Rule2023-00733
Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); Constructive Cost
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
January 18, 2023
Effective
February 17, 2023
Issuing agencies
General Services Administration
Abstract
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 better estimates for agency decision makers.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[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 [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[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
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7703051601121b07181b1e140e3710041659101801"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1c686e7d6a79706c7370757f655c7b6f7d327b736a">[email protected]</span></a> 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#65223624370002360006250216044b020a13"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1b5c485a497e7c487e785b7c687a357c746d">[email protected]</span></a>. 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
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on January 18, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.