Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition of the Jacksonville, FL; Savannah, GA; Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg, MD; Richmond, VA; and Roanoke, VA, Appropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage Areas, 5487-5489 [2015-01937]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
5487
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 80, No. 21
Monday, February 2, 2015
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT
5 CFR Part 532
RIN 3206–AN15
Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition
of the Jacksonville, FL; Savannah, GA;
Hagerstown-MartinsburgChambersburg, MD; Richmond, VA;
and Roanoke, VA, Appropriated Fund
Federal Wage System Wage Areas
U.S. Office of Personnel
Management.
ACTION: Proposed rule with request for
comments.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) is issuing a
proposed rule that would redefine the
geographic boundaries of the
Jacksonville, FL; Savannah, GA;
Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg,
MD; Richmond, VA; and Roanoke, VA,
appropriated fund Federal Wage System
(FWS) wage areas. The proposed rule
would redefine Brantley, Glynn, and
Pierce Counties, GA, from the
Jacksonville wage area to the Savannah
wage area; Greene County, VA, from the
Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg
wage area to the Richmond wage area;
and Nelson County, VA, from the
Roanoke wage area to the Richmond
wage area. These changes are based on
recent consensus recommendations of
the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory
Committee (FPRAC) to best match the
counties proposed for redefinition to a
nearby FWS survey area.
DATES: We must receive comments on or
before March 4, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by ‘‘RIN 3206–AN15,’’ using
any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Brenda L. Roberts, Deputy
Associate Director for Pay and Leave,
Employee Services, U.S. Office of
Personnel Management, Room 7H31,
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:56 Jan 30, 2015
Jkt 235001
1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC
20415–8200.
Email: pay-leave-policy@opm.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Madeline Gonzalez, (202) 606–2838;
email pay-leave-policy@opm.gov; or
FAX: (202) 606–4264.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OPM is
issuing a proposed rule that would
redefine the geographic boundaries of
the Jacksonville, FL; Savannah, GA;
Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg,
MD; Richmond, VA; and Roanoke, VA,
appropriated fund FWS wage areas. The
proposed rule would redefine Brantley
and Glynn Counties, GA, from the
Jacksonville wage area to the Savannah
wage area; Greene County, VA, from the
Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg
wage area to the Richmond wage area;
and Nelson County, VA, from the
Roanoke wage area to the Richmond
wage area.
OPM considers the following
regulatory criteria under 5 CFR 532.211
when defining FWS wage area
boundaries:
(i) Distance, transportation facilities,
and geographic features;
(ii) Commuting patterns; and
(iii) Similarities in overall population,
employment, and the kinds and sizes of
private industrial establishments.
In addition, OPM regulations at 5 CFR
532.211 do not permit splitting
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs)
for the purpose of defining a wage area,
except in very unusual circumstances.
OPM recently completed reviews of
the definitions of the Brunswick, GA
and Charlottesville, VA MSAs and,
based on analyses of the regulatory
criteria for defining wage areas, is
proposing the changes described below.
FPRAC, the national labor-management
committee responsible for advising
OPM on matters concerning the pay of
FWS employees, recommended these
changes by consensus. These changes
would be effective on the first day of the
first applicable pay period beginning on
or after 30 days following publication of
the final regulations.
Brunswick, GA Metropolitan Statistical
Area
Brantley, Glynn, and McIntosh
Counties, GA, comprise the Brunswick,
GA MSA. The Brunswick MSA is
currently split between the Jacksonville,
FL, and Savannah, GA, wage areas.
Brantley and Glynn Counties are part of
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the area of application of the
Jacksonville wage area and McIntosh
County is part of the area of application
of the Savannah wage area.
Based on an analysis of the regulatory
criteria for Glynn County, the core
county in the Brunswick MSA, we
recommend that the entire Brunswick
MSA be defined to the Savannah area of
application. When measuring to cities,
the distance criterion does not favor one
wage area more than another. When
measuring to host installations, the
distance criterion favors the Savannah
wage area more than the Jacksonville
wage area. The commuting patterns
criterion does not favor one wage area
more than another. Glynn County does
not resemble one survey area more than
another survey area in terms of the
overall population, employment, and
the kinds and sizes of private industrial
establishments criteria.
Based on this analysis, we find that
Glynn County would be more
appropriately defined to the Savannah
wage area. Since there appear to be no
unusual circumstances that would
permit splitting the Brunswick MSA,
OPM proposes to redefine Brantley and
Glynn Counties to the Savannah wage
area so that the entire Brunswick MSA
is in one wage area. The remaining
county in the Brunswick MSA,
McIntosh County, is already defined to
the Savannah wage area. There are
currently no FWS employees working in
Brantley County. There are currently 45
FWS employees working in Glynn
County.
Because Pierce County, GA, borders
Brantley County to the northwest and is
located in-between the Brunswick MSA
and the Albany, GA, and Savannah
wage areas, Pierce County would also be
redefined from the Jacksonville wage
area to the Savannah wage area. When
measuring to cities, the distance
criterion does not favor one wage area
more than another. When measuring to
host installations, the distance criterion
favors the Savannah wage area more
than the Albany wage area. The
commuting patterns criterion does not
favor one wage area more than another.
Pierce County does not favor one survey
area more than another survey area in
terms of the overall population and
employment and the kinds and sizes of
private industrial establishments
criteria.
E:\FR\FM\02FEP1.SGM
02FEP1
5488
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 21 / Monday, February 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Based on this analysis, we find that
Pierce County would be more
appropriately defined to the Savannah
wage area. There are currently no FWS
employees working in Pierce County.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Charlottesville, VA Metropolitan
Statistical Area
Charlottesville City, VA, and
Albemarle, Buckingham, Fluvanna,
Greene, and Nelson Counties, VA,
comprise the Charlottesville, VA MSA.
The Charlottesville MSA is split
between the Hagerstown-MartinsburgChambersburg, MD, Richmond, VA, and
Roanoke, VA, wage areas. Greene
County is part of the area of application
of the Hagerstown-MartinsburgChambersburg wage area. Charlottesville
City and Albemarle, Buckingham, and
Fluvanna Counties are part of the area
of application of the Richmond wage
area. Nelson County is part of the area
of application of the Roanoke wage area.
Based on an analysis of the regulatory
criteria for Greene County, the core
county in the Charlottesville MSA, the
entire Charlottesville MSA would be
defined to the Richmond wage area. The
distance criterion favors the Richmond
wage area. The commuting patterns
criterion slightly favors the Richmond
wage area. The overall population and
employment and the kinds and sizes of
private industrial establishments criteria
do not favor one wage area more than
another.
Based on this analysis, we find that
Greene County would be more
appropriately defined to the Richmond
wage area. Since there appear to be no
unusual circumstances that would
permit splitting the Charlottesville
MSA, OPM proposes to redefine Greene
and Nelson Counties to the Richmond
wage area so that the entire
Charlottesville MSA is in one wage area.
The remaining city and counties in the
Charlottesville MSA, Charlottesville
City and Albemarle, Buckingham, and
Fluvanna Counties, are already defined
to the Richmond wage area. There are
currently three FWS employees working
in Greene County. There are currently
no FWS employees working in Nelson
County.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that these regulations would
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities
because they would affect only Federal
agencies and employees.
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532
Administrative practice and
procedure, Freedom of information,
Government employees, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Wages.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:56 Jan 30, 2015
Jkt 235001
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Katherine Archuleta,
Director.
*
Accordingly, the U.S. Office of
Personnel Management is proposing to
amend 5 CFR part 532 as follows:
PART 532—PREVAILING RATE
SYSTEMS
1. The authority citation for part 532
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5343, 5346; § 532.707
also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552.
2. Appendix C to subpart B is
amended by revising the wage area
listings for the Jacksonville, FL;
Savannah, GA; HagerstownMartinsburg-Chambersburg, MD;
Richmond, VA; and Roanoke, VA, wage
areas to read as follows:
■
Appendix C to Subpart B of Part 532—
Appropriated Fund Wage and Survey
Areas
*
*
*
*
*
FLORIDA
*
*
*
Jacksonville
Survey Area
*
PO 00000
*
Frm 00002
*
GEORGIA
Fmt 4702
*
Sfmt 4702
*
*
Florida:
Alachua
Baker
Clay
Duval
Nassau
St. Johns
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Florida:
Bradford
Citrus
Columbia
Dixie
Flagler
Gilchrist
Hamilton
Lafayette
Lake
Levy
Madison
Marion
Orange
Osceola
Putnam
Seminole
Sumter
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Volusia
Georgia:
Camden
Charlton
*
Savannah
Survey Area
*
*
Georgia:
Bryan
Chatham
Effingham
Liberty
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Georgia:
Appling
Bacon
Brantley
Bulloch
Candler
Evans
Glynn
Jeff Davis
Long
McIntosh
Pierce
Screven
Tattnall
Toombs
Wayne
South Carolina:
Beaufort (the portion south of Broad
River)
Hampton
Jasper
*
*
*
*
MARYLAND
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg
Survey Area
Maryland:
Washington
Pennsylvania:
Franklin
West Virginia:
Berkeley
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Maryland:
Allegany
Garrett
Pennsylvania:
Fulton
Virginia (cities):
Harrisonburg
Winchester
Virginia (counties):
Frederick
Madison
Page
Rockingham
Shenandoah
West Virginia:
Hampshire
Hardy
Mineral
Morgan
*
*
*
VIRGINIA
*
*
*
*
*
Richmond
Survey Area
*
*
*
Virginia (cities):
Colonial Heights
E:\FR\FM\02FEP1.SGM
02FEP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 21 / Monday, February 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Hopewell
Petersburg
Richmond
Virginia (counties):
Charles City
Chesterfield
Dinwiddie
Goochland
Hanover
Henrico
New Kent
Powhatan
Prince George
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Virginia (cities):
Charlottesville
Emporia
Virginia (counties):
Albemarle
Amelia
Brunswick
Buckingham
Caroline
Charlotte
Cumberland
Essex
Fluvanna
Greene
Greensville
King and Queen
King William
Lancaster
Louisa
Lunenburg
Mecklenburg
Middlesex
Nelson
Northumberland
Nottoway
Orange
Prince Edward
Richmond
Sussex
Westmoreland
Roanoke
Survey Area
Virginia (cities):
Radford
Roanoke
Salem
Virginia (counties):
Botetourt
Craig
Montgomery
Roanoke
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Virginia (cities):
Bedford
Buena Vista
Clifton Forge
Covington
Danville
Galax
Lexington
Lynchburg
Martinsville
South Boston
Staunton
Waynesboro
Virginia (counties):
Alleghany
Amherst
Appomattox
Augusta
Bath
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Jan 30, 2015
Jkt 235001
Bedford
Bland
Campbell
Carroll
Floyd
Franklin
Giles
Halifax
Henry
Highland
Patrick
Pittsylvania
Pulaski
Rockbridge
Wythe
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2015–01937 Filed 1–30–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325–39–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2014–0940; Directorate
Identifier 2014–NE–15–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Lycoming
Engines Reciprocating Engines (Type
Certificate Previously Held by Textron
Lycoming Division, AVCO Corporation)
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
We propose to adopt a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Lycoming TIO–540–AJ1A reciprocating
engines. This proposed AD was
prompted by several reports of cracked
engine exhaust pipes. This proposed AD
would require inspection of the engine
exhaust pipes for cracks and
replacement of the turbocharger
mounting bracket. We are proposing this
AD to prevent failure of the exhaust
system due to cracking, which could
lead to uncontrolled engine fire,
harmful exhaust gases entering the
cabin resulting in crew incapacitation,
and damage to the airplane.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by April 3, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5489
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
For service information identified in
this proposed AD, contact Lycoming
Engines, 652 Oliver Street,
Williamsport, PA 17701; phone: 800–
258–3279; fax: 570–327–7101; Internet:
www.lycoming.com/Lycoming/
SUPPORT/TechnicalPublications/
ServiceBulletins.aspx. You may view
this service information at the FAA,
Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call 781–
238–7125.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2014–
0940; or in person at the Docket
Management Facility between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Office
(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Norm Perenson, Aerospace Engineer,
New York Aircraft Certification Office,
FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate,
1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516–228–
7337; fax: 516–794–5531; email:
norman.perenson@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written
relevant data, views, or arguments about
this NPRM. Send your comments to an
address listed under the ADDRESSES
section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA–
2014–0940; Directorate Identifier 2014–
NE–15–AD’’ at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite
comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy
aspects of this NPRM. We will consider
all comments received by the closing
date and may amend this NPRM
because of those comments.
We will post all comments we
receive, without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each
E:\FR\FM\02FEP1.SGM
02FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 21 (Monday, February 2, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5487-5489]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01937]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 21 / Monday, February 2, 2015 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 5487]]
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
5 CFR Part 532
RIN 3206-AN15
Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition of the Jacksonville, FL;
Savannah, GA; Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg, MD; Richmond, VA;
and Roanoke, VA, Appropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage Areas
AGENCY: U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
ACTION: Proposed rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a
proposed rule that would redefine the geographic boundaries of the
Jacksonville, FL; Savannah, GA; Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg,
MD; Richmond, VA; and Roanoke, VA, appropriated fund Federal Wage
System (FWS) wage areas. The proposed rule would redefine Brantley,
Glynn, and Pierce Counties, GA, from the Jacksonville wage area to the
Savannah wage area; Greene County, VA, from the Hagerstown-Martinsburg-
Chambersburg wage area to the Richmond wage area; and Nelson County,
VA, from the Roanoke wage area to the Richmond wage area. These changes
are based on recent consensus recommendations of the Federal Prevailing
Rate Advisory Committee (FPRAC) to best match the counties proposed for
redefinition to a nearby FWS survey area.
DATES: We must receive comments on or before March 4, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by ``RIN 3206-AN15,''
using any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Brenda L. Roberts, Deputy Associate Director for Pay and
Leave, Employee Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Room
7H31, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415-8200.
Email: pay-leave-policy@opm.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madeline Gonzalez, (202) 606-2838;
email pay-leave-policy@opm.gov; or FAX: (202) 606-4264.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OPM is issuing a proposed rule that would
redefine the geographic boundaries of the Jacksonville, FL; Savannah,
GA; Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg, MD; Richmond, VA; and Roanoke,
VA, appropriated fund FWS wage areas. The proposed rule would redefine
Brantley and Glynn Counties, GA, from the Jacksonville wage area to the
Savannah wage area; Greene County, VA, from the Hagerstown-Martinsburg-
Chambersburg wage area to the Richmond wage area; and Nelson County,
VA, from the Roanoke wage area to the Richmond wage area.
OPM considers the following regulatory criteria under 5 CFR 532.211
when defining FWS wage area boundaries:
(i) Distance, transportation facilities, and geographic features;
(ii) Commuting patterns; and
(iii) Similarities in overall population, employment, and the kinds
and sizes of private industrial establishments.
In addition, OPM regulations at 5 CFR 532.211 do not permit
splitting Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) for the purpose of
defining a wage area, except in very unusual circumstances.
OPM recently completed reviews of the definitions of the Brunswick,
GA and Charlottesville, VA MSAs and, based on analyses of the
regulatory criteria for defining wage areas, is proposing the changes
described below. FPRAC, the national labor-management committee
responsible for advising OPM on matters concerning the pay of FWS
employees, recommended these changes by consensus. These changes would
be effective on the first day of the first applicable pay period
beginning on or after 30 days following publication of the final
regulations.
Brunswick, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area
Brantley, Glynn, and McIntosh Counties, GA, comprise the Brunswick,
GA MSA. The Brunswick MSA is currently split between the Jacksonville,
FL, and Savannah, GA, wage areas. Brantley and Glynn Counties are part
of the area of application of the Jacksonville wage area and McIntosh
County is part of the area of application of the Savannah wage area.
Based on an analysis of the regulatory criteria for Glynn County,
the core county in the Brunswick MSA, we recommend that the entire
Brunswick MSA be defined to the Savannah area of application. When
measuring to cities, the distance criterion does not favor one wage
area more than another. When measuring to host installations, the
distance criterion favors the Savannah wage area more than the
Jacksonville wage area. The commuting patterns criterion does not favor
one wage area more than another. Glynn County does not resemble one
survey area more than another survey area in terms of the overall
population, employment, and the kinds and sizes of private industrial
establishments criteria.
Based on this analysis, we find that Glynn County would be more
appropriately defined to the Savannah wage area. Since there appear to
be no unusual circumstances that would permit splitting the Brunswick
MSA, OPM proposes to redefine Brantley and Glynn Counties to the
Savannah wage area so that the entire Brunswick MSA is in one wage
area. The remaining county in the Brunswick MSA, McIntosh County, is
already defined to the Savannah wage area. There are currently no FWS
employees working in Brantley County. There are currently 45 FWS
employees working in Glynn County.
Because Pierce County, GA, borders Brantley County to the northwest
and is located in-between the Brunswick MSA and the Albany, GA, and
Savannah wage areas, Pierce County would also be redefined from the
Jacksonville wage area to the Savannah wage area. When measuring to
cities, the distance criterion does not favor one wage area more than
another. When measuring to host installations, the distance criterion
favors the Savannah wage area more than the Albany wage area. The
commuting patterns criterion does not favor one wage area more than
another. Pierce County does not favor one survey area more than another
survey area in terms of the overall population and employment and the
kinds and sizes of private industrial establishments criteria.
[[Page 5488]]
Based on this analysis, we find that Pierce County would be more
appropriately defined to the Savannah wage area. There are currently no
FWS employees working in Pierce County.
Charlottesville, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area
Charlottesville City, VA, and Albemarle, Buckingham, Fluvanna,
Greene, and Nelson Counties, VA, comprise the Charlottesville, VA MSA.
The Charlottesville MSA is split between the Hagerstown-Martinsburg-
Chambersburg, MD, Richmond, VA, and Roanoke, VA, wage areas. Greene
County is part of the area of application of the Hagerstown-
Martinsburg-Chambersburg wage area. Charlottesville City and Albemarle,
Buckingham, and Fluvanna Counties are part of the area of application
of the Richmond wage area. Nelson County is part of the area of
application of the Roanoke wage area.
Based on an analysis of the regulatory criteria for Greene County,
the core county in the Charlottesville MSA, the entire Charlottesville
MSA would be defined to the Richmond wage area. The distance criterion
favors the Richmond wage area. The commuting patterns criterion
slightly favors the Richmond wage area. The overall population and
employment and the kinds and sizes of private industrial establishments
criteria do not favor one wage area more than another.
Based on this analysis, we find that Greene County would be more
appropriately defined to the Richmond wage area. Since there appear to
be no unusual circumstances that would permit splitting the
Charlottesville MSA, OPM proposes to redefine Greene and Nelson
Counties to the Richmond wage area so that the entire Charlottesville
MSA is in one wage area. The remaining city and counties in the
Charlottesville MSA, Charlottesville City and Albemarle, Buckingham,
and Fluvanna Counties, are already defined to the Richmond wage area.
There are currently three FWS employees working in Greene County. There
are currently no FWS employees working in Nelson County.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that these regulations would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they
would affect only Federal agencies and employees.
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532
Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information,
Government employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Katherine Archuleta,
Director.
Accordingly, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is proposing
to amend 5 CFR part 532 as follows:
PART 532--PREVAILING RATE SYSTEMS
0
1. The authority citation for part 532 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5343, 5346; Sec. 532.707 also issued under
5 U.S.C. 552.
0
2. Appendix C to subpart B is amended by revising the wage area
listings for the Jacksonville, FL; Savannah, GA; Hagerstown-
Martinsburg-Chambersburg, MD; Richmond, VA; and Roanoke, VA, wage areas
to read as follows:
Appendix C to Subpart B of Part 532--Appropriated Fund Wage and Survey
Areas
* * * * *
FLORIDA
* * * * *
Jacksonville
Survey Area
Florida:
Alachua
Baker
Clay
Duval
Nassau
St. Johns
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Florida:
Bradford
Citrus
Columbia
Dixie
Flagler
Gilchrist
Hamilton
Lafayette
Lake
Levy
Madison
Marion
Orange
Osceola
Putnam
Seminole
Sumter
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Volusia
Georgia:
Camden
Charlton
* * * * *
GEORGIA
* * * * *
Savannah
Survey Area
Georgia:
Bryan
Chatham
Effingham
Liberty
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Georgia:
Appling
Bacon
Brantley
Bulloch
Candler
Evans
Glynn
Jeff Davis
Long
McIntosh
Pierce
Screven
Tattnall
Toombs
Wayne
South Carolina:
Beaufort (the portion south of Broad River)
Hampton
Jasper
* * * * *
MARYLAND
* * * * *
Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg
Survey Area
Maryland:
Washington
Pennsylvania:
Franklin
West Virginia:
Berkeley
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Maryland:
Allegany
Garrett
Pennsylvania:
Fulton
Virginia (cities):
Harrisonburg
Winchester
Virginia (counties):
Frederick
Madison
Page
Rockingham
Shenandoah
West Virginia:
Hampshire
Hardy
Mineral
Morgan
* * * * *
VIRGINIA
* * * * *
Richmond
Survey Area
Virginia (cities):
Colonial Heights
[[Page 5489]]
Hopewell
Petersburg
Richmond
Virginia (counties):
Charles City
Chesterfield
Dinwiddie
Goochland
Hanover
Henrico
New Kent
Powhatan
Prince George
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Virginia (cities):
Charlottesville
Emporia
Virginia (counties):
Albemarle
Amelia
Brunswick
Buckingham
Caroline
Charlotte
Cumberland
Essex
Fluvanna
Greene
Greensville
King and Queen
King William
Lancaster
Louisa
Lunenburg
Mecklenburg
Middlesex
Nelson
Northumberland
Nottoway
Orange
Prince Edward
Richmond
Sussex
Westmoreland
Roanoke
Survey Area
Virginia (cities):
Radford
Roanoke
Salem
Virginia (counties):
Botetourt
Craig
Montgomery
Roanoke
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Virginia (cities):
Bedford
Buena Vista
Clifton Forge
Covington
Danville
Galax
Lexington
Lynchburg
Martinsville
South Boston
Staunton
Waynesboro
Virginia (counties):
Alleghany
Amherst
Appomattox
Augusta
Bath
Bedford
Bland
Campbell
Carroll
Floyd
Franklin
Giles
Halifax
Henry
Highland
Patrick
Pittsylvania
Pulaski
Rockbridge
Wythe
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-01937 Filed 1-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-39-P
