________________________________________
                                    
                            September 4, 1997
                ________________________________________
                                    

GSBCA 14207-TRAV


In the Matter of GLENN S. PODONSKY


     Glenn S. Podonsky, Damascus, MD, Claimant.

     George M. Tengan, Chief Certifying Officer, Department of
Energy, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of Energy.

BORWICK, Board Judge.

     The Department of Energy (DOE) requests a decision pursuant to
31 U.S.C.  3529 (section 3529 decision) in the matter of Glenn S.
Podonsky.   The employee maintains that he incurred extraordinary
wear and tear on his automobile as a result of fulfilling his
responsibilities.  DOE requests guidance on whether the expenses
may be appropriately reimbursed.  

     The employee works in DOE's offices in Germantown Maryland. 
He is repeatedly called upon to be in Washington, D.C. for meetings
with Congressional committee staff members, assistant secretaries,
and the Deputy and Under Secretaries of DOE.  DOE had provided
government-owned vehicles for commuting between Germantown and
Washington, but in May of 1995, DOE eliminated the "U-drive"
service as a cost saving measure.  The employee estimates that
since then, he has driven 11,000 miles for official business in his
private vehicle (a 1995 Chevrolet Blazer) between Germantown and
Washington.  The employee states that he needed new brake shoes at
a cost of $475, an expense which his automobile mechanic attributed
to the result of heavy stop-and-go driving.  

     The employee wrote the Acting Director of DOE's Capitol
Accounting Center:

     My only viable option is to drive my personally-owned
     vehicle.  Although the federal travel regulations provide
     for reimbursement of the additional mileage, they do not
     provide for major miscellaneous expenses that are being
     incurred as a direct result of extraordinary vehicle use. 

          . . . .

     I regard this expense for brake shoes to be unusual
     necessary wear and tear on the vehicle which should be
     considered for reimbursement as miscellaneous expendi-
     tures necessarily incurred by the traveler in connection
     with the transaction of official business: Section 301-
     9.1(e) of the Federal Travel Regulation.

     Statute provides:

     Under regulations prescribed under section 5707 of this
     title, an employee who is engaged on official business
     for the Government is entitled to a rate per mile
     established by the Administrator of General Services,
     instead of the actual expenses of transportation, for the
     use of a privately owned automobile when that mode of
     transportation is authorized or approved as more advan-
     tageous to the Government.  

5 U.S.C.  5704(a)(1) (1994)(emphasis supplied).  In addition to
the rate per mile authorized under that section, an employee using
a privately owned automobile may be reimbursed for parking fees;
ferry fees; and bridge, road and tunnel costs.  5 U.S.C.  5704(d). 
 
     The mileage reimbursement rates established by the Adminis-
trator of General Services reflect the current costs of operating
privately owned vehicles, including depreciation of original
vehicle costs; gasoline and oil; maintenance, accessories, parts,
and tires; insurance; and state and federal taxes.  5 U.S.C.
 5707(a)(1)(A), (a)(2)(A).  The current mileage rate for use of a
privately owned automobile is $.31 per mile.  41 CFR 301-4.2(a)(1)
(1996).  The mileage rate reimbursement is in lieu of reimbursement
of actual expenses; the only actual expenses allowed in addition to
the mileage rate are parking fees, ferry fare, and bridge, road and
tunnel tolls.  In re New York Transit Strike, 60 Comp. Gen. 633
(1981).  Here, the employee is reimbursed for the use of his car at
the mileage rate, which already covers the cost of maintenance and
parts for his vehicle.  Further reimbursement on an actual expense
basis is prohibited by statute.

     The employee relies on 41 CFR 301-9.1(e) of the Federal Travel
Regulation (FTR)  as authority for reimbursement of the alleged
actual expenses of operating his automobile.  The FTR implements 5
U.S.C.  5701-5709.  41 CFR 301-1.1.  The regulation must be
interpreted as a whole, in light of the overall regulatory and
statutory scheme, and not to give force to one phrase in isolation. 
Campesinos Unidos v. Department of Labor, 803 F.2d 1063, 1069 (6th
Cir. 1986).  If a proffered interpretation of a regulation is
broader than the language of the statute, the statute controls. 
Anixer v. Home-Stake Production, 77 F.3d 1215, 1224 (10th Cir.
1996); Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Environmental
Protection Agency, 25 F.3d 1063, 1070 (D.C. Cir. 1994).  While 41
CFR 301-9.1(e) allows, when approved, "miscellaneous expenditures
not enumerated in this section, when necessarily incurred by the
traveler in connection with the transaction of official business,"
that provision cannot reasonably be read to apply to that which the
governing statute expressly prohibits--reimbursement of actual
expenses of operating an automobile.  The employee is therefore not
entitled, as a miscellaneous expense, to be reimbursed his cost for
the alleged extra wear and tear on the brakes of his automobile. 



                              _________________________
                              ANTHONY S. BORWICK
                              Board Judge