[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 14, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15635-15637]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04819]


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

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

41 CFR Parts 302-4 and 302-9

[FTR Case 2022-03; Docket No. GSA-FTR-2022-0013, Sequence No. 1]
RIN 3090-AK64


Federal Travel Regulation; Alternative Fuel Vehicle Usage During 
Relocations

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

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Consistent with the Executive Order (E.O.) on Catalyzing Clean 
Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability, GSA is 
proposing to amend the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) to allow 
agencies greater flexibility for authorizing shipment of a relocating 
employee's alternative fuel-based privately-owned vehicle.

DATES: Submit comments in writing on or before May 15, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in response to FTR case 2022-03 to: 
Regulations.gov: https://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the 
Federal eRulemaking portal by searching for ``FTR Case 2022-03''. 
Select the link ``Comment Now'' that corresponds with FTR Case 2022-03. 
Follow the instructions provided at the ``Comment Now'' screen. Please 
include your name, company name (if any), and ``FTR Case 2022-03'' on 
your attached document. If your comment cannot be submitted using 
https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the points of contact in the 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate 
instructions.
    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite FTR Case 2022-
03, in all correspondence related to this case. Comments received 
generally will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, 
including any personal and/or business confidential information 
provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check 
www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission 
to verify posting.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    Consistent with the goals of achieving a carbon pollution-free 
electricity sector by 2035 and net-zero emissions economy-wide by no 
later than 2050 as stated in E.O. 14057, Executive Order on Catalyzing 
Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability, GSA is 
proposing to amend its relocation policy to apply to privately-owned 
vehicles (POV) that use alternative fuel, such as electric or hydrogen. 
As more Federal employees choose to purchase or lease alternative fuel 
vehicles (AFVs), GSA is proposing the changes to support adoption of 
these vehicles that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide greater 
flexibilities to ensure employees who own AFVs will not be 
disadvantaged or inconvenienced in the event they relocate on behalf of 
the government. Currently, owning an AFV may disadvantage Federal 
employees when relocating to a new duty station due to limitations that 
may affect the driving range 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. This is the distance 
requirement currently in place in the FTR and is considered the 
reasonable minimum driving distance per calendar day when a POV is used 
for permanent change of station en route travel. As technology 
improves, more AFVs will be able to meet the distance requirements for 
employees who relocate at the convenience of the government. However, 
not all current AFVs are able to meet this distance requirement.
    By the time an AFV travels 300 miles, it could take longer than a 
day or require a circuitous route depending on fueling availability 
along the route to the new permanent duty station. While the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law (Pub. L. 117-58) is designed to spur the development 
of nearly 500,000 charging stations in 5 years (up from current 
estimates of 100,000 charging stations), the infrastructure in place 
today may not meet the needs of the relocating employee with an AFV. 
One focus of this law is to develop Level 3 charging stations (with a 
charging rate of under 45 minutes versus the up to 5 hours for a Level 
2 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 ICE POV (and then, the employee would use the agency chosen 
transportation method to reach their destination). Agency 
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 
alternative fuel 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 those stations are located before deciding whether 
to authorize POV shipment. Information to help with this task can be 
found at the Department of Energy Alternative Fuels Center 
(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 exists; limited fueling 
stations exist outside of the state. Moreover, electric cars have 
various range capabilities 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 is much more complicated for AFVs than for 
ICE vehicles. These proposed changes would provide agencies with 
additional factors to help determine whether or not shipping an 
employee's AFV 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 would be minimal because currently only 
a small percentage of POVs require alternative fuel (these 
determinations are not

[[Page 15636]]

needed for hybrid vehicles that do not plug in as they do not have to 
use alternative fuel; they can rely solely on gasoline). 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. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    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, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. 
The Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has determined that this proposed rule will 
be a significant regulatory action and, therefore, is subject to review 
under section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and 
Review, dated September 30, 1993.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    GSA does not expect this proposed 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, 
an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was not performed.

V. 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 outside the 
continental U.S. (OCONUS). This proposed rule only impacts relocations 
within the CONUS. In order to estimate the number of relocations within 
the CONUS, GSA 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 the 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 is based upon a small number of Federal agency inputs 
and overall U.S. population trends in alternative fuel POVs. GSA 
received an estimate of 3 percent alternative fuel POVs from across the 
Federal agencies.
    GSA calculated an average of 685 (= 22,862 x 0.03) alternative fuel 
POV relocations per year by taking 3 percent of the average number of 
domestic relocations, and then estimated $150 in additional shipping 
cost per vehicle for the first two years.
    Therefore, GSA calculated the total estimated annual cost for the 
first two years to be $102,750 (= 685 vehicles x $150 per vehicle).
    GSA received an estimated 1 percent alternative fuel privately 
owned vehicle ownership increase from across the Federal agencies based 
upon a small number of Federal agency inputs and overall U.S. 
population trends in alternative fuel vehicle ownership.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Additional
                  Year                     Annual number of EV moves   cost per move    Total annual added cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 through 2.............................  685 (3 percent of Annual              $150  $102,750.
                                           Moves).
3 through 4.............................  691 (Assuming 1.01 percent             150  103,650.
                                           increase).
5 through 6.............................  697 (Assuming 1.01 percent             150  104,550.
                                           increase).
7 through 8.............................  703 (Assuming 1.01 percent             150  105,450.
                                           increase).
9 through 10............................  710 (Assuming 1.01 percent             150  106,500.
                                           increase).
1 through 10 Totals.....................  6,972 Total Moves.........             150  $1,045,800 Total Cost for
                                                                                       10 Years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. 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.

Krystal J. Brumfield,
Associate Administrator, Office of Government-wide Policy, General 
Services Administration.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, GSA proposes to amend 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 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

[[Page 15637]]

legitimate vehicle range capability and fueling availability 
limitations; or for other reasons acceptable to the agency.
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, other acceptable 
reasons (e.g., the employee is an individual with a disability or has 
special needs, or legitimate alternative fuel vehicle range capability 
and fueling availability limitations). Your agency must have a 
designated approving official authorize the exception.
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;
    (c) Due to legitimate vehicle range capability and fueling 
availability limitations of the employee's alternative fuel POV; or
    (d) For other reasons acceptable to you.

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:

    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 section 
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 legitimate 
vehicle range capability and fueling availability limitations, but has 
practical use once at the new official station.
0
7. Amend Sec.  302-9.301 by revising paragraph (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 legitimate alternative fuel vehicle range capability and 
fueling availability limitations.
0
8. Amend Sec.  302-9.606 by revising paragraph (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 
legitimate alternative fuel vehicle range capability and fueling 
availability limitations.

[FR Doc. 2023-04819 Filed 3-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-14-P