Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition of the Little Rock, Arkansas, and Tulsa, Oklahoma, Appropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage Areas, 8205-8207 [2020-02833]

Download as PDF 8205 Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 85, No. 30 Thursday, February 13, 2020 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–AN95 Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition of the Little Rock, Arkansas, and Tulsa, Oklahoma, Appropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage Areas Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a proposed rule that would redefine the geographic boundaries of the Little Rock, Arkansas, and Tulsa, Oklahoma, appropriated fund Federal Wage System (FWS) wage areas. The proposed rule would redefine the Fort Chaffee portion of Franklin County, AR, to the Tulsa wage area. This change is based on a recent consensus recommendation of the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee (FPRAC). DATES: Send comments on or before March 16, 2020. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) and title, by the following method: • Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or RIN for this document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing at http:// www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madeline Gonzalez, by telephone at (202) 606–2838 or by email at pay-leavepolicy@opm.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OPM is issuing a proposed rule to redefine the jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Feb 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 Little Rock, AR, and Tulsa, OK, appropriated fund FWS wage areas. This proposed rule would redefine the Fort Chaffee portion of Franklin County, AR, from the Little Rock wage area to the Tulsa wage area. This change is based on a recent recommendation of FPRAC, the statutory national labormanagement committee responsible for advising OPM on matters affecting the pay of FWS employees. From time to time, FPRAC reviews the boundaries of wage areas and provides OPM with recommendations for changes if the Committee finds that changes are warranted. As provided by 5 CFR 532.211, this regulation allows consideration of the following criteria when defining wage area boundaries: distance, transportation facilities, and geographic features; commuting patterns; and similarities in overall population, employment, and the kinds and sizes of private industrial establishments. In addition, under OPM regulations at 5 CFR 532.211(2)(b), it is permissible for Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) to be split between FWS wage areas only in very unusual circumstances. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) defines MSAs and maintains and periodically updates the definitions of MSA boundaries. MSAs are composed of counties and are defined on the basis of a central urbanized area—a contiguous area of relatively high population density. Additional surrounding counties are included in MSAs if they have strong social and economic ties to central counties. When the boundaries of wage areas were first established in the 1960s, there were fewer MSAs than there are today and the boundaries of the then existing MSAs were much smaller. Most MSAs were contained within the boundaries of a wage area. With each OMB update, MSAs have expanded and in some cases now extend beyond the boundaries of the wage area. Crawford, Franklin, and Sebastian Counties, AR, and Sequoyah County, OK, comprise the Fort Smith, AR–OK MSA. The Fort Smith MSA is split between the Little Rock, AR, and Tulsa, OK, wage areas. Crawford, Sebastian, and Sequoyah Counties are part of the Tulsa wage area, and Franklin County is part of the Little Rock wage area. Crawford, Sebastian, and Sequoyah Counties continue to be appropriately PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 defined to the Tulsa wage area. Managed by the Forest Service, the Ozark National Forest is located in parts of 16 counties in northwestern Arkansas. There are FWS Forest Service employees working in the Ozark National Forest portion of Franklin and Stone Counties. To avoid splitting the Forest Service employees working in the Ozark National Forest between two wage areas, Franklin County also continues to be appropriately defined to the Little Rock wage area. However, in addition to the Forest Service employees currently working in Franklin County, there are now three Department of the Army employees working in the portion of Fort Chaffee located in Franklin County. The Department of the Army also employs 74 FWS employees in the portion of Fort Chaffee located in Sebastian County. So that the FWS employees working at Fort Chaffee are not split between two wage areas, OPM proposes that the Fort Chaffee portion of Franklin County be redefined to the Tulsa wage area. Fort Chaffee would then be entirely defined to the Tulsa wage area. This change would provide equal pay treatment for FWS employees working at Fort Chaffee. FPRAC, the national labormanagement committee responsible for advising OPM on matters concerning the pay of FWS employees, recommended this change by consensus. This change 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. Regulatory Impact Analysis This action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under the terms of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under E.O. 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866. Regulatory Flexibility Act OPM certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. E:\FR\FM\13FEP1.SGM 13FEP1 8206 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 2020 / Proposed Rules Federalism We have examined this rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that this rule will not have any negative impact on the rights, roles and responsibilities of State, local, or tribal governments. Civil Justice Reform This regulation meets the applicable standard set forth in Executive Order 12988. Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Congressional Review Act This action pertains to agency management, personnel, and organization and does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties and, accordingly, is not a ‘‘rule’’ as that term is used by the Congressional Review Act (Subtitle E of the Small Business ‘‘Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996’’ (SBREFA)). Therefore, the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not impose any new reporting or record-keeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532 Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information, Government employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages. Office of Personnel Management. Alexys Stanley, Regulatory Affairs Analyst. Accordingly, OPM 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: jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS ■ Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5343, 5346; § 532.707 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552. 2. In Appendix C to subpart B amend the table by revising the wage area listings for the States of ‘‘Arkansas’’ and ‘‘Oklahoma’’ to read as follows: ■ VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Feb 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 Appendix C to Subpart B of Part 532— Appropriated Fund Wage and Survey Areas DEFINITIONS OF WAGE AREAS AND WAGE AREA SURVEY AREAS * * * ARKANSAS Little Rock Survey Area * * Arkansas: Jefferson Pulaski Saline Area of Application. Survey area plus: Arkansas: Arkansas Ashley Baxter Boone Bradley Calhoun Chicot Clay Clark Cleburne Cleveland Conway Dallas Desha Drew Faulkner Franklin (Does not include the Fort Chaffee portion) Fulton Garland Grant Greene Hot Spring Independence Izard Jackson Johnson Lawrence Lincoln Logan Lonoke Marion Monroe Montgomery Newton Ouachita Perry Phillips Pike Polk Pope Prairie Randolph Scott Searcy Sharp Stone Union Van Buren White Woodruff Yell * * * * OKLAHOMA Oklahoma City Survey Area Oklahoma: PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 * Canadian Cleveland McClain Oklahoma Pottawatomie Area of Application. Survey area plus: Oklahoma: Alfalfa Atoka Beckham Blaine Bryan Caddo Carter Coal Custer Dewey Ellis Garfield Garvin Grady Grant Harper Hughes Johnston Kingfisher Lincoln Logan Love Major Marshall Murray Noble Payne Pontotoc Roger Mills Seminole Washita Woods Woodward Tulsa Survey Area Oklahoma: Creek Mayes Muskogee Osage Pittsburg Rogers Tulsa Wagoner Area of Application. Survey area plus: Arkansas: Benton Carroll Crawford Franklin (Only includes the Fort Chaffee portion) Madison Sebastian Washington Missouri: McDonald Oklahoma: Adair Cherokee Choctaw Craig Delaware Haskell Kay Latimer LeFlore McCurtain McIntosh Nowata E:\FR\FM\13FEP1.SGM 13FEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 2020 / Proposed Rules Okfuskee Okmulgee Ottawa Pawnee Pushmataha Sequoyah Washington * * * * * [FR Doc. 2020–02833 Filed 2–12–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325–39–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA–2020–0095; Product Identifier 2019–NM–192–AD] RIN 2120–AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). AGENCY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 747–8 and 747–8F series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the skin lap joints at certain stringers are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed AD would require modifying the left and right side lap joints of the fuselage skin, repetitive post-modification inspections for cracking, and applicable on-condition actions. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 30, 2020. 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 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 NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Feb 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110–SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740–5600; telephone 562–797–1717; internet https://www.myboeingfleet. com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. It is also available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA–2020–0095. 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–2020–0095; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Ashforth, Senior Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206– 231–3520; email: bill.ashforth@faa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA–2020–0095; Product Identifier 2019–NM–192–AD’’ at the beginning of your comments. The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because of those comments. The FAA will post all comments, without change, to https:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact the agency receives about this proposed AD. Discussion Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural design details, or globally, in widespread areas. Multiple-site damage is widespread damage that occurs in a large structural PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 8207 element such as a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels. Widespread damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-site damage and multiple-element damage cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the airplane. This condition is known as WFD. It is associated with general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details and stress levels. As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention. The FAA’s WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved. The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness directives through separate rulemaking actions. In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes. The FAA received an evaluation by the DAH indicating that the skin lap joints at stringers S–6 and S–23 for Model 747–8 series airplanes, and stringers S–6, S–23 and S–44 for Model 747–8F series airplanes, are subject to E:\FR\FM\13FEP1.SGM 13FEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 30 (Thursday, February 13, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8205-8207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02833]


========================================================================
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. 85, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 2020 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 8205]]



OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

5 CFR Part 532

RIN 3206-AN95


Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition of the Little Rock, 
Arkansas, and Tulsa, Oklahoma, Appropriated Fund Federal Wage System 
Wage Areas

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a proposed 
rule that would redefine the geographic boundaries of the Little Rock, 
Arkansas, and Tulsa, Oklahoma, appropriated fund Federal Wage System 
(FWS) wage areas. The proposed rule would redefine the Fort Chaffee 
portion of Franklin County, AR, to the Tulsa wage area. This change is 
based on a recent consensus recommendation of the Federal Prevailing 
Rate Advisory Committee (FPRAC).

DATES: Send comments on or before March 16, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or 
Regulatory Information Number (RIN) and title, by the following method:
     Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and docket 
number or RIN for this document. The general policy for comments and 
other submissions from members of the public is to make these 
submissions available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov 
as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers 
or contact information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madeline Gonzalez, by telephone at 
(202) 606-2838 or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OPM is issuing a proposed rule to redefine 
the Little Rock, AR, and Tulsa, OK, appropriated fund FWS wage areas. 
This proposed rule would redefine the Fort Chaffee portion of Franklin 
County, AR, from the Little Rock wage area to the Tulsa wage area. This 
change is based on a recent recommendation of FPRAC, the statutory 
national labor-management committee responsible for advising OPM on 
matters affecting the pay of FWS employees. From time to time, FPRAC 
reviews the boundaries of wage areas and provides OPM with 
recommendations for changes if the Committee finds that changes are 
warranted.
    As provided by 5 CFR 532.211, this regulation allows consideration 
of the following criteria when defining wage area boundaries: distance, 
transportation facilities, and geographic features; commuting patterns; 
and similarities in overall population, employment, and the kinds and 
sizes of private industrial establishments.
    In addition, under OPM regulations at 5 CFR 532.211(2)(b), it is 
permissible for Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) to be split 
between FWS wage areas only in very unusual circumstances.
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) defines MSAs and 
maintains and periodically updates the definitions of MSA boundaries. 
MSAs are composed of counties and are defined on the basis of a central 
urbanized area--a contiguous area of relatively high population 
density. Additional surrounding counties are included in MSAs if they 
have strong social and economic ties to central counties.
    When the boundaries of wage areas were first established in the 
1960s, there were fewer MSAs than there are today and the boundaries of 
the then existing MSAs were much smaller. Most MSAs were contained 
within the boundaries of a wage area. With each OMB update, MSAs have 
expanded and in some cases now extend beyond the boundaries of the wage 
area.
    Crawford, Franklin, and Sebastian Counties, AR, and Sequoyah 
County, OK, comprise the Fort Smith, AR-OK MSA. The Fort Smith MSA is 
split between the Little Rock, AR, and Tulsa, OK, wage areas. Crawford, 
Sebastian, and Sequoyah Counties are part of the Tulsa wage area, and 
Franklin County is part of the Little Rock wage area.
    Crawford, Sebastian, and Sequoyah Counties continue to be 
appropriately defined to the Tulsa wage area. Managed by the Forest 
Service, the Ozark National Forest is located in parts of 16 counties 
in northwestern Arkansas. There are FWS Forest Service employees 
working in the Ozark National Forest portion of Franklin and Stone 
Counties. To avoid splitting the Forest Service employees working in 
the Ozark National Forest between two wage areas, Franklin County also 
continues to be appropriately defined to the Little Rock wage area.
    However, in addition to the Forest Service employees currently 
working in Franklin County, there are now three Department of the Army 
employees working in the portion of Fort Chaffee located in Franklin 
County. The Department of the Army also employs 74 FWS employees in the 
portion of Fort Chaffee located in Sebastian County. So that the FWS 
employees working at Fort Chaffee are not split between two wage areas, 
OPM proposes that the Fort Chaffee portion of Franklin County be 
redefined to the Tulsa wage area. Fort Chaffee would then be entirely 
defined to the Tulsa wage area. This change would provide equal pay 
treatment for FWS employees working at Fort Chaffee.
    FPRAC, the national labor-management committee responsible for 
advising OPM on matters concerning the pay of FWS employees, 
recommended this change by consensus. This change 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.

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) 
and is therefore not subject to review under E.O. 12866 and 13563 (76 
FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs

    This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because 
this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    OPM certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

[[Page 8206]]

Federalism

    We have examined this rule in accordance with Executive Order 
13132, Federalism, and have determined that this rule will not have any 
negative impact on the rights, roles and responsibilities of State, 
local, or tribal governments.

Civil Justice Reform

    This regulation meets the applicable standard set forth in 
Executive Order 12988.

Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995

    This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary 
under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

Congressional Review Act

    This action pertains to agency management, personnel, and 
organization and does not substantially affect the rights or 
obligations of nonagency parties and, accordingly, is not a ``rule'' as 
that term is used by the Congressional Review Act (Subtitle E of the 
Small Business ``Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996'' 
(SBREFA)). Therefore, the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does 
not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose any new reporting or record-keeping 
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532

    Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information, 
Government employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages.

Office of Personnel Management.
Alexys Stanley,
Regulatory Affairs Analyst.

    Accordingly, OPM 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. In Appendix C to subpart B amend the table by revising the wage area 
listings for the States of ``Arkansas'' and ``Oklahoma'' to read as 
follows:

Appendix C to Subpart B of Part 532--Appropriated Fund Wage and Survey 
Areas

DEFINITIONS OF WAGE AREAS AND WAGE AREA SURVEY AREAS

 
 
 
 
                                * * * * *
                                ARKANSAS
                               Little Rock
                               Survey Area
Arkansas:
  Jefferson
  Pulaski
  Saline
                 Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Arkansas:
  Arkansas
  Ashley
  Baxter
  Boone
  Bradley
  Calhoun
  Chicot
  Clay
  Clark
  Cleburne
  Cleveland
  Conway
  Dallas
  Desha
  Drew
  Faulkner
  Franklin (Does not include the Fort Chaffee portion)
  Fulton
  Garland
  Grant
  Greene
  Hot Spring
  Independence
  Izard
  Jackson
  Johnson
  Lawrence
  Lincoln
  Logan
  Lonoke
  Marion
  Monroe
  Montgomery
  Newton
  Ouachita
  Perry
  Phillips
  Pike
  Polk
  Pope
  Prairie
  Randolph
  Scott
  Searcy
  Sharp
  Stone
  Union
  Van Buren
  White
  Woodruff
  Yell
 
                                * * * * *
                                OKLAHOMA
                              Oklahoma City
                               Survey Area
Oklahoma:
  Canadian
  Cleveland
  McClain
  Oklahoma
  Pottawatomie
                 Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Oklahoma:
  Alfalfa
  Atoka
  Beckham
  Blaine
  Bryan
  Caddo
  Carter
  Coal
  Custer
  Dewey
  Ellis
  Garfield
  Garvin
  Grady
  Grant
  Harper
  Hughes
  Johnston
  Kingfisher
  Lincoln
  Logan
  Love
  Major
  Marshall
  Murray
  Noble
  Payne
  Pontotoc
  Roger Mills
  Seminole
  Washita
  Woods
  Woodward
                                  Tulsa
                               Survey Area
Oklahoma:
  Creek
  Mayes
  Muskogee
  Osage
  Pittsburg
  Rogers
  Tulsa
  Wagoner
                 Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Arkansas:
  Benton
  Carroll
  Crawford
  Franklin (Only includes the Fort Chaffee portion)
  Madison
  Sebastian
  Washington
Missouri:
  McDonald
Oklahoma:
  Adair
  Cherokee
  Choctaw
  Craig
  Delaware
  Haskell
  Kay
  Latimer
  LeFlore
  McCurtain
  McIntosh
  Nowata

[[Page 8207]]

 
  Okfuskee
  Okmulgee
  Ottawa
  Pawnee
  Pushmataha
  Sequoyah
  Washington
 
                                * * * * *
 

[FR Doc. 2020-02833 Filed 2-12-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6325-39-P