that price, disburses the equity (or remaining equity if a portion had
been disbursed earlier) and then immediately re-sells it to the outside
buyer; the agency pays the RSC a fee that covers the closing costs and
other RSC expenses. If, on the other hand, the transferee does not
receive an acceptable offer within, for example, 30 days, then the home
is placed in the homesale program and the RSC proceeds with the
appraised value option.
* * * * *
Fair Market Value-The price at which a property would most likely
sell if placed on the market for a reasonable period of time. It is the
most likely price that a well-informed buyer would pay and a well-
informed seller would agree to accept for a given property if the
property were placed on the market for a reasonable period of time.
* * * * *
Relocation Service Company (RSC)-A third party vendor under
contract with an agency to assist a transferred employee in relocating
to the new official station. Examples of the assistance include, but
are not limited to: homesale programs, home marketing assistance, home
finding assistance, and property management services.
* * * * *
PART 302-3--RELOCATION ALLOWANCE BY SPECIFIC TYPE
3. 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).
Sec. 302-3.2 [Amended]
4. Amend Sec. 302-3.2, Table B, Column 2, by removing entries
``3'' and ``4''.
Sec. 302-3.101 [Amended]
5. Amend Sec. 302-3.101, Table H, by redesignating entry ``5'' in
Column 1 as new entry ``3'' in Column 2; and in Column 1, redesignating
entry ``6'' and entry ``7'' as new entry ``5'' and new entry ``6''
respectively.
PART 302-5--ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSEHUNTING TRIP EXPENSES
6. The authority citation for 41 CFR part 302-5 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.
7. Amend Sec. 302-5.13 by revising the table to read as follows:
[[Page 43220]]
Sec. 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. (a) A per diem allowance at the standard
CONUS rate (see https://www.gsa.gov/
perdiem), for you and/or your spouse
(i.e., if you both go together; or if you
go separately, the standard CONUS rate
multiplied by 2), 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, which is
dependent upon spousal participation, as
follows:
(1) If you go and your spouse does not, or
if your spouse goes and you do not,
multiply the applicable locality per diem
rate by 5.00 (see https://www.gsa.gov/
perdiem).
(2) If you and your spouse both go,
together or separately, multiply the
applicable locality per diem rate by 6.25
(see https://www.gsa.gov/perdiem).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 302-7--TRANSPORTATION AND TEMPORARY STORAGE OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS
AND PROFESSIONAL BOOKS, PAPER, AND EQUIPMENT (PBP&E)
8. The authority citation for 41 CFR part 302-7 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.
9. Revise Sec. 302-7.8 to read as follows:
Sec. 302-7.8 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 30 days; such a request 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 90 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; such a request 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.
(c) For all shipments, your HHG may be placed in temporary storage
at origin, in transit, at destination, or any combination of these, so
long as storage at Government expense does not exceed the applicable
time limit.
PART 302-12--USE OF A RELOCATION SERVICES COMPANY
10. 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).
11. Amend Sec. 302-12.3 by removing ``and'' in paragraph (b),
redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (f), and adding new paragraphs
(c), (d), and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 302-12.3 Under what conditions may I use a relocation services
company?
* * * * *
(c) Agree that once an RSC presents a guaranteed offer through a
home buyout program, you must list your residence on the market to the
public for 30 days, at a price of no more than 105% of the guaranteed
offer;
(d) Agree that if you receive a bona fide offer from an outside
buyer that is at or above the guaranteed offer and acceptable to the
RSC, you may take the Amended Value sale option;
(e) Attend homesale marketing counseling sessions provided by the
chosen RSC; and
* * * * *
12. Revise Sec. 302-12.105 to read as follows:
Sec. 302-12.105 How must we administer a relocation services
contract?
If you have a relocation services contract you must:
(a) Administer your homesale program to give first consideration
towards the use of the buyer's value option (BVO).
(b) Administer your homesale program to give second consideration
to amended value sales.
(c) Monitor costs and make adjustments as necessary to ensure that
your homesale program continues to provide the best possible value to
the Government, considering costs, employee morale and mobility, and
other relevant considerations.
13. Amend Sec. 302-12.106, by removing ``and'' in paragraph (c),
redesignating paragraph (d) as paragraph (e), and adding a new
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 302-12.106 What policies must we establish when offering our
employees the services of a relocation services company?
* * * * *
(d) How you monitor and balance between the three kinds of homesale
programs (appraised value, buyer's value option, and amended value);
and
* * * * *
PART 302-16--ALLOWANCE FOR MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES
14. The authority citation for 41 CFR part 302-16 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, 1971-1975 Comp., p. 586.
Sec. Sec. 302-16.1 and 302-16.2 [Redesignated as Sec. Sec. 302-16.2
and 302-16.1]
15. Redesignate Sec. Sec. 302-16.1 and 302-16.2 as Sec. Sec. 302-
16.2 and 302-16.1 respectively; and revise newly redesignated
Sec. Sec. 302-16.1 and 302-16.2 to read as follows:
Sec. 302-16.1 What is the purpose of the miscellaneous expenses
allowance (MEA)?
The miscellaneous expenses allowance (MEA) is to help defray some
of the costs incurred due to relocating. (See part 302-10 of this
chapter for
[[Page 43221]]
specific costs normally associated with relocation of a mobile home
dwelling that are covered under transportation expenses.)
Sec. 302-16.2 What are miscellaneous expenses?
Miscellaneous expenses are:
(a) Costs associated with relocating that are not covered by other
relocation benefits of chapter 302.
(b) Expenses allowable under this section including, but not
limited to the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Expenses Fees/Deposits Losses
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Appliances Fees for
disconnecting/
connecting
appliances,
equipment, or
conversion of
appliances for
operation on
available
utilities.
Rugs, draperies, and Fees for .........................
curtains cutting and
fitting such
items when
they are moved
from one
residence
quarters to
another.
Utilities (For mobile Deposits or .........................
homes, see Sec. 302- fees not
10.204) offset by
eventual
refunds..
Medical, dental, and food ............... Losses that cannot be
locker contracts recovered by transfer or
refund and are due to
early termination of a
contract.
Private Institutional care ............... Losses that cannot be
contracts (such as that recovered by transfer or
provided for handicapped refund and are due to
or invalid dependents early termination of a
only) contract.
Privately-owned vehicles Registration, .........................
Driver's
license, and
use taxes
imposed when
bringing into
certain
jurisdictions..
Transportation of pets The only costs
included are
those normally
associated
with
transportation
and handling
of dogs, cats,
and other
house pets, as
well as costs
due to
stringent air
carrier rules.
Inoculations,
examinations,
and boarding
quarantine
costs are
excluded. Also
excluded are
costs
associated
with large or
exotic
animals, costs
associated
with host
country
restrictions,
and costs
arising from
special
handling
difficulties.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. E7-15156 Filed 8-2-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-14-S