Proposed Rule2023-17374
Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition of the Northeastern Arizona and Utah Appropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage Areas
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 15, 2023
Issuing agencies
Personnel Management Office
Abstract
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).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 156 (Tuesday, August 15, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[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 [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[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:
<bullet> Federal Rulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>
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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0878697125646d697e6d25786764616b7148677865266f677e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a2d2c3db8fcec7c3d4c78fd2cdcecbc1dbe2cdd2cf8cc5cdd4">[email protected]</span></a>.
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
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on August 15, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.