Federal Travel Regulation; Alternative Fuel Vehicle Usage During Relocations

Federal Travel Regulation; Alternative Fuel Vehicle Usage During Relocations

Publication: Federal Register
Agency: General Services Administration
Byline: Robin Carnahan
Date: 26 March 2024
Subject: American Government

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 26, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20857-20860]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-06352]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

41 CFR Parts 302-4 and 302-9

[FTR Case 2022-03; Docket No. GSA-FTR-2022-0013, Sequence No. 2]
RIN 3090-AK64

Federal Travel Regulation; Alternative Fuel Vehicle Usage During
Relocations

AGENCY: Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP), General Services
Administration (GSA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: GSA is issuing a final rule amending the Federal Travel
Regulation to allow agencies greater flexibility for authorizing
shipment of a relocating employee's alternative fueled privately-owned
vehicle or extending driving times of these types of vehicles if
necessary.

DATES: Effective April 25, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ed Davis, Program Analyst, Office
of Government-wide Policy, at (202)669-1653 or travelpolicy@gsa.gov.
For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact
the Regulatory Secretariat Division at (202) 501-4755 or
GSARegSec@gsa.gov. Please cite ``FTR Case 2022-03.''

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

GSA published a proposed rule at 88 FR 15635 on March 14, 2023
proposing to amend the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) to allow
agencies greater flexibility for authorizing shipment of a relocating
employee's alternative fueled privately-owned vehicle. The analysis of
comments on the proposed rule did not require any regulatory changes to
the final rule.
Consistent with the guidance of E.O. 14057, Executive Order on
Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal
Sustainability, GSA is amending the FTR to apply these changes to
privately-owned vehicles (POV) that use alternative fuel, such as
electric batteries or hydrogen fuel cells. Currently, an alternative
fueled POV may disadvantage Federal employees when relocating to a new
duty station due to the limited driving range of many of these
vehicles.
GSA designed current relocation regulations for internal combustion
engine (ICE) POVs, which are easily capable of averaging a distance of
300 miles per calendar day during en route travel, which is the
distance requirement currently in place in the FTR when a POV is used
for permanent change of station travel.
Even if an alternative fuel vehicle (AFV) is capable of traveling
300 miles per day under ideal conditions, it could take longer than a
day or require a circuitous route and a greater amount of time to reach
that distance depending on fueling availability along the route to the
new permanent duty station.
While an agency's determination of whether to authorize shipment of
an employee's internal combustion engine (ICE) POV is straightforward,
the determination for AFVs is not so clear. Currently, an employee must
be relocating 600 miles or more for an agency to consider shipping
their POV (and then, the employee would use the agency's chosen
transportation method to reach their destination). Agency

[[Page 20858]]

considerations for authorization of POV transportation within the
continental U.S. (CONUS) largely weigh cost considerations and do not
account for the employee's ability to expediently drive their AFV POV
to the new permanent duty station if shipment is not authorized.
Many factors need consideration before the agency decides whether
to ship a relocating employee's AFV POV or authorize another method of
transportation. Agencies should consider the types of fueling stations
available and where the fueling stations are located before deciding
whether to authorize POV shipment. Information can be found at the
Department of Energy Alternative Fuels Center (available at https://afdc.energy.gov). For example, with electric vehicles, if lower level
(slower) charging stations are all that are available en route to a
relocation destination, extra time and per diem may need to be
authorized for the employee to drive their POV to the new official
station (if determined to be advantageous to the Government). Further,
agencies would need to consider whether to authorize a different route
as officially necessary for the POV to recharge. Currently, hydrogen-
powered vehicles are mainly driven in California where the large
majority of this type of fueling station exist; limited fueling
stations exist outside of the state. Moreover, electric cars have
various ranges that they can travel after charging, and ranges could be
reduced if the car is traveling at highway speeds or in cold weather,
among other factors.
In short, this means that agency determination of whether to ship a
relocating employee's POV involves more factors for AFVs than for ICE
vehicles. These changes will provide agencies with additional factors
to help determine whether or not shipping an employee's alternative
fuel POV is more cost-effective and advantageous to the Government than
authorizing the employee to drive their POV to the new official
station.
The costs of these changes will be minimal because currently only a
small percentage of POVs require alternative fuel (estimated costs do
not include hybrid vehicles as they do not ``require'' alternative fuel
to operate). Although a small but increasing percentage of current
relocations involve AFVs and the range capabilities and infrastructure
for refueling these vehicles is improving, the rate of future range
improvements in AFVs is unknown.

II. Discussion of the Final Rule

GSA received four comments through the public comment process.
1. One anonymous commenter expressed concern that the rule would
result in increased POV shipments, which would lead to increased rental
car use, and suggested that agencies ``give extra travel days to
employees . . . [r]ather than mandating the shipping of alternative
fuel vehicles.'' In response, GSA notes that this rule applies to POV
shipments within CONUS, and unless the POV is shipped to/from outside
the Continental U.S. (OCONUS,) the FTR does not authorize reimbursement
of rental car fees (see FTR 302-16.2; 302-6.18). GSA agrees that
agencies could allow for extra travel days rather than AFV shipment,
which is why the rule defers to agencies to decide what course of
action is more cost-effective and advantageous to the Government.
2. One commenter wanted GSA to withdraw the proposed rule because
it would make the FTR more complex and would result in taxpayers paying
for another person's transportation choice. GSA uses plain language and
question and answer format to make the FTR simpler to read and
understand. The commenter's observation regarding taxation is not
within the scope of this final rule and is therefore not addressed.
3. Another commenter agreed with the rule's intent, but suggested
several changes for GSA to consider: (1) define ``legitimate range
capabilities'' based on range capability data of AFVs currently on the
market, (2) place examples of exceptions to the minimum daily driving
distance at 302-4.401 in a list or sentence format rather than a
parenthetical to avoid equivalency comparisons between the exceptions,
and (3) require the use of alternative fuel heavy-duty trucks to carry
any AFV that is transported. In response, GSA notes that: (1) Creating
the list of AFVs and their ranges would be difficult because the market
is always changing with new models being added, existing models being
improved, and older models being removed. (2) The examples at 302-4.401
are not listed in any particular order to imply the importance of one
exception over another. (3) GSA has no authority to require transport
of AFVs by alternative fueled heavy-duty trucks.
4. The Zero Emission Transportation Association (ZETA) commented in
support of the proposed rule but suggested that GSA develop clear
guidance ``on what types of range and charging availability
restrictions constitute `legitimate' limitations''. As GSA noted in
response to the previous comment, it is impractical to do so given the
pace of market change.

III. Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and 14094

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess
all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O.
13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits
of reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. E.O.
14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review) amends and reaffirms the
principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary
regulatory review established in E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563. The Office
of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) has determined that this rule is a significant regulatory action
under E.O. 12866 and, therefore, is subject to review under Section
6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30,
1993.

IV. Congressional Review Act

This action is excepted from Congressional Review Act reporting
requirements prescribed under 5 U.S.C. 801 since it relates to agency
management or personnel and is therefore not a ``rule'' as defined by
the Congressional Review Act. 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(B).

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

GSA does not expect this final rule to 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 it
applies only to Federal agencies and employees. Therefore, a Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was not performed.

VI. Regulatory Impact Analysis

This is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866. There are
an average of 31,423 domestic and international relocations per year
across the Federal Government.\1\ However, this data does not
differentiate between relocations within CONUS and OCONUS. This rule
only impacts relocations within CONUS. In order to estimate the number
of relocations within CONUS, GSA

[[Page 20859]]

subtracted the number of extended storage relocations because those
reflect when federal employees are relocated OCONUS. GSA calculated an
average of 8,561 relocations OCONUS per year across the Federal
Government. Therefore, GSA calculated a yearly average of 22,862 (=
31,423-8,561) relocations within CONUS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Business Travel and Relocation Dashboard: https://d2d.gsa.gov/report/business-travel-and-relocation-dashboard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

GSA notes that federal agencies are not required to track
relocation data regarding types of POVs. The estimates used for this
economic analysis are based upon a small number of federal agency
inputs and overall U.S. population trends in alternative fuel POVs. GSA
received an estimate of three percent alternative fuel POVs from across
the Federal agencies.
GSA estimates that 3 percent (685) of the average of 22,682
domestic relocations include alternative fuel POVs (22,682 x .03 = 685)
at an additional cost of $150 per vehicle for the first year.
Therefore, GSA calculated the total estimated annual cost for the first
year to be $102,750 (= 685 vehicles x $150 per vehicle).
GSA received an estimated increase of one percent every year for
alternative fuel POVs based on a small number of federal agency inputs
and overall U.S. population trends in AFV ownership. A breakdown of
total estimated Government cost by year is provided in the table below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional
Year Annual number of AFV estimated cost Total annual added cost
moves per move
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................... 685 (3 percent of Annual $150 $102,750.
Moves).
2...................................... 692 (Assuming 1.01 150 103,800.
percent increase).
3...................................... 699(Assuming 1.01 percent 150 104,850.
increase).
4...................................... 706 (Assuming 1.01 150 105,900.
percent increase).
5...................................... 713(Assuming 1.01 percent 150 106,950.
increase).
6...................................... 720 (Assuming 1.01 150 108,000.
percent increase).
7...................................... 727(Assuming 1.01 percent 150 109,050.
increase).
8...................................... 734 (Assuming 1.01 150 110,100.
percent increase).
9...................................... 741(Assuming 1.01 percent 150 111,150.
increase).
10..................................... 748 (Assuming 1.01 150 112,200.
percent increase).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 through 10 Totals................ 7,165 Total Moves........ 150 1,074,750 Total Cost for
10 Years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The estimated total Government cost in the first 10 years after
publication is $1,074,750. The following table is a summary of the
estimated costs calculated for a ten-year time horizon at a 3- and 7-
percent discount rate:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary Total costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present Value (3)%...................................... $914,603
Present Value (7)%...................................... 750,774
------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the changes to
the FTR do not impose recordkeeping or information collection
requirements, or the collection of information from offerors,
contractors, or members of the public that require the approval of the
Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

List of Subjects in 41 CFR Part 302-4 and 302-9

Government employees, Travel, and transportation expenses.

Robin Carnahan,
Administrator, General Services Administration.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, GSA amends 41 CFR parts
302-4 and 302-9 as set forth below:

PART 302-4 ALLOWANCES FOR SUBSISTENCE AND TRANSPORTATION

0
1. The authority citation for part 302-4 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5738; 20 U.S.C. 905(a); E.O. 11609, 36 FR
13747, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp., p. 586.

0
2. Amend Sec. 302-4.201 by revising the third sentence of the
undesignated paragraph to read as follows:

Sec. 302-4.201 How are my authorized en route travel days and per
diem determined for relocation travel?

* * * An exception to the daily minimum driving distance may be
made when delay is beyond control of the employee, such as when it
results from acts of God or restrictions by Governmental authorities;
when the employee is an individual with a disability, as defined by
Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and its implementing
regulations or has special needs; when the employee's alternative fuel
POV cannot meet the daily minimum driving distance due to vehicle range
capability and fueling availability limitations; or for other pre
authorized exceptions.

0
3. Revise Sec. 302-4.401 to read as follows:

Sec. 302-4.401 Are there exceptions to this daily minimum?

Yes, your agency may authorize exceptions to the daily minimum
driving distance when there is a delay beyond your control such as acts
of God, restrictions by Governmental authorities, or other acceptable
reasons (e.g., the employee is an individual with a disability or has
special needs; alternative fuel vehicle range capability and fueling
availability limitations). Your agency must have a designated approving
official to authorize the pre authorized exceptions.

0
4. Revise Sec. 302-4.704 to read as follows:

Sec. 302-4.704 Must we require a minimum driving distance per day?

Yes, you must establish a minimum driving distance not less than an
average of 300 miles per day. However, an exception to the daily
minimum driving distance may be made when the delay is:
(a) Beyond control of the employee, e.g., results from acts of God
or restrictions by Government authorities;
(b) Due to a disability or special need; or
(c) Due to vehicle range capability and fueling availability
limitations of the employee's alternative fuel POV; or
(d) For other pre authorized exceptions.

PART 302-9--ALLOWANCES FOR TRANSPORTATION AND EMERGENCY OR
TEMPORARY STORAGE OF A PRIVATELY OWNED VEHICLE

0
5. The authority citation for part 302-9 continues to read as follows:

[[Page 20860]]

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5737a; 5 U.S.C. 5738; 20 U.S.C. 905(a); E.O.
11609, as amended, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp., p. 586.

0
6. Amend Sec. 302-9.4 by adding a sentence to the end of the
undesignated paragraph to read as follows:

Sec. 302-9.4 What are the purposes of the allowance for
transportation of a POV?

* * * For example, your agency may determine that it is both
advantageous and cost effective to the Government to allow for
transportation of an alternative fuel POV which would be impractical to
drive a long distance to the new official station due to vehicle range
capability and fueling availability limitations, but has practical use
once at the new official station.

0
7. Revise Sec. 302-9.301(e) to read as follows:

Sec. 302-9.301 Under what conditions may my agency authorize
transportation of my POV within CONUS?

* * * * *
(e) The distance that the POV is to be shipped is 600 miles or
more. An exception to the 600-mile or more distance requirement may be
made for alternative fuel vehicle range capability and fueling
availability limitations.

0
8. Revise Sec. 302-9.606(f) to read as follows:

Sec. 302-9.606 What must we consider in determining whether
transportation of a POV within CONUS is cost effective?

* * * * *
(f) The distance that the POV is to be shipped is 600 miles or
more. An exception to the 600-mile distance requirement may be made for
alternative fuel vehicle range capability and fueling availability
limitations.

[FR Doc. 2024-06352 Filed 3-25-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-14-P