Section 515 - Public Comments

Since the Section 515 policy was established, GSA has received five official requests for correction of information, as shown below.

Fiscal Year 2024

1. User statement:

IQA Request [PDF - 109 KB]

2. GSA Response:

We provided the information you sent on November 11, 2024, to the eRulemaking Program Team. After further review and based on the Tier 2 and Program Management Office evaluation, the team stated that no update is needed on regulations.gov. Please see the team’s findings below:

• In the IQA request we received, there are 59 entries but 27 of them are duplicates.
• Out of the 32 remaining entries:
  • Those with comment end dates have the correct end dates on regulations.gov.
  • Those with no comment end date in regulations.gov are considered to be in two categories:
    1. No Comment Due Date set, Never Open for Comments
    2. No Comment Due Date set, Set to Accept Comments after the Comment Due Date
• All the comment end dates received in the IQA do not match with the comment end date in regulations.gov and/or fdms.gov.

Fiscal Year 2022

1. User statement:

”On the web page: https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/per-diem-rates/per-diem-rates-results/?action=perdiems_report&state=ID&fiscal_year=2022&zip=&city=Idaho%20Falls

..you have the lodging at $96 PER MONTH. Is that a typo?”

2. GSA Response:

GSA’s per diem rates are displayed by month, as some localities have seasonal rates. The dollar amount listed is the lodging per diem for each night of that particular month. More information on seasonality is available at https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/per-diem-rates/factors-influencing-lodging-rates.

Fiscal Year 2014/2015

Data Quality Act Complaint from PEER Group against GSA’s Categorical Exclusion for the Peace Bridge Commercial Building Expansion Project in Buffalo, New York - Appeal begun in FY 2014. Continuing into FY 2015.

GSA REJECTION Response to Appeal - February 20, 2015 [PDF - 119 KB]

Data Quality Act Complaint against GSA’s Categorical Exclusion for the Peace Bridge Commercial Building Expansion Project in Buffalo, New York - Initial Complaint May 21, 2014

Summary of PEER Group Complaint: 

“PEER respectfully requests that GSA rescind its CE for the Commercial Building Expansion Project on the basis that it contains false and unsubstantiated statements and conclusions, and complete a new externally peer-reviewed National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (“NEPA”) environmental analysis for the Project that constitutes a full and open environmental review which affords interested agencies, stakeholders, and the public the opportunity to learn about, comment, and influence decision making.”

GSA REJECTION Response to Complaint - September 11, 2014 [PDF - 85 KB]

Summary of PEER Group Appeal - September 17, 2014:

“Unfortunately, the basis of GSA’s rejection constitutes an obfuscation of the law and GSA’s responsibility to the American people. GSA officials in fact disseminated GSA’s CATEX for the Commercial Building Expansion Project to the public in a manner that subjects the CATEX to the legally binding provisions of OMB and GSA Guidelines on information quality.”

GSA REJECTION Response to Appeal - February 20, 2015 [PDF - 119 KB]

Fiscal Year 2007

 Information Correction Request under Section 515 of Public Law 106-554, May 31, 2007

“Recently while checking the current Meals and Incidental Expense (M&IE) rates for Minnesota, I noticed that the County of Olmsted happened to be misspelled. On the GSA website it is spelled as: Olmstead, while in corrected form it should read Olmsted.”

E. Mattson, MN

GSA officially responded by correcting the misspelled information and contacting Mr. Mattson to let him know the change had been made.

Fiscal Year 2005

Feedback from online form submitted on Thursday, April 14, 2005 at 13:38:28.

Inquirer’s Name: C. Foster

Report/Publication Name: Federal Travel Regulations Subparagraph 301-10.302

Information to change: Automobile mileage determined by aeronautical charts should be by highway atlas, Rand-McNally.

Problem’s Affect: Need authoritative basis for determining distances. Not logical as written.

Organization: NASA-MSFC

Response: C. Foster

Phone Number for Clarification: xxxxxxxxx

GSA officially responded to the requestor on May 31, 2005. That response was:

Thank you, Mr. Foster, for your interest in the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) (41 CFR 300-304). GSA acknowledges a publishing error at §301-10.302, a table to determine distance measurements for travel when authorized to use a privately owned vehicle. An official correction is in process, and we anticipate the FTR final rule to be published in the Federal Register in the near future. The document is pending GSA final signature and clearance by the Office of Management and Budget.

GSA amends the table, in the second column, in the first entry for privately owned automobile or privately owned motorcycle, by revising the first entry to read “As shown in paper or electronic standard highway mileage guides, or the actual miles driven as determined from odometer readings.” GSA also amends the table, in the second column, in the second entry for privately owned aircraft, by revising the first sentence to read “As determined from charts issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).”

I trust this responds to your inquiry.
Office of Governmentwide Policy
Travel Management Policy