Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); Constructive Cost, 2843-2845 [2023-00733]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
175A. We are also finding the motor
vehicle emissions budgets shown in
Table 1 for 2020 and 2025 adequate and
approving the budgets for transportation
conformity purposes because we find
they meet all applicable criteria for such
budgets including the adequacy criteria
under 40 CFR 93.118(e).
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting
federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA.
The State did not evaluate
environmental justice considerations as
part of its SIP submittal. There is no
information in the record inconsistent
with the stated goals of E.O. 12898 of
achieving environmental justice for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Jan 17, 2023
Jkt 259001
people of color, low-income
populations, and indigenous peoples.
In addition, there are no areas of
Indian country within the Indian Wells
Valley planning area, and the state plan
is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area
where the EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal
implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. The EPA will
submit a report containing this action
and other required information to the
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. A major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the
Federal Register. This action is not a
‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by March 20, 2023. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Ammonia,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2843
Dated: December 22, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F—California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(594) to read as
follows:
■
§ 52.220
Identification of plan—in part.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(594) The following plan was
submitted on July 30, 2020, by the
Governor’s designee as an attachment to
a letter dated July 23, 2020.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional materials. (A) Eastern
Kern Air Pollution Control District.
(1) Indian Wells Valley Second 10Year PM10 Maintenance Plan, adopted
on June 25, 2020.
(2) [Reserved]
(B) [Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2022–28307 Filed 1–17–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
41 CFR Parts 301–10, 301–70
[FTR Case 2022–01; Docket Number GSA–
FTR–2022–0010, Sequence 2]
RIN 3090–AK61
Federal Travel Regulation (FTR);
Constructive Cost
Office of Government-wide
Policy (OGP), General Services
Administration.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
GSA is issuing a final rule
amending the Federal Travel Regulation
(FTR) to clarify the calculation of
‘‘constructive cost’’ as it relates to
temporary duty (TDY) travel. GSA is
also making technical changes regarding
what method of transportation agencies
should compare privately owned
vehicle costs to when preparing a
constructive cost analysis. These
clarifications are intended to produce
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\18JAR1.SGM
18JAR1
2844
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
better estimates for agency decision
makers.
DATES: Effective February 17, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Jill Denning, Office of Government-wide
Policy, at 202–208–7642 or email at
travelpolicy@gsa.gov for clarification of
content. For information pertaining to
status or publication schedules, contact
The Regulatory Secretariat (M1V1CB), at
1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC
20405, 202–501–4755 or email at
GSARegSec@gsa.gov. Please cite FTR
case 2022–01.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
GSA published a proposed rule at 87
FR 32106 on May 27, 2022, to clarify the
calculation of ‘‘constructive cost’’ as it
relates to temporary duty (TDY) travel.
This rule finalizes the proposed changes
to section 301–10.309, regarding what
method of transportation agencies
should compare privately owned
vehicle (POV) costs to when preparing
a constructive cost analysis, and makes
minor editorial adjustments in order to
clarify intent.
When employees perform official
business away from their official station,
agencies must, in authorizing the TDY
travel, select the transportation method
most advantageous to the Government,
when cost and other factors are
considered. Travel must be by the most
expeditious means of transportation
practicable and commensurate with the
nature and purpose of the duties. In
addition, the agency must consider
energy conservation, total cost to the
Government (including costs of per
diem, overtime, lost work time, and
actual transportation cost), total
distance traveled, number of points
visited, and number of travelers. The
most advantageous transportation
method by order of precedence is
common carrier, Government-furnished
automobile, rental car, and POV.
Regardless of the method of
transportation the agency selects in the
travel authorization, Federal employees
may choose to use a POV while on TDY.
However, if the agency has selected a
method of transportation other than
POV for the employee’s use because it
is more advantageous to the
Government, the agency must perform a
cost comparison, known as
‘‘constructive cost’’, to determine how
much the agency should reimburse the
traveler when the traveler chooses a
POV over the agency-selected method of
transportation. If the constructive cost of
the agency-selected method of
transportation is less than the cost of
traveling by POV, the employee only
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Jan 17, 2023
Jkt 259001
receives that limited amount, regardless
of how much it costs to use a POV. If
the constructive cost shows that the
POV cost is less than the agencyselected method, then the employee will
receive the total POV-related costs (as
listed in 41 CFR 301–10.304). (Agencies
are reminded that the FTR does not
authorize agencies to require that
employees use their POV for TDY travel,
even if the costs will be less for the
Government.)
GSA is aware that agencies may
mistakenly calculate TDY constructive
costs by only comparing the selected
transportation method with the POV
mileage rates without also factoring in
related travel costs, such as per diem
expenses, parking, baggage fees, etc. Not
factoring in these other costs leads to an
incomplete calculation of the total
constructive travel cost that employees
may incur.
The Civilian Board of Contract
Appeals (CBCA) and its predecessor, the
General Services Board of Contract
Appeals (GSCBA) have, in their
decisions on TDY constructive costs,
opined that when comparing the total
allowable costs for travel by a method
other than that most advantageous to the
Government, with the constructive cost
of traveling by the agency-selected
method, agencies should think through
the complete travel experience and
include other potential costs. (See In the
Matter of Russell E. Yates, GSBCA No.
15109–TRAV (Jan. 28, 2000); In the
Matter of Stephen M. England, CBCA
3903–TRAV (Jan. 30, 2015)). For
example, if the agency selected travel by
air via common carrier but the employee
chose to travel by POV, in calculating
the constructive cost of air travel the
agency should include potential costs
such as the expected cost of lodging as
well as meals, incidental expenses,
airfare, baggage, use of a rental car, and
transportation to and from the airport
using a taxi or transportation network
company (TNC), and perhaps others
depending on the individual situation.
Even though these costs may not
actually be incurred when the employee
uses the POV instead of flying via a
common carrier, the relevant travel
costs should be included in the agency’s
constructive cost analysis to determine
how much the agency-selected method
would have cost the agency in total.
Additionally, GSA is clarifying the
constructive cost methodology stated in
§ 301–10.309. GSA amended this
section in 2015 to include the use of
rental cars as a potential transportation
option, in addition to the use of
common carriers (80 FR 27259).
However, when determining the
constructive cost, the section currently
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
states that agencies should not exceed
the total constructive cost of the
‘‘authorized method of common carrier
transportation,’’ when it should read
‘‘authorized method of transportation’’
as is consistent with 41 CFR 301–
70.105(a).
II. Discussion of the Final Rule
GSA did not receive any public
comments related to the proposed rule
and has not made any substantive
changes to the regulatory language from
the proposed to final rule.
While difficult to quantify, GSA
expects some savings in travel costs as
a result of this final rule; GSA
anticipates that no additional travel
costs will result from agencies
performing more comprehensive
constructive cost comparisons as
agencies will better understand the
impact of method of transportation
decisions, and therefore should be better
positioned to select the method of
transportation most advantageous to the
Government. Agencies also should be
able to better limit TDY costs incurred
by employees who choose to use their
POV instead of the agency-selected
transportation method. Common carrier,
Government-furnished automobile, and
rental car are presumed to be the most
advantageous methods of transportation,
and are often less expensive than travel
by POV. Administrative savings from
having a more comprehensive process
should also lessen the time agencies and
employees spend working through
confusion or differences in
interpretation, hopefully with fewer
employees requesting CBCA review of
claims for entitlement to travel
expenses.
III. 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. This is not a significant
regulatory action, and therefore, is not
subject to review under Section 6(b) of
E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review, dated September 30, 1993.
IV. Congressional Review Act
OIRA has determined that this rule is
not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2). Additionally, this rule is
E:\FR\FM\18JAR1.SGM
18JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
excepted from Congressional Review
Act reporting requirements prescribed
under 5 U.S.C. 801 since it relates to
agency management or personnel under
5 U.S.C. 804(3)(b).
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
3. The authority citation for 41 CFR
part 301–70 is revised to read as
follows:
42 CFR Part 88
■
[Docket No. CDC–2022–0052; NIOSH–347]
RIN 0920–AA82
This final rule will not 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 the changes are administrative
in nature and only affect Government
employees. Therefore, a Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not
been performed.
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5707; 40 U.S.C. 121(c);
Sec. 2, Pub. L. 105–264, 112 Stat. 2350 (5
U.S.C. 5701, note); OMB Circular No. A–126,
revised May 22, 1992; OMB Circular A–123,
Appendix B, revised August 27, 2019.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act
*
SUMMARY:
5. Amend § 301–70.506 by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Table of Contents
The Paperwork Reduction Act does
not apply because the changes to the
Federal Travel Regulation 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
41 CFR Parts 301–10, 301–70
Government employees, Travel and
transportation expenses, common
carriers.
Robin Carnahan
Administrator of General Services.
PART 301–10—TRANSPORTATION
EXPENSES
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5707; 40 U.S.C. 121(c);
49 U.S.C. 40118; Office of Management and
Budget Circular No. A–126, ‘‘Improving the
Management and Use of Government
Aircraft.’’ Revised May 22, 1992.
2. Revise § 301–10.309 to read as
follows:
■
§ 301–10.309 What will I be reimbursed if
I am authorized to use common carrier
transportation or a rental vehicle and I use
a POV instead?
You will be reimbursed the applicable
POV rate on a mileage basis, plus per
diem and related travel expenses, not to
exceed the total constructive cost of the
authorized method of transportation.
Your agency must determine the
constructive cost in accordance with
§ 301–70.105(a).
16:05 Jan 17, 2023
Jkt 259001
§ 301–70.105 May we prohibit an employee
from using a POV on official travel?
*
*
*
*
(a) Limit reimbursement to the
constructive cost of the authorized
method of transportation, which is the
sum of travel and transportation
expenses the employee would
reasonably have incurred had the
employee traveled by the method of
transportation deemed to be most
advantageous to the Government. The
calculation will necessarily involve
assumptions. Examples of related
expenses that could be considered
constructive costs include, but are not
limited to, taxi and TNC fares, baggage
fees, rental car costs, tolls, ferry fees,
and parking charges; and
*
*
*
*
*
§ 301–70.506 How do we define actual cost
and constructive cost when an employee
interrupts a travel assignment because of
an incapacitating illness or injury?
*
1. The authority citation for 41 CFR
part 301–10 continues to read as
follows:
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
4. Amend § 301–70.105 by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
■
■
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble GSA amends 41 CFR parts
301–10 and 301–70 as set forth below:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
PART 301–70—INTERNAL POLICY
AND PROCEDURE REQUIREMENTS
*
*
*
*
(b) Constructive cost is the sum of
travel and transportation expenses the
employee would reasonably have
incurred for round-trip travel between
the official station and the alternate
location plus per diem calculated for the
appropriate en route travel time. The
calculation will necessarily involve
assumptions. Examples of related
expenses that could be considered
constructive costs include, but are not
limited to, taxi and TNC fares, baggage
fees, rental car costs, tolls, ferry fees,
and parking charges.
[FR Doc. 2023–00733 Filed 1–17–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820–14–P
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2845
World Trade Center (WTC) Health
Program; Addition of Uterine Cancer to
the List of WTC-Related Health
Conditions
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the World
Trade Center (WTC) Health Program’s
regulations, which establish procedures
for adding a new condition to the list of
covered health conditions, this final
rule adds malignant neoplasms of
corpus uteri and uterus, part
unspecified (uterine cancer) to the List
of WTC-Related Health Conditions.
DATES: This rule is effective on January
18, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rachel Weiss, Public Health Analyst,
National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, 1090 Tusculum
Avenue, MS: C–46, Cincinnati, OH
45226; telephone: (404) 498–2500 (this
is not a toll-free number); email:
NIOSHregs@cdc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of Regulatory Action
B. Summary of Major Provisions
C. Costs and Benefits
II. Background
A. WTC Health Program Statutory
Authority
B. Rulemaking History
C. Public Participation
D. Issuance of Final Rule With Immediate
Effective Date
III. Summary of Public Comments and
Independent Peer Reviews
A. Summary of Public Comments
B. Summary of Independent Peer Reviews
C. WTC Health Program Response to Public
Comments
D. WTC Health Program Response to
Independent Peer Reviews
E. WTC Health Program Science Team
Conclusion
IV. Administrator’s Final Decision Regarding
Uterine Cancer
V. Summary of Final Rule
VI. Required Regulatory Analyses
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice)
E:\FR\FM\18JAR1.SGM
18JAR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2843-2845]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00733]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
41 CFR Parts 301-10, 301-70
[FTR Case 2022-01; Docket Number GSA-FTR-2022-0010, Sequence 2]
RIN 3090-AK61
Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); Constructive Cost
AGENCY: Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP), General Services
Administration.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: GSA is issuing a final rule amending the Federal Travel
Regulation (FTR) to clarify the calculation of ``constructive cost'' as
it relates to temporary duty (TDY) travel. GSA is also making technical
changes regarding what method of transportation agencies should compare
privately owned vehicle costs to when preparing a constructive cost
analysis. These clarifications are intended to produce
[[Page 2844]]
better estimates for agency decision makers.
DATES: Effective February 17, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jill Denning, Office of
Government-wide Policy, at 202-208-7642 or email at
[email protected] for clarification of content. For information
pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact The Regulatory
Secretariat (M1V1CB), at 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, 202-
501-4755 or email at [email protected]. Please cite FTR case 2022-01.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
GSA published a proposed rule at 87 FR 32106 on May 27, 2022, to
clarify the calculation of ``constructive cost'' as it relates to
temporary duty (TDY) travel. This rule finalizes the proposed changes
to section 301-10.309, regarding what method of transportation agencies
should compare privately owned vehicle (POV) costs to when preparing a
constructive cost analysis, and makes minor editorial adjustments in
order to clarify intent.
When employees perform official business away from their official
station, agencies must, in authorizing the TDY travel, select the
transportation method most advantageous to the Government, when cost
and other factors are considered. Travel must be by the most
expeditious means of transportation practicable and commensurate with
the nature and purpose of the duties. In addition, the agency must
consider energy conservation, total cost to the Government (including
costs of per diem, overtime, lost work time, and actual transportation
cost), total distance traveled, number of points visited, and number of
travelers. The most advantageous transportation method by order of
precedence is common carrier, Government-furnished automobile, rental
car, and POV.
Regardless of the method of transportation the agency selects in
the travel authorization, Federal employees may choose to use a POV
while on TDY. However, if the agency has selected a method of
transportation other than POV for the employee's use because it is more
advantageous to the Government, the agency must perform a cost
comparison, known as ``constructive cost'', to determine how much the
agency should reimburse the traveler when the traveler chooses a POV
over the agency-selected method of transportation. If the constructive
cost of the agency-selected method of transportation is less than the
cost of traveling by POV, the employee only receives that limited
amount, regardless of how much it costs to use a POV. If the
constructive cost shows that the POV cost is less than the agency-
selected method, then the employee will receive the total POV-related
costs (as listed in 41 CFR 301-10.304). (Agencies are reminded that the
FTR does not authorize agencies to require that employees use their POV
for TDY travel, even if the costs will be less for the Government.)
GSA is aware that agencies may mistakenly calculate TDY
constructive costs by only comparing the selected transportation method
with the POV mileage rates without also factoring in related travel
costs, such as per diem expenses, parking, baggage fees, etc. Not
factoring in these other costs leads to an incomplete calculation of
the total constructive travel cost that employees may incur.
The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) and its predecessor,
the General Services Board of Contract Appeals (GSCBA) have, in their
decisions on TDY constructive costs, opined that when comparing the
total allowable costs for travel by a method other than that most
advantageous to the Government, with the constructive cost of traveling
by the agency-selected method, agencies should think through the
complete travel experience and include other potential costs. (See In
the Matter of Russell E. Yates, GSBCA No. 15109-TRAV (Jan. 28, 2000);
In the Matter of Stephen M. England, CBCA 3903-TRAV (Jan. 30, 2015)).
For example, if the agency selected travel by air via common carrier
but the employee chose to travel by POV, in calculating the
constructive cost of air travel the agency should include potential
costs such as the expected cost of lodging as well as meals, incidental
expenses, airfare, baggage, use of a rental car, and transportation to
and from the airport using a taxi or transportation network company
(TNC), and perhaps others depending on the individual situation. Even
though these costs may not actually be incurred when the employee uses
the POV instead of flying via a common carrier, the relevant travel
costs should be included in the agency's constructive cost analysis to
determine how much the agency-selected method would have cost the
agency in total.
Additionally, GSA is clarifying the constructive cost methodology
stated in Sec. 301-10.309. GSA amended this section in 2015 to include
the use of rental cars as a potential transportation option, in
addition to the use of common carriers (80 FR 27259). However, when
determining the constructive cost, the section currently states that
agencies should not exceed the total constructive cost of the
``authorized method of common carrier transportation,'' when it should
read ``authorized method of transportation'' as is consistent with 41
CFR 301-70.105(a).
II. Discussion of the Final Rule
GSA did not receive any public comments related to the proposed
rule and has not made any substantive changes to the regulatory
language from the proposed to final rule.
While difficult to quantify, GSA expects some savings in travel
costs as a result of this final rule; GSA anticipates that no
additional travel costs will result from agencies performing more
comprehensive constructive cost comparisons as agencies will better
understand the impact of method of transportation decisions, and
therefore should be better positioned to select the method of
transportation most advantageous to the Government. Agencies also
should be able to better limit TDY costs incurred by employees who
choose to use their POV instead of the agency-selected transportation
method. Common carrier, Government-furnished automobile, and rental car
are presumed to be the most advantageous methods of transportation, and
are often less expensive than travel by POV. Administrative savings
from having a more comprehensive process should also lessen the time
agencies and employees spend working through confusion or differences
in interpretation, hopefully with fewer employees requesting CBCA
review of claims for entitlement to travel expenses.
III. 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.
This is not a significant regulatory action, and therefore, is not
subject to review under Section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning
and Review, dated September 30, 1993.
IV. Congressional Review Act
OIRA has determined that this rule is not a ``major rule'' as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Additionally, this rule is
[[Page 2845]]
excepted from Congressional Review Act reporting requirements
prescribed under 5 U.S.C. 801 since it relates to agency management or
personnel under 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(b).
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This final rule will not 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 the changes
are administrative in nature and only affect Government employees.
Therefore, a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been
performed.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the changes to
the Federal Travel Regulation 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
41 CFR Parts 301-10, 301-70
Government employees, Travel and transportation expenses, common
carriers.
Robin Carnahan
Administrator of General Services.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble GSA amends 41 CFR parts
301-10 and 301-70 as set forth below:
PART 301-10--TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES
0
1. The authority citation for 41 CFR part 301-10 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5707; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 49 U.S.C. 40118;
Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-126, ``Improving the
Management and Use of Government Aircraft.'' Revised May 22, 1992.
0
2. Revise Sec. 301-10.309 to read as follows:
Sec. 301-10.309 What will I be reimbursed if I am authorized to use
common carrier transportation or a rental vehicle and I use a POV
instead?
You will be reimbursed the applicable POV rate on a mileage basis,
plus per diem and related travel expenses, not to exceed the total
constructive cost of the authorized method of transportation. Your
agency must determine the constructive cost in accordance with Sec.
301-70.105(a).
PART 301-70--INTERNAL POLICY AND PROCEDURE REQUIREMENTS
0
3. The authority citation for 41 CFR part 301-70 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5707; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); Sec. 2, Pub. L. 105-
264, 112 Stat. 2350 (5 U.S.C. 5701, note); OMB Circular No. A-126,
revised May 22, 1992; OMB Circular A-123, Appendix B, revised August
27, 2019.
0
4. Amend Sec. 301-70.105 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 301-70.105 May we prohibit an employee from using a POV on
official travel?
* * * * *
(a) Limit reimbursement to the constructive cost of the authorized
method of transportation, which is the sum of travel and transportation
expenses the employee would reasonably have incurred had the employee
traveled by the method of transportation deemed to be most advantageous
to the Government. The calculation will necessarily involve
assumptions. Examples of related expenses that could be considered
constructive costs include, but are not limited to, taxi and TNC fares,
baggage fees, rental car costs, tolls, ferry fees, and parking charges;
and
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 301-70.506 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 301-70.506 How do we define actual cost and constructive cost
when an employee interrupts a travel assignment because of an
incapacitating illness or injury?
* * * * *
(b) Constructive cost is the sum of travel and transportation
expenses the employee would reasonably have incurred for round-trip
travel between the official station and the alternate location plus per
diem calculated for the appropriate en route travel time. The
calculation will necessarily involve assumptions. Examples of related
expenses that could be considered constructive costs include, but are
not limited to, taxi and TNC fares, baggage fees, rental car costs,
tolls, ferry fees, and parking charges.
[FR Doc. 2023-00733 Filed 1-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-14-P
