Kathryn M. MacVey-Extension of Period for Residence

B-258026 Published: Nov 29, 1995. Publicly Released: Nov 29, 1995. Jump To HIGHLIGHTS VIEW DECISION Highlights The Department of Agriculture's National Finance Center requested a decision on whether the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) properly denied an employee's claim for real estate purchase expenses incident to her transfer to a new duty station. GAO held that FmHA properly denied the employee's claim, since: (1) the settlement on her house occurred more than 2 years after she reported for duty at her new duty station; (2) she did not provide evidence of any extenuating circumstances that prevented her from completing the purchase of her home; and (3) her voluntary transfer to a second, nearby duty station prior to the purchase of her house nullified her entitlement for relocation expenses that accrued from her original transfer. Accordingly, the claim was denied. View Decision B-169491 L/M, JUN 16, 1980 PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE DALE BUMPERS, UNITED STATES SENATE: THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO YOUR REQUEST FOR OUR INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 150 OF THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1978 (STAA), PUBLIC LAW NO. 95-599, 92 STAT. 2689, 2715, NOVEMBER 6, 1978. SPECIFICALLY YOU ASKED US WHETHER SECTION 150 OF THE STAA REQUIRES 100 PERCENT FEDERAL FUNDING FOR THE THREE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS AUTHORIZED BY THAT SECTION, OR WHETHER THE STATES IN WHICH THE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS ARE TO BE LOCATED ARE REQUIRED TO CONTRIBUTE 25 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL PROJECT COST, WITH THE FEDERAL SHARE LIMITED TO 75 PERCENT. IT IS OUR VIEW THAT THE ACT REQUIRES FEDERAL FUNDING OF 100 PERCENT OF THE COST OF THE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS. SECTION 150 OF THE STAA AUTHORIZES THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION TO CARRY OUT "ACCESS CONTROL DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS" IN EACH OF THREE STATES ON HIGHWAYS ON THE FEDERAL-AID PRIMARY OR SECONDARY SYSTEMS. WITH REGARD TO FUNDING, IT PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS: "(C) THERE IS AUTHORIZED TO BE APPROPRIATED TO CARRY OUT THIS SECTION, OUT OF THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND, NOT TO EXCEED $10,000,000 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1979, AND $20,000,000 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1980. "(D) FUNDS AUTHORIZED BY THIS SECTION SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR OBLIGATION IN THE SAME MANNER AND TO THE SAME EXTENT AS IF SUCH FUNDS WERE APPORTIONED UNDER CHAPTER I OF TITLE 23, UNITED STATES CODE." THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT), IN RESPONSE TO OUR REQUEST FOR ITS VIEWS, WROTE THAT SECTION 150 SHOULD BE INTERPRETED AS REQUIRING A 75- 25 FEDERAL-STATE RATIO OF COST SHARING FOR THESE PROJECTS. DOT STATES: "BY PROVIDING THAT THE PROPOSED ACCESS CONTROL DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS ARE TO BE CARRIED OUT ON HIGHWAYS ON THE FEDERAL-AID PRIMARY OR SECONDARY SYSTEM AND STATING THAT FUNDS SHALL BE AVAILABLE TO THE SAME EXTENT AS IF THEY WERE APPORTIONED UNDER CHAPTER 1 OF TITLE 23, U.S.C. WE BELIEVE THE CONGRESS INTENDED THAT THE DEPARTMENT APPLY THE COST-SHARING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 120 OF TITLE 23. FUNDS AUTHORIZED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAYS ON THE FEDERAL-AID PRIMARY OR SECONDARY SYSTEM ARE APPORTIONED UNDER SECTION 104(B) OF TITLE 23. BARRING A SPECIFIC PROVISION TO THE CONTRARY, FUNDS APPORTIONED FOR SUCH HIGHWAYS UNDER SECTION 104(B) OF TITLE 23 ARE NORMALLY MADE AVAILABLE SUBJECT TO PROVISIONS IN SECTION 120 OF TITLE 23 THAT LIMIT THE FEDERAL SHARE TO AN AMOUNT LESS THAN 100 PERCENT. THERE BEING NOTHING IN SECTION 150 CALLING FOR A CONTRARY CONCLUSION, THE LANGUAGE QUOTED ABOVE FROM SECTION 150(D) SHOULD BE READ TO REQUIRE THE APPLICATION OF 23 U.S.C. SEC. 120 AS IT PERTAINS TO PROJECTS ON THE FEDERAL-AID PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SYSTEMS. "IN CONCLUSION, IT IS OUR OPINION THAT SECTION 150 OF THE STAA REQUIRES THAT THERE BE A STATE CONTRIBUTION TO MEETING THE COSTS OF THE AUTHORIZED DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS. IN THIS SITUATION, THE FEDERAL SHARE IS LIMITED TO 75 PERCENT OR THE AMOUNT ALLOWABLE UNDER THE FORMULA IN SECTION 120(A) APPLICABLE TO PUBLIC LAND STATES." IT IS ESSENTIALLY DOT'S POSITION THAT A DEMONSTRATION PROJECT SHOULD RECEIVE 100 PERCENT FEDERAL FUNDING IF NEITHER THE STATUTE NOR ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SPECIFIES A SMALLER FEDERAL SHARE. HOWEVER, WHILE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT SECTION 150 DOES NOT SPECIFY SUCH A SMALLER FEDERAL SHARE, DOT THINKS THAT SECTION 150(D) HAS THE EFFECT OF INCORPORATING THE COST-SHARING PROVISIONS OF 23 U.S.C. SEC. 120(A), WHICH PROVIDES FOR A 75 PERCENT FEDERAL SHARE FOR THE PROJECTS FINANCED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THAT SECTION. WE AGREE WITH DOT THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INDICATION IN THE STATUTE OR ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THAT THE FEDERAL SHARE PAYABLE IN CONNECTION WITH A DEMONSTRATION PROJECT IS TO BE LIMITED TO A SPECIFIED PERCENTAGE, DOT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE 100 PERCENT FINANCING OF THE PROJECT.