Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition of the Northeastern Arizona and Utah Appropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage Areas, 55423-55426 [2023-17374]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules
*
Westchester
*
*
York
*
*
Norfolk-Portsmouth-Virginia Beach
Survey Area
Cumberland
Virginia (cities):
Norfolk
Portsmouth
Virginia Beach
Survey Area
Pennsylvania:
Cumberland
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Pennsylvania:
Alleghany
Blair
Butler
Franklin
York
Survey Area
Virginia:
Prince William
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
*
Virginia:
Fauquier
West Virginia:
Harrison
*
*
*
*
VIRGINIA
Alexandria-Arlington-Fairfax
Survey Area
*
*
[FR Doc. 2023–17373 Filed 8–14–23; 8:45 am]
Virginia (city):
Alexandria
Virginia (counties):
Arlington
Fairfax
BILLING CODE 6325–39–P
Area of Application. Survey area.
5 CFR Part 532
Chesterfield-Richmond
[Docket ID: OPM–2023–0018]
Survey Area
RIN 3206–AO61
Virginia (city):
Richmond
Virginia (county):
Chesterfield
Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition
of the Northeastern Arizona and Utah
Appropriated Fund Federal Wage
System Wage Areas
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Virginia (cities):
Bedford
Charlottesville
Salem
Virginia (counties):
Caroline
Nottoway
Prince George
West Virginia:
Pendleton
Survey Area
Virginia (cities):
Hampton
Newport News
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Virginia (city):
Williamsburg
Virginia (county):
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:44 Aug 14, 2023
Office of Personnel
Management.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) is issuing a
proposed rule to redefine the geographic
boundaries of the Northeastern Arizona
and Utah appropriated fund Federal
Wage System (FWS) wage areas for paysetting purposes. The proposed rule
would redefine Washington County, UT,
and several National Parks portions of
Garfield, Grand, Iron, San Juan, and
Wayne Counties, UT, to the
Northeastern Arizona wage area. This
change is based on a recent consensus
recommendation of the Federal
Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee
(FPRAC).
SUMMARY:
Hampton-Newport News
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
North Carolina:
Pasquotank
Virginia (cities):
Chesapeake
Suffolk
Virginia (counties):
Accomack
Northampton
Survey Area
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Pennsylvania:
Lebanon
*
*
*
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Prince William
Pennsylvania:
York
Send comments on or before
September 14, 2023.
DATES:
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00003
You may submit comments,
identified by docket number and/or
Regulatory Information Number (RIN)
and title, by the following method:
• Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov as they are
received without change, including any
personal identifiers or contact
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ana
Paunoiu, by telephone at (202) 606–
2858 or by email at pay-leave-policy@
opm.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OPM is
proposing a rule to redefine the
geographic boundaries of the
Northeastern Arizona and Utah
appropriated fund FWS wage areas.
This proposed rule would redefine
Washington County, UT; and the Bryce
Canyon, Capitol Reef, and Canyonlands
National Parks portions of Garfield
County, UT; the Arches and
Canyonlands National Parks portions of
Grand County, UT; the Cedar Breaks
National Monument and Zion National
Park portions of Iron County, UT; the
Canyonlands National Park portion of
San Juan County, UT; and the Capitol
Reef and Canyonlands National Parks
portions of Wayne County from the
Utah wage area to the Northeastern
Arizona 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.
Southern Utah has numerous National
Parks, National Monuments, and
National Recreation Areas, and National
Park Service FWS employees often
perform overlapping maintenance work
at locations in the Northeastern Arizona
wage area. FWS wage area definitions
ADDRESSES:
PENNSYLVANIA
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55423
E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM
15AUP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
55424
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules
have long accommodated placing
National Parks in single wage areas
because of close organizational
relationships between groups of
employees with different official duty
stations in the same park.
Washington County is currently
defined to the Utah area of application.
Our analysis of the regulatory criteria
indicates that Washington County
would be more appropriately defined as
part of the Northeastern Arizona wage
area. When measuring to cities, the
distance criterion favors the Utah wage
area. When measuring to host
installations, the distance criterion
favors the Northeastern Arizona wage
area. Washington County has a similar
distribution of surveyable employment
to the Northeastern Arizona survey area.
All other criteria are inconclusive.
Although a standard review of
regulatory criteria shows that some
factors are indeterminate, distance to
the host installations and overall
population, total private sector
employment, and kinds and sizes of
private industrial establishments do
favor the Northeastern Arizona wage
area. Based on this analysis, we
recommend that Washington County be
redefined to the Northeastern Arizona
wage area.
Garfield County is currently defined
to the Utah area of application. Our
analysis of the regulatory criteria
indicates that Garfield County is
appropriately defined as part of the
Utah area of application. The distance
criterion favors the Utah wage area more
than the Northeastern Arizona wage
area. All other criteria are inconclusive.
However, since we are recommending
that the Canyonlands National Park
portion of San Juan County be redefined
to the Northeastern Arizona wage area,
and because we believe Bryce Canyon
and Canyonlands National Park should
not be split between the Northeastern
Arizona and the Utah wage areas, we
recommend that the portions of Garfield
County occupied by Canyonlands and
Bryce Canyon National Parks be part of
the Northeastern Arizona wage area. We
also believe that the Capitol Reef
National Park portion of Garfield
County should be redefined to the
Northeastern Arizona wage area because
of the close proximity to the Bryce
Canyon and Canyonlands National
Parks. This change would ensure equal
pay treatment for FWS employees at
Bryce Canyon, Capitol Reef, and
Canyonlands National Parks are paid
from the same wage schedule. The
remaining portion of Garfield County
would continue to be part of the Utah
wage area. We believe the mixed nature
of our regulatory analysis findings
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:44 Aug 14, 2023
Jkt 259001
indicates that the remaining locations in
Garfield County remain appropriately
defined to the Utah wage area, with
distance being the deciding factor.
Grand County is currently defined to
the Utah area of application. Our
analysis of the regulatory criteria
indicates that Grand County is
appropriately defined as part of the
Utah area of application. When
measuring to cities, the distance
criterion favors the Utah wage area.
When measuring to host installations,
the distance criterion favors the
Northeastern Arizona wage area.
However, since we are recommending
that the Canyonlands National Park
portion of San Juan County be redefined
to the Northeastern Arizona wage area,
and because we believe Canyonlands
National Park should not be split
between the Northeastern Arizona and
the Utah wage areas, we recommend
that the portion of Grand County
occupied by Canyonlands National Park
be part of the Northeastern Arizona
wage area. We also believe that the
Arches National Park portion of Grand
County should be redefined to the
Northeastern Arizona wage area because
of the close proximity to the
Canyonlands National Park. This change
would provide equal pay treatment for
FWS employees at the two national
parks. The remaining portion of Grand
County would continue to be part of the
Utah wage area. We believe the mixed
nature of our regulatory analysis
findings indicates that the remaining
locations in Grand County remain
appropriately defined to the Utah wage
area, with distance being the deciding
factor.
Iron County is currently defined to
the Utah area of application. Our
analysis of the regulatory criteria
indicates that Iron County is
appropriately defined as part of the
Utah area of application. The distance
criterion favors the Utah wage area more
than the Northeastern Arizona wage
area. Iron County has a similar
distribution of surveyable employment
to the Northeastern Arizona survey area.
All other criteria are inconclusive.
However, since we are recommending
that Washington County be redefined to
the Northeastern Arizona wage area, and
because we believe Zion National Park
should not be split between the
Northeastern Arizona and the Utah
wage areas, we recommend that the
portion of Iron County occupied by Zion
National Park be part of the
Northeastern Arizona wage area. We
also believe that the Cedar Breaks
National Monument portion of Iron
County should be redefined to the
Northeastern Arizona wage area because
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of the close proximity to the Zion
National Park. This change would
provide equal pay treatment for FWS
employees at the two national parks. We
believe the mixed nature of our
regulatory analysis findings indicates
that the remaining locations in Iron
County remain appropriately defined to
the Utah wage area, with distance being
the deciding factor.
San Juan County, except for the
Canyonlands National Park portion, is
currently defined to the Northeastern
Arizona area of application. The
distance and commuting patterns
criteria for San Juan County favor the
Northeastern Arizona wage area more
than the Utah wage area. All other
criteria are inconclusive. Since the
remaining locations in San Juan County
are already defined to the Northeastern
Arizona wage area, we recommend that
the portion of San Juan County
occupied by Canyonlands National Park
be part of the Northeastern Arizona
wage area. An additional factor to weigh
in the decision to redefine entire San
Juan County the Northeastern Arizona
wage area is that the American
Federation of Government Employees
believes that recent economic
developments in the area indicate some
linkage between San Juan County and
the Northeastern Arizona wage area.
Wayne County is currently defined to
the Utah area of application. Our
analysis of the regulatory criteria
indicates that Wayne County is
appropriately defined as part of the
Utah area of application. The distance
and commuting patterns criteria for
Wayne County favor the Utah wage area
more than the Northeastern Arizona
wage area. All other criteria are
inconclusive. However, since we are
recommending that the Canyonlands
National Park portion of San Juan
County be redefined to the Northeastern
Arizona wage area, and because we
believe Canyonlands National Park
should not be split between the
Northeastern Arizona and the Utah
wage areas, we recommend that the
portion of Wayne County occupied by
Canyonlands National Park be part of
the Northeastern Arizona wage area. We
also believe that the Capitol Reef
National Park portion of Wayne County
should be redefined to the Northeastern
Arizona wage area because of the close
proximity to the Canyonlands National
Park. This change would provide equal
pay treatment for FWS employees at the
two national parks. The remaining
portion of Wayne County would
continue to be part of the Utah wage
area. We believe the mixed nature of our
regulatory analysis findings indicates
that the remaining locations in Wayne
E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM
15AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules
County remain appropriately defined to
the Utah wage area, with distance and
commuting being the deciding factors.
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.
Expected Impact of This Rule
Section 5343 of title 5, U.S. Code,
provides OPM with the authority and
responsibility to define the boundaries
of FWS wage areas. Any changes in
wage area boundaries can have the longterm effect of increasing pay for FWS
employees in affected locations. OPM
expects this rulemaking to impact
approximately 100 FWS employees. Of
the changes this rulemaking
implements, the most significate change
in terms of the number of impacted
employees would be in Washington
County, UT, where approximately 32
FWS employees would be affected.
Considering the small number of
employees affected, OPM does not
anticipate this rulemaking will have a
substantial impact on the local
economies or a large impact in the local
labor markets. However, OPM is
requesting comment in this proposed
rule regarding the impact. OPM will
continue to study the implications of
such impacts in this or future rules as
needed, as this and future changes in
wage area definitions may impact higher
volumes of employees in geographical
areas and could rise to the level of
impacting local labor markets.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Regulatory Review
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).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
OPM certifies that this proposed rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Federalism
OPM has examined this proposed rule
in accordance with Executive Order
13132, Federalism, and have
determined that this proposed rule will
not have any negative impact on the
rights, roles and responsibilities of
State, local, or tribal governments.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:44 Aug 14, 2023
Jkt 259001
Civil Justice Reform
This regulation meets the applicable
standard set forth in Executive Order
12988.
Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995
This proposed 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.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not impose
any 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.
Kayyonne Marston,
Federal Register Liaison.
55425
Dolores
Gunnison (Only includes the
Curecanti National Recreation Area
portion)
La Plata
Montezuma
Montrose
Ouray
San Juan
San Miguel
Utah:
Garfield (Only includes the Bryce
Canyon, Capitol Reef, and
Canyonlands National Parks
portions)
Grand (Only includes the Arches and
Canyonlands National Parks
portions)
Iron (Only includes the Cedar Breaks
National Monument and Zion
National Park portions)
Kane
San Juan
Washington
Wayne (Only includes the Capitol
Reef and Canyonlands National
Parks portions)
Phoenix
Survey Area
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:
■
Arizona:
Gila
Maricopa
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Arizona:
Pinal
Yavapai
Tucson
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5343, 5346; § 532.707
also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552.
Survey Area
2. In appendix C to subpart B, amend
the table by revising the wage area
listings for the States of Arizona and
Utah to read as follows:
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
■
Appendix C to Subpart B of Part 532—
Appropriated Fund Wage and Survey
Areas
Definitions of Wage Areas and Wage
Area Survey Areas
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
UTAH
Survey Area
Northeastern Arizona
Utah:
Box Elder
Davis
Salt Lake
Tooele
Utah
Weber
Survey Area
Arizona:
Apache
Coconino
Navajo
New Mexico:
McKinley
San Juan
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Colorado:
Frm 00005
Arizona:
Cochise
Graham
Greenlee
Santa Cruz
*
*
*
Utah
ARIZONA
PO 00000
Arizona:
Pima
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Utah:
Beaver
Cache
E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM
15AUP1
55426
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Carbon
Daggett
Duchesne
Emery
Garfield (Does not include the Bryce
Canyon, Capitol Reef, and
Canyonlands National Parks
portions)
Grand (Does not include the Arches
and Canyonlands National Parks
portions)
Iron (Does not include the Cedar
Breaks National Monument and
Zion National Park portions)
Juab
Millard
Morgan
Piute
Rich
Sevier
Sanpete
Summit
Uintah
Wasatch
Wayne (Does not include the Capitol
Reef and Canyonlands National
Parks portions)
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2023–17374 Filed 8–14–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325–39–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Part 58
[Doc. No. AMS–DA–22–0064]
RIN 0581–AE20
Plant Records To Include Grade Label
Butterfat Testing
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
This document invites
comments on a proposed amendment to
the plant records requirement for the
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
Dairy Grading and Inspection program.
The proposal would allow butterfat tests
to be performed at an in-house or
approved third party laboratory and add
a requirement for plants to maintain and
make such records available for
examination by a United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
inspector. This amendment would
increase efficiency by conforming to
current industry practice.
DATES: Comments on proposed
amendments must be received by
October 16, 2023 to be assured of
consideration. Comments on the
proposed information collection and the
associated burden must also be received
by October 16, 2023.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:44 Aug 14, 2023
Jkt 259001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Matthew M. Siedschlaw, Grading and
Standardization Division, Dairy
Program, Agricultural Marketing
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Room 2756—South Building, 1400
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20250–0230: Telephone: (202) 937–
4901; Email: Matthew.Siedschlaw@
usda.gov.
The
Secretary of Agriculture is authorized by
the Agricultural Marketing Act (AMA)
of 1946, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1621, et
seq.), to provide voluntary Federal dairy
inspection and grading services to
facilitate the orderly marketing of and
enable consumers to purchase high
quality dairy products. Plants
participating in the voluntary, fee-based
AMS Dairy Grading and Inspection
Program process milk into dairy foods
that enter commerce as retail products,
ingredients for further processing,
purchases for Federal food assistance
programs, and exports to other
countries. Services provided by the
program enhance the marketability and
add value to dairy and foods that
contain dairy. Dairy products
manufactured in facilities complying
with the USDA inspection requirements
are eligible to be graded against official
quality standards and specifications
established by AMS. Dairy products
tested and graded by AMS have
certificates issued describing the
product’s quality and condition.
Historically, when the Grading and
Inspection Program was implemented,
the quality of butter was inconsistent,
and quality-control testing by USDA
was necessary to ensure a consistent
product for the market. Today, plants
more consistently manufacture highquality butter products and maintain the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Agricultural Marketing Service
SUMMARY:
Interested persons are
invited to submit comments on this
proposed rule. Comments may be
submitted through the Federal erulemaking portal at https://
www.regulations.gov and should
reference the document number, date,
and page number of this issue of the
Federal Register. Written comments
may be submitted via mail to USDA/
AMS/Dairy Programs, Stop 0225-Room
2530, 1400 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20250–0225. All
comments submitted in response to this
proposed rule will be included in the
record and will be made available to the
public. Please be advised that the
identity of the individuals or entities
submitting comments will be made
public on the internet at the address
provided above.
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
butterfat standard necessary to be
granted a USDA grade label for butter.
Currently, USDA inspectors or
designated plant personnel perform
tests of butter samples that have been
selected by a USDA inspector for quality
control on randomized batches of
finished product pursuant to 7 CFR
58.338. Testing frequency varies by the
volume of butter processed and whether
a batch is randomly selected. Typically,
USDA conducts monthly or weekly
testing depending on the volume of
butter processed. It is also current
industry practice for plants to perform
routine internal tests on their butter
products to ensure quality and
compliance with composition
standards. Specific requirements for
these tests are outlined in 7 CFR 58.336.
During manufacturing it is normal to
have fluctuations in butterfat
composition at different stages in butter
making, and consequently test results
may not be consistent throughout the
process. Therefore, butter processing
facilities continually monitor butterfat
composition throughout production and
make necessary adjustments to maintain
the 80% butterfat required for butter (7
CFR 58.305). The facility maintains
these monitoring records as part of its
internal quality program and testing
requirements.
Under the current Dairy Grading and
Inspection program, USDA conducts a
single butterfat test at the time of
grading, which provides a limited
perspective on overall butterfat
composition of butter manufactured by
the plant.
The proposed amendments would
exempt plants from butterfat testing
administered by a USDA inspector and
allow in-plant quality control testing to
satisfy butterfat testing requirements.
The proposal would replace testing
performed by a USDA inspector at the
time of grading with a review of a
plant’s testing records. A records review
of a plant’s routine testing rather than a
single-point test would provide a more
accurate picture of whether the plant’s
butter products meet quality standards.
It would also reduce costs to a facility
by eliminating duplicate butterfat
testing by a USDA inspector that it
currently must pay for. As explained in
the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
below, AMS estimates adopting a
records review would save participating
plants $4,560 to $31,450 annually.
Currently, the final butter product
must contain a minimum of 80%
butterfat by weight for it to comply with
the regulations. That would not change
as a result of the proposed amendment.
However, under the proposal, AMS
would annually review each plant’s
E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM
15AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 15, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55423-55426]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17374]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
5 CFR Part 532
[Docket ID: OPM-2023-0018]
RIN 3206-AO61
Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition of the Northeastern Arizona
and Utah 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 to redefine the geographic boundaries of the Northeastern Arizona
and Utah appropriated fund Federal Wage System (FWS) wage areas for
pay-setting purposes. The proposed rule would redefine Washington
County, UT, and several National Parks portions of Garfield, Grand,
Iron, San Juan, and Wayne Counties, UT, to the Northeastern Arizona
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 September 14, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or
Regulatory Information Number (RIN) and title, by the following method:
Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://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 https://www.regulations.gov
as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers
or contact information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ana Paunoiu, by telephone at (202)
606-2858 or by email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OPM is proposing a rule to redefine the
geographic boundaries of the Northeastern Arizona and Utah appropriated
fund FWS wage areas. This proposed rule would redefine Washington
County, UT; and the Bryce Canyon, Capitol Reef, and Canyonlands
National Parks portions of Garfield County, UT; the Arches and
Canyonlands National Parks portions of Grand County, UT; the Cedar
Breaks National Monument and Zion National Park portions of Iron
County, UT; the Canyonlands National Park portion of San Juan County,
UT; and the Capitol Reef and Canyonlands National Parks portions of
Wayne County from the Utah wage area to the Northeastern Arizona 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.
Southern Utah has numerous National Parks, National Monuments, and
National Recreation Areas, and National Park Service FWS employees
often perform overlapping maintenance work at locations in the
Northeastern Arizona wage area. FWS wage area definitions
[[Page 55424]]
have long accommodated placing National Parks in single wage areas
because of close organizational relationships between groups of
employees with different official duty stations in the same park.
Washington County is currently defined to the Utah area of
application. Our analysis of the regulatory criteria indicates that
Washington County would be more appropriately defined as part of the
Northeastern Arizona wage area. When measuring to cities, the distance
criterion favors the Utah wage area. When measuring to host
installations, the distance criterion favors the Northeastern Arizona
wage area. Washington County has a similar distribution of surveyable
employment to the Northeastern Arizona survey area. All other criteria
are inconclusive. Although a standard review of regulatory criteria
shows that some factors are indeterminate, distance to the host
installations and overall population, total private sector employment,
and kinds and sizes of private industrial establishments do favor the
Northeastern Arizona wage area. Based on this analysis, we recommend
that Washington County be redefined to the Northeastern Arizona wage
area.
Garfield County is currently defined to the Utah area of
application. Our analysis of the regulatory criteria indicates that
Garfield County is appropriately defined as part of the Utah area of
application. The distance criterion favors the Utah wage area more than
the Northeastern Arizona wage area. All other criteria are
inconclusive. However, since we are recommending that the Canyonlands
National Park portion of San Juan County be redefined to the
Northeastern Arizona wage area, and because we believe Bryce Canyon and
Canyonlands National Park should not be split between the Northeastern
Arizona and the Utah wage areas, we recommend that the portions of
Garfield County occupied by Canyonlands and Bryce Canyon National Parks
be part of the Northeastern Arizona wage area. We also believe that the
Capitol Reef National Park portion of Garfield County should be
redefined to the Northeastern Arizona wage area because of the close
proximity to the Bryce Canyon and Canyonlands National Parks. This
change would ensure equal pay treatment for FWS employees at Bryce
Canyon, Capitol Reef, and Canyonlands National Parks are paid from the
same wage schedule. The remaining portion of Garfield County would
continue to be part of the Utah wage area. We believe the mixed nature
of our regulatory analysis findings indicates that the remaining
locations in Garfield County remain appropriately defined to the Utah
wage area, with distance being the deciding factor.
Grand County is currently defined to the Utah area of application.
Our analysis of the regulatory criteria indicates that Grand County is
appropriately defined as part of the Utah area of application. When
measuring to cities, the distance criterion favors the Utah wage area.
When measuring to host installations, the distance criterion favors the
Northeastern Arizona wage area. However, since we are recommending that
the Canyonlands National Park portion of San Juan County be redefined
to the Northeastern Arizona wage area, and because we believe
Canyonlands National Park should not be split between the Northeastern
Arizona and the Utah wage areas, we recommend that the portion of Grand
County occupied by Canyonlands National Park be part of the
Northeastern Arizona wage area. We also believe that the Arches
National Park portion of Grand County should be redefined to the
Northeastern Arizona wage area because of the close proximity to the
Canyonlands National Park. This change would provide equal pay
treatment for FWS employees at the two national parks. The remaining
portion of Grand County would continue to be part of the Utah wage
area. We believe the mixed nature of our regulatory analysis findings
indicates that the remaining locations in Grand County remain
appropriately defined to the Utah wage area, with distance being the
deciding factor.
Iron County is currently defined to the Utah area of application.
Our analysis of the regulatory criteria indicates that Iron County is
appropriately defined as part of the Utah area of application. The
distance criterion favors the Utah wage area more than the Northeastern
Arizona wage area. Iron County has a similar distribution of surveyable
employment to the Northeastern Arizona survey area. All other criteria
are inconclusive. However, since we are recommending that Washington
County be redefined to the Northeastern Arizona wage area, and because
we believe Zion National Park should not be split between the
Northeastern Arizona and the Utah wage areas, we recommend that the
portion of Iron County occupied by Zion National Park be part of the
Northeastern Arizona wage area. We also believe that the Cedar Breaks
National Monument portion of Iron County should be redefined to the
Northeastern Arizona wage area because of the close proximity to the
Zion National Park. This change would provide equal pay treatment for
FWS employees at the two national parks. We believe the mixed nature of
our regulatory analysis findings indicates that the remaining locations
in Iron County remain appropriately defined to the Utah wage area, with
distance being the deciding factor.
San Juan County, except for the Canyonlands National Park portion,
is currently defined to the Northeastern Arizona area of application.
The distance and commuting patterns criteria for San Juan County favor
the Northeastern Arizona wage area more than the Utah wage area. All
other criteria are inconclusive. Since the remaining locations in San
Juan County are already defined to the Northeastern Arizona wage area,
we recommend that the portion of San Juan County occupied by
Canyonlands National Park be part of the Northeastern Arizona wage
area. An additional factor to weigh in the decision to redefine entire
San Juan County the Northeastern Arizona wage area is that the American
Federation of Government Employees believes that recent economic
developments in the area indicate some linkage between San Juan County
and the Northeastern Arizona wage area.
Wayne County is currently defined to the Utah area of application.
Our analysis of the regulatory criteria indicates that Wayne County is
appropriately defined as part of the Utah area of application. The
distance and commuting patterns criteria for Wayne County favor the
Utah wage area more than the Northeastern Arizona wage area. All other
criteria are inconclusive. However, since we are recommending that the
Canyonlands National Park portion of San Juan County be redefined to
the Northeastern Arizona wage area, and because we believe Canyonlands
National Park should not be split between the Northeastern Arizona and
the Utah wage areas, we recommend that the portion of Wayne County
occupied by Canyonlands National Park be part of the Northeastern
Arizona wage area. We also believe that the Capitol Reef National Park
portion of Wayne County should be redefined to the Northeastern Arizona
wage area because of the close proximity to the Canyonlands National
Park. This change would provide equal pay treatment for FWS employees
at the two national parks. The remaining portion of Wayne County would
continue to be part of the Utah wage area. We believe the mixed nature
of our regulatory analysis findings indicates that the remaining
locations in Wayne
[[Page 55425]]
County remain appropriately defined to the Utah wage area, with
distance and commuting being the deciding factors.
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.
Expected Impact of This Rule
Section 5343 of title 5, U.S. Code, provides OPM with the authority
and responsibility to define the boundaries of FWS wage areas. Any
changes in wage area boundaries can have the long-term effect of
increasing pay for FWS employees in affected locations. OPM expects
this rulemaking to impact approximately 100 FWS employees. Of the
changes this rulemaking implements, the most significate change in
terms of the number of impacted employees would be in Washington
County, UT, where approximately 32 FWS employees would be affected.
Considering the small number of employees affected, OPM does not
anticipate this rulemaking will have a substantial impact on the local
economies or a large impact in the local labor markets. However, OPM is
requesting comment in this proposed rule regarding the impact. OPM will
continue to study the implications of such impacts in this or future
rules as needed, as this and future changes in wage area definitions
may impact higher volumes of employees in geographical areas and could
rise to the level of impacting local labor markets.
Regulatory Review
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).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
OPM certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Federalism
OPM has examined this proposed rule in accordance with Executive
Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that this proposed 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 proposed 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.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not impose any 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.
Kayyonne Marston,
Federal Register Liaison.
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 Arizona and Utah 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
* * * * *
ARIZONA
Northeastern Arizona
Survey Area
Arizona:
Apache
Coconino
Navajo
New Mexico:
McKinley
San Juan
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Colorado:
Dolores
Gunnison (Only includes the Curecanti National Recreation Area
portion)
La Plata
Montezuma
Montrose
Ouray
San Juan
San Miguel
Utah:
Garfield (Only includes the Bryce Canyon, Capitol Reef, and
Canyonlands National Parks portions)
Grand (Only includes the Arches and Canyonlands National Parks
portions)
Iron (Only includes the Cedar Breaks National Monument and Zion
National Park portions)
Kane
San Juan
Washington
Wayne (Only includes the Capitol Reef and Canyonlands National
Parks portions)
Phoenix
Survey Area
Arizona:
Gila
Maricopa
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Arizona:
Pinal
Yavapai
Tucson
Survey Area
Arizona:
Pima
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Arizona:
Cochise
Graham
Greenlee
Santa Cruz
* * * * *
UTAH
Utah
Survey Area
Utah:
Box Elder
Davis
Salt Lake
Tooele
Utah
Weber
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Utah:
Beaver
Cache
[[Page 55426]]
Carbon
Daggett
Duchesne
Emery
Garfield (Does not include the Bryce Canyon, Capitol Reef, and
Canyonlands National Parks portions)
Grand (Does not include the Arches and Canyonlands National Parks
portions)
Iron (Does not include the Cedar Breaks National Monument and Zion
National Park portions)
Juab
Millard
Morgan
Piute
Rich
Sevier
Sanpete
Summit
Uintah
Wasatch
Wayne (Does not include the Capitol Reef and Canyonlands National
Parks portions)
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-17374 Filed 8-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-39-P
