BNUMBER:  B-266190
DATE:  June 5, 1996
TITLE:  [Letter]

**********************************************************************

B-266190

June 5, 1996

Ms. Brenda Barker
Manager, Accounts Receivable & Travel Team
Bureau of Reclamation Service Center
Finance and Accounting Services
P.O. Box 25508
Building 67, Denver Federal Center
Denver, CO  80225-0508

Dear Ms. Barker:

This replies to your letter of September 12, 1995, your reference 
D-7736, concerning the charges for excess weight of Mr. Richard F. 
Wells' household goods that were shipped incident to his transfer. 

The total weight of Mr. Wells' shipment of household goods was 25,600 
pounds, and 7,840 pounds of that total consisted of household goods 
that had already been packed and were resting in storage when the 
mover arrived to include them with the rest of the shipment.  Since 
the mover did not assess packing charges for these particular goods, 
Mr. Wells believes that since the mover's packing charges only related 
to 17,760 (25,600 - 7,840) pounds of his shipment, which is within the 
weight Mr. Wells is authorized to ship at government expense, he 
should not have to pay for any of the packing charges that would be 
assessed under the formula normally used to determine excess weight 
charges.

The Bureau of Reclamation correctly applied the formula for 
determining excess weight charges found in the Federal Travel 
Regulation (FTR),  sec.  308-8.3(b)(5), of multiplying the ratio of the 
excess weight to the "total weight of the shipment" times the "total 
charges" of the shipment.  We have previously considered the argument 
that an employee's liability for packing charges may be separately 
determined or that packing charges should be apportioned to the excess 
weight of household goods as reduced by the weight of household goods 
for which no packing charges were incurred.  We concluded that the 
formula in the FTR, which has the force and effect of law, could not 
be modified and that the weight of household goods for which no 
packing charges were incurred comprised a portion of the "total weight 
of the shipment."  See James Knapp, B-216723, Aug. 21, 1985, copy 
enclosed.  Thus, Mr. Wells' suggested computation may not be adopted, 
and he is liable for a prorated portion of the packing charges.

Sincerely yours,

Lowell Dodge
Associate General Counsel

Enclosure
B-266190

June 5, 1996

DIGEST

Liability of an employee who shipped household goods in excess of the 
18,000-pound weight limit is to be determined under Federal Travel 
Regulation  sec.  302-8.3(b)(5) based on a proration of the excess weight 
to the total weight of the shipment multiplied by the total charges 
for the shipment.  The employee is not entitled to reduce the excess 
weight figure by the weight of 7,840 pounds of household goods that 
had already been packed or to compute his liability for packing 
charges separately from his liability for other charges for the total 
shipment.