[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 [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

    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