[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