Federal Travel Regulation; FTR Cases 2007-304 and 2003-309, Relocation Allowances, 18326-18345 [2011-6609]

Agencies

• General Services Administration

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 63 (Friday, April 1, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18326-18345]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6609]



[[Page 18325]]

Vol. 76

Friday,

No. 63

April 1, 2011

Part III





General Services Administration





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



41 CFR Parts 300-3, 300-70, 302-1, et al.



Federal Travel Regulation; FTR Cases 2007-304 and 2003-309, Relocation 
Allowances; Final Rule

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

[[Page 18326]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail 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 https://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

[[Page 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 https://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]

[[Page 18328]]

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

[[Page 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 
government-furnished 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 18330]]

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.

[[Page 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

[[Page 18332]]

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 https://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 https://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

[[Page 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 
IRS-driven 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;

[[Page 18334]]

     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 requi