[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