Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition of Certain Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage Areas
| Published date | 10 June 2019 |
| Record Number | 2019-11940 |
| Section | Proposed rules |
| Court | Personnel Management Office |
Federal Register, Volume 84 Issue 111 (Monday, June 10, 2019)
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 111 (Monday, June 10, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26767-26769]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11940]
========================================================================
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. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 26767]]
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
5 CFR Part 532
RIN 3206-AN85
Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition of Certain Nonappropriated
Fund Federal Wage System Wage Areas
AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule proposes to amend the geographic boundaries of
several nonappropriated fund (NAF) Federal Wage System (FWS) wage
areas. Based on consensus recommendations of the Federal Prevailing
Rate Advisory Committee (FPRAC), the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) proposes to define St. Joseph County, Indiana, as an area of
application county to the Lake, Illinois, NAF FWS wage area; Greene
County, Missouri, as an area of application county to the Leavenworth-
Jackson-Johnson, Kansas, NAF FWS wage area; Lucas County, Ohio, as an
area of application county to the Macomb, Michigan, NAF FWS wage area;
and the municipality of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, as an area of
application county to the Guaynabo-San Juan, PR, NAF FWS wage area.
These changes are necessary because NAF FWS employees are now working
in these locations, but the locations are not currently defined to NAF
wage areas. In addition, OPM is proposing to remove the municipalities
of Ceiba, Isabela, Toa Baja, and Vieques, PR, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands of St. Croix and St. Thomas, from the wage area definition of
the Guaynabo-San Juan NAF wage area because there are no longer NAF FWS
employees working in these locations.
DATES: Send comments on or before July 10, 2019.
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 that would
make changes to several NAF FWS wage area definitions. The Department
of Veterans Affairs notified OPM that the Veterans Canteen Service
(VCS) now employs NAF FWS employees in St. Joseph County, IN; Greene
County, MO; Lucas County, OH; and the municipality of Mayaguez, PR. In
addition, OPM is proposing to remove the municipalities of Ceiba,
Isabela, Toa Baja, and Vieques, PR, and the U.S. Virgin Islands of St.
Croix and St. Thomas, from the wage area definition of the Guaynabo-San
Juan NAF FWS wage area because there are no longer NAF FWS employees
working in these locations.
Under Sec. 532.219 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
each NAF wage area ``shall consist of one or more survey areas, along
with nonsurvey areas, if any, having nonappropriated fund employees.''
St. Joseph, Greene, and Lucas Counties, and the municipality of
Mayaguez, PR, do not meet the regulatory criteria under 5 CFR 532.219
to be established as separate NAF wage areas; however, nonsurvey
counties may be combined with a survey area to form a wage area.
Section 532.219 lists the regulatory criteria that OPM considers when
defining FWS wage area boundaries. This regulation allows consideration
of the following criteria: Proximity of largest facilities activity in
each county, transportation facilities and commuting patterns, and
similarities of the counties in overall population, private employment
in major industry categories, and kinds and sizes of private industrial
establishments.
OPM recently completed reviews of the definitions of St. Joseph,
Greene, and Lucas Counties, and the municipality of Mayaguez, and 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 apply on the first day of the first applicable pay period
beginning on or after 30 days following publication of the final
regulations.
Lake, IL, NAF FWS Wage Area
St. Joseph County, IN, would be defined as an area of application
to the Lake, IL, NAF FWS wage area. The proximity criterion favors the
Lake wage area. The transportation facilities and commuting patterns
criterion does not favor one wage area more than another. The overall
population, employment sizes, and kinds and sizes of private industrial
establishments criterion does not favor one wage area more than
another. While a standard review of regulatory criteria shows mixed
results, the proximity criterion solidly favors the Lake wage area.
With the definition of St. Joseph County to the Lake NAF wage area,
the Lake wage area would consist of 1 survey county (Lake County, IL)
and 10 area of application counties (Cook, Rock Island, and Vermilion
Counties, IL; Johnson County, IA; St. Joseph County, IN; Dickinson and
Marquette Counties, MI; and Brown, Dane, and Milwaukee Counties, WI).
Leavenworth-Jackson-Johnson, KS, NAF FWS Wage Area
Greene County, MO, would be defined as an area of application
county to the Leavenworth-Jackson-Johnson, KS, NAF FWS wage area.
Although the proximity criterion does not favor one wage area more than
another, the closest survey area to Greene County is the Leavenworth-
Jackson-Johnson wage area. The transportation facilities and commuting
patterns criterion does not favor one wage area more than another. The
overall population, employment sizes, and kinds and sizes of private
industrial establishments criterion does not favor one wage area more
than another. Based on this analysis, we recommend that Greene County
be defined to the Leavenworth-Jackson-Johnson wage area.
[[Page 26768]]
With the definition of Greene County to the Leavenworth-Jackson-
Johnson NAF wage area, the Leavenworth-Jackson-Johnson wage area would
consist of three survey counties (Leavenworth County, KS; and Jackson
and Johnson Counties, MO) and five area of application counties
(Shawnee County, KS; and Boone, Camden, Cass, and Greene Counties, MO).
Macomb, MI, NAF FWS Wage Area
Lucas County, OH, would be defined as an area of application county
to the Macomb, MI, NAF FWS wage area. The proximity criterion favors
the Macomb wage area. The transportation facilities and commuting
patterns criterion does not favor one wage area more than another. The
overall population, employment sizes, and kinds and sizes of private
industrial establishments criterion does not favor one wage area more
than another. While a standard review of regulatory criteria shows
mixed results, the proximity criterion solidly favors the Macomb wage
area.
With the definition of Lucas County to the Macomb NAF wage area,
the Macomb wage area would consist of 1 survey county (Macomb County,
MI) and 14 area of application counties (Alpena, Calhoun, Crawford,
Grand Traverse, Huron, Iosco, Kent, Leelanau, Ottawa, Saginaw,
Washtenaw, and Wayne, MI; and Lucas and Ottawa Counties, OH).
Guaynabo-San Juan, PR, NAF FWS Wage Area
The municipality of Mayaguez, PR, would be defined as an area of
application county to the Guaynabo-San Juan, PR, NAF FWS wage area. The
Guaynabo-San Juan wage area is the only NAF wage area in Puerto Rico.
VCS #373 in the Mayaguez Outpatient Clinic is located approximately 92
miles from Fort Buchanan, the wage area's host activity.
The municipalities of Ceiba, Isabela, Toa Baja, and Vieques, PR,
and the U.S. Virgin Islands of St. Croix and St. Thomas would be
removed from the area of application of the Guaynabo-San Juan wage
area. No NAF FWS employment has been reported in the municipalities of
Ceiba, Isabela, Toa Baja, and Vieques since 2009 nor in the U.S. Virgin
Islands of St. Croix and St. Thomas since the closure of Army and Air
Force Exchange Service (AAFES) stores in 2012 and 2015, respectively.
NAF employers have no plans to establish activities in these locations
in the future. Under 5 U.S.C. 5343(a)(1)(B)(i), NAF wage areas ``shall
not extend beyond the immediate locality in which the particular
prevailing rate employees are employed.'' Therefore, the municipalities
of Ceiba, Isabela, Toa Baja, and Vieques and the U.S. Virgin Islands of
St. Croix and St. Thomas should not be defined as part of an NAF wage
area.
With the definition of the municipality of Mayaguez to the
Guaynabo-San Juan NAF wage area and the removal of the municipalities
of Ceiba, Isabela, Toa Baja, and Vieques and the U.S. Virgin Islands of
St. Croix and St. Thomas from the Guaynabo-San Juan NAF wage area, the
Guaynabo-San Juan wage area would consist of two survey municipalities
(Guaynabo and San Juan) and five area of application municipalities
(Aguadilla, Bayamon, Mayaguez, Ponce, and Salinas).
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 proposed rule is not expected to be subject to the
requirements of E.O. 13771 because this proposed 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 because they will
affect only Federal agencies and employees.
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. Appendix D to Subpart B is amended by revising the wage area listing
for the Lake, IL; Leavenworth-Jackson-Johnson, KS; Macomb, MI; and
Guaynabo-San Juan, PR, wage areas to read as follows:
Appendix D to Subpart B of Part 532--Nonappropriated Fund Wage and
Survey Areas
* * * * *
ILLINOIS
Lake
Survey Area
Illinois:
Lake
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Illinois:
Cook
Rock Island
Vermilion
Indiana:
St. Joseph
Iowa:
Johnson
Michigan:
Dickinson
Marquette
Wisconsin:
[[Page 26769]]
Brown
Dane
Milwaukee
* * * * *
KANSAS
Leavenworth-Jackson-Johnson
Survey Area
Kansas:
Leavenworth
Missouri:
Jackson
Johnson
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Kansas:
Shawnee
Missouri:
Boone
Camden
Cass
Greene
* * * * *
MICHIGAN
Macomb
Survey Area
Michigan:
Macomb
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Michigan:
Alpena
Calhoun
Crawford
Grand Traverse
Huron
Iosco
Kent
Leelanau
Ottawa
Saginaw
Washtenaw
Wayne
Ohio:
Lucas
Ottawa
* * * * *
PUERTO RICO
Guaynabo-San Juan
Survey Area
Puerto Rico:
Guaynabo
San Juan
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Puerto Rico:
Aguadilla
Bayamon
Mayaguez
Ponce
Salinas
* * * * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-11940 Filed 6-7-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-39-P
