Federal Travel Regulation; Alternative Fuel Vehicle Usage During Relocations, 15635-15637 [2023-04819]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Dated: March 9, 2023.
Debra Shore,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
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:
[FR Doc. 2023–05175 Filed 3–13–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
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
Office of Government-Wide
Policy (OGP), General Services
Administration (GSA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
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 fuelbased 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–
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Mar 13, 2023
Jkt 259001
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 privatelyowned 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).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
15635
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
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
15636
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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,
Year
1
3
5
7
9
1
through
through
through
through
through
through
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
2 ..............................................
4 ..............................................
6 ..............................................
8 ..............................................
10 ............................................
10 Totals .................................
685 (3 percent of Annual Moves) ...........
691 (Assuming 1.01 percent increase) ...
697 (Assuming 1.01 percent increase) ...
703 (Assuming 1.01 percent increase) ...
710 (Assuming 1.01 percent increase) ...
6,972 Total Moves ...................................
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.
Government. Therefore, GSA calculated
a yearly average of 22,862
(= 31,423¥8,561) relocations within the
CONUS.
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 × 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 ×
$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
cost per move
Annual number of EV moves
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Regulatory Planning and Review, dated
September 30, 1993.
$150
150
150
150
150
150
Total annual added cost
$102,750.
103,650.
104,550.
105,450.
106,500.
$1,045,800 Total Cost for 10 Years.
List of Subjects in 41 CFR Part 302–4
and 302–9
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.
Government employees, Travel and
transportation expenses.
■
Krystal J. Brumfield,
Associate Administrator, Office of
Government-wide Policy, General Services
Administration.
§ 302–4.201 How are my authorized en
route travel days and per diem determined
for relocation travel?
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
1. The authority citation for part 302–
4 continues to read as follows:
■
2. Amend § 302–4.201 by revising the
third sentence to read as follows:
* * * 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
1 Business Travel and Relocation Dashboard:
https://d2d.gsa.gov/report/business-travel-andrelocation-dashboard.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Mar 13, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 2023 / Proposed Rules
legitimate vehicle range capability and
fueling availability limitations; or for
other reasons acceptable to the agency.
■ 3. Revise § 302–4.401 to read as
follows:
■
§ 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.
■ 4. Revise § 302–4.704 to read as
follows:
§ 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
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.
6. Amend § 302–9.4 by adding a
sentence to the end of the section to
read as follows:
■
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
§ 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Mar 13, 2023
Jkt 259001
7. Amend § 302–9.301 by revising
paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 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.
■ 8. Amend § 302–9.606 by revising
paragraph (f) to read as follows:
§ 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
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MB Docket No. 23–79; RM–11947; DA 23–
160; FR ID 130305]
Television Broadcasting Services
Kalispell, Montana
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Commission has before it
a petition for rulemaking filed by
Sinclair Media Licensee, LLC
(Petitioner), the licensee of KCFW–TV,
channel 9, Kalispell, Montana. The
Petitioner requests the substitution of
channel 17 for channel 9 at Kalispell in
the Table of Allotments.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or
before April 13, 2023 and reply
comments on or before April 28, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, Office of the Secretary, 45
L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the
FCC, interested parties should serve
counsel for the Petitioner as follows:
Paul Cicelski, Esq., Lerman Senter
PLLC, 2001 L Street NW, Washington,
DC 20036.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joyce Bernstein, Media Bureau, at (202)
418–1647; or Joyce Bernstein, Media
Bureau, at Joyce.Bernstein@fcc.gov.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
15637
In
support, the Petitioner states that the
Station has a long history of severe
reception problems as a result of its
operation on a VHF channel. The
Petitioner further states that the
Commission has recognized that VHF
channels pose challenges for their use in
providing digital television service,
including propagation characteristics
that allow undesired signals and noise
to be receivable at relatively far
distances and result in large variability
in the performance of indoor antennas
available to viewers with most antennas
performing very poorly on high VHF
channels. According to the Petitioner,
KCFW–TV ‘‘has received numerous
complaints from viewers unable to
receive that Station’s over-the-air signal,
despite being able to receive signals
from other local stations.’’ Petitioner
asserts that its channel substitution
proposal will serve the public in by
resolving the over-the-air reception
problems and enhancing viewer
reception in KCFW–TV’s service area.
An analysis provided by the Petitioner
using the Commission’s TVStudy
software tool indicates that all but
approximately 75 persons will continue
to receive the signal, a number the
Petitioner asserts is de minimis.
Furthermore, in addition to maintaining
full coverage of its community of
license, Petitioner notes that the
proposed change to channel 17 will
result in a predicted increase in service
to more than 38,000 persons.
This is a synopsis of the
Commission’s Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 23–79;
RM–11947; DA 23–160, adopted March
1, 2023, and released March 1, 2023.
The full text of this document is
available for download at https://
www.fcc.gov/edocs. To request materials
in accessible formats (braille, large
print, computer diskettes, or audio
recordings), please send an email to
FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer &
Government Affairs Bureau at (202)
418–0530 (VOICE), (202) 418–0432
(TTY).
This document does not contain
information collection requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition,
therefore, it does not contain any
proposed information collection burden
‘‘for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–
612, do not apply to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note
that all ex parte contacts are prohibited
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
]]>Agencies
[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
