[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 226 (Thursday, November 21, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59173-59178]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-29773]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 226 / Thursday, November 21, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 59173]]
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
5 CFR Part 591
RIN 3206-AH56
Cost-of-Living Allowances (Nonforeign Areas); Partnership Pilot
Project
AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing
regulations to establish a pilot project in which OPM will form
partnerships with agencies and employees in administering the
nonforeign area cost-of-living allowance (COLA) program. Under the
project, COLA partnership committees will be established in Alaska,
Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and possibly in
the Washington, DC, area, to assist OPM in designing, conducting, and
reviewing the results of COLA surveys as well as in reviewing and
improving the COLA program. Involvement in the committees should help
OPM, affected agencies, and their employees better understand issues
relating to the compensation of Federal employees in these areas. The
regulations also make a technical amendment to clarify the term
``agency'' as it applies to the COLA program.
EFFECTIVE DATE: These regulations become effective on November 21,
1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald L. Paquin, (202) 606-2838.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 5941 of title 5, United States
Code, and Executive Order 10000, as amended, certain Federal employees
in nonforeign areas outside the 48 contiguous States are eligible for
cost-of-living allowances when local living costs are substantially
higher than those in the Washington, DC, area. Nonforeign area COLA's
are paid in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and
Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
OPM published proposed rules on August 12, 1996 (61 FR 41746), to
initiate a COLA Partnership Pilot Project that would provide for
greater agency and employee involvement in the COLA program through the
use of COLA partnership committees composed of representatives of OPM,
other agencies, and labor organizations in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico,
Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. OPM proposed that committees advise
and assist OPM in planning COLA surveys, observe data collection during
the surveys advise and assist OPM in the review of survey data, advise
OPM on the COLA program and other compensation issues relating to the
allowance areas, and assist OPM in dissemination of information to
affected employees about the COLA surveys and the COLA program. In
addition, OPM proposed a technical amendment to define ``agency'' under
the definitions section of 5 CFR part 591, subpart B, and to remove a
corresponding reference in Sec. 591.203 to agencies covered by the
subpart.
Earlier this year, OPM briefed agency and employee representatives
in the Washington, DC, area and Anchorage, Honolulu, San Juan, Guam,
and the U.S. Virgin Islands on the proposed pilot project. During and
subsequent to these briefings, OPM received several comments on the
project, and we took these into consideration in drafting the proposed
regulations. In response to the publication of the proposed
regulations, we received additional comments. Most of the comments OPM
received endorsed the major elements of the proposed pilot project
while making suggestions for change or identifying issues that need
clarification. Four commenters objected to the pilot project overall.
In the discussion that follows, we address all comments received.
Agency and Employee Representation on Partnership Committees
Two commenters suggested that one of the members of the committee
represent the Federal Executives Association (FEA) or Federal Executive
Board (FEB) in each area that has an FEA or FEB. Two other commenters
made similar suggestions concerning the COLA Defense Committees, and a
third commenter believed OPM should include a representative from the
Federal Managers Association (FMA). Other commenters expressed concerns
that their agency or union would not be represented on the committees.
One commenter suggested that all Federal labor unions be allowed to
have a representative on the COLA partnership committees. These
comments echoed several that OPM heard earlier this year when it
briefed agency and employee representatives.
OPM tried to find a balance between effective representation and
effective committee operation. The pilot project regulations provide
for committees with five agency representatives, five employee
representatives, and one or more OPM representatives, plus additional
members as recommended by the committee and approved by OPM. These are
large committees, and we are concerned that if they become much larger
they will not function effectively. Therefore, OPM is not expanding the
size of the basic committee.
To accommodate the FEA/FEB suggestion without expanding the
committee, we modified the regulations so that FEA/FEBs will be offered
the agency rotational position in areas where there is an FEA or FEB.
In areas where there is no FEA or FEB or if the FEA or FEB declines,we
will use the process originally proposed--i.e., sampling with
probability proportional to the size of the agency.
Although OPM wants to prevent the committees from becoming so large
that they will be unwieldy, OPM notes that the regulations allow each
partnership committee to recommend additional members to OPM, including
persons representing the FMA, COLA Defense Committees, and other
organizations. OPM will try to accommodate such requests if it appears
practical to do so.
In addition, OPM will make the meetings open to the public and
establish systems of communication (e.g., via mail, telephone,
facsimile, computer bulletin boards, and/or Internet) so that agencies
and employee groups can attend these meetings, hear the discussions,
and make their views known. We will also use the same systems of
communication so that those not directly on the committee or in
attendance at the meetings can have access to the information provided
and the issues under discussion.
[[Page 59174]]
One commenter suggested that OPM choose all agency representatives
at random and rotate the committee positions among agencies on a 6-
month basis. The commenter noted that this could be cumbersome, since
new members would be joining the committee every 6 months. OPM agrees
that this procedure would be combersome and that it would not ensure
that the views and interests of the major Federal employers in each
area are represented on the committee. Therefore, OPM is not adopting
this approach.
Another commenter recommended that OPM not use OPM staff from
outside the allowance area. The commenter believed OPM's own
representatives within the allowance areas could serve on the committee
or as data collectors if their work and activities were reviewed
properly. Under 5 CFR part 2635, Federal employees must avoid engaging
in activities where there is the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Thus, we believe it is preferable to use OPM staff from outside the
allowance area for the pilot project.
Identifying Largest Federal Unions and Employers by Area
Two commenters stated that OPM did not have correct information
regarding the number of employees in bargaining units in each area. OPM
received similar comments earlier when it briefed agency and employee
representatives on the proposal. For these briefings, OPM used
materials that showed the number of employees by bargaining unit as
reported in the Central Personnel Data File (CPDF)--a census of
Government workers reported to OPM by Federal agencies. The CPDF is the
best source of Governmentwide information on the number of employees in
bargaining units; however, OPM will attempt to supplement CPDF data
with other information provided by agencies and/or unions if the counts
by agency/union are such that relatively small changes could make a
difference in the composition of a committee.
Another commenter believed OPM had classified the Puerto Rico
Federal Executives Association as an employee organization because, in
its briefing materials, OPM had listed ``FEA'' among the major labor
organizations in Puerto Rico. The ``FEA'' listed in the briefing
materials refers to the Federal Educators Association, a major labor
organization in Puerto Rico. OPM recognizes that Federal Executives
Associations are not labor organizations, although we also agree with
the commenter that Federal Executives Associations are concerned with
the interests of both the agencies and the employees.
A third commenter expressed concern that the civilian agencies
would be under-represented on the partnership committees because the
military departments (e.g., Army, Navy, and Air Force) would have three
of the five seats in most areas. Although it was suggested during our
earlier briefings that OPM consider the military departments as
separate agencies for the purpose of committee membership, the proposed
and final regulations use the term ``Executive agency,'' as defined in
5 U.S.C. 105. Under section 105, the Department of Defense (DOD) is
defined as an Executive agency and is considered to be a single agency.
Therefore, DOD will have no more than one agency representative on any
COLA partnership committee.
Release of Employee Representatives
Two commenters objected to and one commenter expressed serious
concerns about the way employee representatives were to be selected for
the committees. Under the proposed regulations, agencies would select
agency committee representatives, but employee organizations would
nominate representatives and OPM would select committee representatives
from among the nominations in consultation with the employing agencies.
The commenters noted that it is very important for employees to have as
their representatives persons of their own choosing. OPM agrees, but it
cannot require agencies to release specific employees for committee
duties if the employees' work at their jobs is critical to the mission
of the agency. One commenter suggested that OPM adopt language similar
to that used in section 532.229(b)(6) of title 5, Code of Federal
Regulations, which addresses the release of employee representatives
for work on Federal Wage System surveys. These regulations state in
part that ``[e]mployers shall cooperate and release appointed employees
for committee proceedings unless the employers can demonstrate that
exceptional circumstances directly related to the accomplishment of the
work units' missions require their presence on their regular jobs.''
OPM agrees that such a provision is appropriate and has included
parallel language in the final pilot project regulations.
Another commenter stated that OPM failed to recognize Federal union
representatives as full-time Federal employees while these employees
are in a leave without pay status from their Federal jobs. The
commenter said that by creating its own criteria, OPM was prohibiting
certain Federal union representatives from being on the COLA
partnership committees.
The regulatory requirement that all members of the COLA partnership
committees be Federal employees stems from the requirements of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Public Law 92-463) and Executive
Order 12838. FACA applies to committees established by the Federal
Government that have as their membership one or more persons who are
not full-time Federal employees. Executive Order 12838 prohibits
agencies from establishing committees subject to FACA unless required
by law or ``compelled by considerations of national security, health or
safety, or similar national interests.'' Therefore, OPM cannot
establish COLA partnership committees if they would be subject to FACA.
Since FACA does not apply to committees composed solely of full-time
Federal employees, OPM's final regulations require that all COLA
partnership committee members be full-time Federal employees. A person
who is on leave without pay is not considered a full-time Government
employee during that period of time for the purpose of applying FACA
and will not be able to serve on a COLA partnership committee while in
a nonpay status.
U.S. Postal Service and Its Employee Representatives
In its comments, the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) stated that its
collective bargaining agreements did not allow it to pay USPS union
members for work performed on the partnership committees. USPS said,
however, that it could grant union representatives leave without pay
for committee work. As discussed above, COLA partnership committee
members must be full-time Federal employees in the pay of the Federal
Government during the time they are performing committee work.
Therefore, unless USPS agrees to pay its union representatives for
partnership committee work, the union representatives will not be
eligible to serve on the committees because (as explained above) they
would not be full-time Federal employees during such periods of work
for the purpose of applying FACA. Since it would not be equitable to
have USPS represented on the committee but not its employees, OPM has
modified its regulations to make USPS participation in the pilot
project conditional upon the involvement of both USPS and its unions.
[[Page 59175]]
Experience and Training
Several commenters noted the importance of having committee
representatives and data collection observers with technical experience
concerning COLA issues, and two commenters suggested that OPM select
committee members and observers based on the nominees' qualifications.
Although technical experience certainly could be an asset, we believe
committee members and observers with broad ranges of experience can
provide valuable insights and advice concerning COLA's, compensation,
and recruitment and retention issues. Also, as noted above, we believe
agencies and employees should be represented by persons of their own
choosing, rather than by others selected through some other means.
Therefore, we do not plan to adopt these suggestions.
Nevertheless, OPM agrees that training, experience, and support are
important for effective committee participation, and we will work with
the committees to provide the resources and information necessary. We
note, however, that while some aspects of the COLA methodology are
complex, the fundamental principles involved in survey design and
execution (e.g., item and outlet selection and data collection) are
based on common consumer behavior--experiences that we all have.
Therefore, we believe the committee members and observers will be able
to make valuable contributions toward improving the surveys while they
acquire more technical expertise and background in the COLA program.
One commenter stated that unless all participants in the COLA
partnership process had jointly received employee involvement training,
the partnership committees could become dysfunctional. The commenter
recommended that such training be provided in advance of the first
committee meetings. OPM believes many of the representatives who will
serve on the COLA partnership committees will have had employee
involvement training, and timing and budget considerations make it
difficult to provide such training in advance of the initial meetings.
If the lack of employee involvement training threatens to undermine the
pilot project, OPM will revisit this issue and determine how such
training might be provided.
Data Collection Observers
One commenter questioned whether the proposed role of the data
collection observer was an efficient use of manpower resources. The
commenter suggested expanding the role to include actual data
collection or dropping the role entirely. OPM believes the role of the
data collection observer is important because it will provide integrity
to the data collection effort. This integrity cannot be achieved if
either OPM or the COLA recipients were to collect the data alone.
Furthermore, we do not expect the observer to stand by silently and
offer no comments or suggestions during the surveys. We expect that
observers will provide valuable insights both during and after the data
collection process and that these insights will be very useful as the
COLA partnership committees work to improve surveys from one year to
the next.
COLA Committee in the DC Area
Two commenters suggested that OPM involve agency and employee
representatives from the Washington, DC, area in the pilot project. OPM
agrees that the integrity of the program could benefit from such
involvement in the DC area survey, and we have modified the regulations
to allow this. OPM will explore the issue further with agency and
employee representatives in the DC area and will establish a DC area
committee if it appears practical to do so.
Subcommittees
One commenter stated that subcommittees in the allowance areas in
Alaska should be required by regulation rather than simply permitted at
the discretion of OPM and the COLA partnership committees. We agree
that subcommittees will be valuable assets to the partnership
committees and to OPM in the conduct of the survey. Therefore, we
certainly will encourage the committees to establish a subcommittee in
each of the COLA survey areas. Although OPM could make these
subcommittees mandatory, we did not adopt this change because we do not
think it will be necessary. We also note that under the regulations OPM
can establish additional partnership committees if necessary.
During our briefings of agency and employee representatives, it was
suggested that OPM establish two types of COLA committees--a COLA
policy committee and a COLA survey subcommittee. OPM agrees that it may
well be valuable to have subcommittees that focus on specific issues,
processes, and/or geographic interests, and the regulations allow for
this at the recommendation of the COLA partnership committees as
approved by OPM. We anticipate that subcommittees will be established
for various purposes during the pilot project.
Review of Pilot Project
One commenter suggested that the pilot project be reviewed
periodically to determine whether it represents an efficient use of
resources, and another commenter asked how the effectiveness of the
pilot project would be measured. OPM agrees that the effectiveness of
the pilot project should be evaluated during and at the end of project.
Certainly, if it becomes clear that the pilot project is not effective,
OPM will discontinue it. However, based on the majority of the comments
we have received to date, we believe this is an unlikely prospect.
Expenses Related to Committee Activities
One commenter noted that the commentary that preceded the proposed
regulations suggested that agency committee representatives would have
their travel costs paid by the Government, but that employee
representatives would not. That is not what we intended. To clarify
this, we have revised the regulations to state clearly that employees
serving as committee or subcommittee members are considered to be on
official assignment to an interagency function. Therefore, such
employees, without regard to whether they are agency or employee
representatives, will be entitled to reimbursement for travel expenses
related to COLA partnership committee work. However, as we noted in the
commentary on the proposed rule, we expect such expenses to be minimal
because all non-OPM committee and subcommittee members will be
residents of the immediate area, and non-local travel will therefore be
unnecessary in most cases.
Another commenter believed OPM should provide the budgetary
resources necessary for COLA partnership and not rely on agency
support. In developing this pilot project, OPM tried to minimize its
budget impact. We also consulted with the major Federal employers in
the allowance areas and discussed the potential impact with them.
Although they recognized that the pilot project would be a new resource
requirement, most of the agencies found merit in the proposal and
agreed to support the project in terms of the staff time and related
expenses associated with the program.
Committee Charters
One commenter asked whether COLA partnership committees would be
chartered. Although charters are not required for these committees, OPM
believes that charters would be beneficial and plans to encourage
[[Page 59176]]
committees to develop charters. These charters could provide additional
detail on and clarify committee objectives and scope, membership
requirements, agency support, reports, OPM and other agency support,
etc.
Issues Relating to COLA Surveys
One commenter believed prices in Puerto Rico were higher in the
fall than in the January through March time frame during which OPM will
conduct the COLA surveys. The commenter recommended changing the timing
of the survey or using a factor to adjust for any price differences. On
May 11, 1995, OPM published in the Federal Register (60 FR 25150) for
comment a notice that said it planned to change the timing of the
surveys of Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands to
the first quarter of the calendar year. OPM received no comments
opposing that change. Nevertheless, timing of the COLA surveys is one
of the issues that COLA partnership committees could consider as they
advise OPM on the COLA program.
One commenter suggested that OPM take into consideration other
measures of relative living costs, such as those reported by certain
private sector companies, and another commenter suggested that OPM
consider varying COLA rates by income level. OPM believes these are
valuable suggestions and are certainly topics that the COLA partnership
committees could consider.
Opposition to Proposed Pilot Project
Four commenters objected to the proposed pilot project overall.
Their comments and our analyses and responses are noted below.
Procedure for selecting employee representatives: As noted earlier,
two commenters objected to the procedure for selecting employee
representatives for the committees. In response to these concerns, OPM
modified the regulations to ensure that employee organizations are
represented by persons of their own choosing, except when the affected
work unit's mission requires the employee's presence on his or her
regular job.
One commenter criticized the proposal because it involved agencies
in a technical process that could affect their budgets. The commenter
said that the agencies' right to select their representatives and
consult with OPM concerning the selection of employee representatives
gives the agencies the ability to improperly influence the survey
results. The COLA program was established to provide a compensation
tool that helps agencies recruit and retain a well-qualified work
force. Therefore, we believe agencies must be involved in any effort to
improve the administration of the COLA program. Furthermore, as
discussed earlier, OPM has modified its regulations to address issues
relating to the selection of employee representatives. We believe this
change will strengthen the composition of the committee and guarantee
the free exchange of ideas and issues from all perspectives.
Another commenter believed the process of selecting only the
largest unions in terms of the number of COLA recipients they represent
would promote conflict and competition among labor organizations. OPM's
experience working with labor organizations under the Federal Wage
System for over 20 years has shown that Federal labor organizations
work cooperatively in these situations. Therefore, we do not believe
the COLA partnership process will be jeopardized by union conflict and
competition.
Nature of the partnership committees: Two commenters believed the
committees should not be called ``partnerships'' because the committees
would be advisory in nature. One commenter was concerned that the
committees might be expected to ``rubber stamp'' OPM's unilateral
actions, and that if this were to happen, participating organizations
might be ``tainted.'' Another commenter believed committee members
would be ``turned off'' if they did not have the ability to influence
decisions that affect them.
No two partnerships look exactly alike, and OPM believes that
establishment of these committees will result in a more collaborative
relationship among affected agencies and employees with respect to this
complex and often contentious program. By statute and Executive order,
however, OPM has the final authority for conducting COLA surveys and
administering the COLA program. If a consensus cannot be reached on an
issue or if the views of one COLA committee differ from those of
another on the same issue, OPM must still conduct surveys and set COLA
rates. Nevertheless, this does not mean that we cannot use partnership
to improve the COLA program.
OPM plans to accommodate suggestions whenever practical and
consistent with the laws and regulations that govern the COLA program.
We certainly do not expect the committees to ``rubber stamp'' our
proposals. Instead, we plan to listen carefully to and seriously
consider all of the information and advice that will be provided. We
know there is much we can learn that will help us improve the surveys
and the way we administer the program, and we look forward to having
frank and open discussions with the other committee members. It is our
hope that we can reach a consensus on the vast majority of issues that
will face us. As several commenters said, the partnership process will
not work unless there is a sincere commitment from all parties,
including OPM, to share ideas, listen to others, learn from what is
said, and find areas of agreement. OPM is committed to this process.
Agency impact: Another commenter objected to the proposal on the
basis that it seemed to set up a new bureaucracy to deal with COLA
issues and that this was not an efficient use of resources in a time of
downsizing. The commenter appeared to suggest that OPM consider using a
different approach to compensation, such as the locality pay provisions
of the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 (Public law 101-
509). OPM recognizes that the pilot project will require staff time of
a limited number of agencies and employee representatives in each area
and that this comes at a time when many agencies have had staff-level
reductions. Therefore, in developing the pilot project, OPM strived to
limit the number and size of the committees while trying to ensure that
there is adequate representation and a sufficient number of people to
do the work. We do not believe we are creating a bureaucracy, but
rather furthering National Performance Review objectives concerning
management and employee partnership.
Memorandum of understanding and COLA partnership: Two commenters
objected to the proposal because of perceived conflicts between COLA
partnership work and the work to be performed under a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) between the Government and the plaintiffs in Alaniz
v. Office of Personnel Management and Karamatsu v. United States. The
commenter felt that the pilot project would undermine the MOU and
dilute the parties' resources to work on it. One commenter suggested
that the pilot project be postponed and reconsidered at the end of the
``Safe Harbor'' process envisioned by the MOU. The same commenter also
suggested that OPM delete or amend several of the functions of COLA
partnership committees, as described in Sec. 591.212(d) of the proposed
regulations. The other commenter believed the pilot project duplicated
and conflicted with the Safe Harbor process.
While we agree that both the MOU and the COLA partnership ;pilot
project are major undertakings, we do not
[[Page 59177]]
believe they will deplete the resources necessary to participate
effectively in both processes. Furthermore, we see the MOU and pilot
project as two distinctly different processes that, while having
similar overall goals, will not conflict with one another. The MOU is
designed to engage the parties in Alaniz and Karamatsu in a
collaborative process through which the parties will attempt to reach
agreement on issues that have long been contested in the COLA program
and to help OPM in connection with its report to Congress, which is
required by Public Law 102-141, as amended. The COLA pilot project is
designed to use partnerships of agency and employee representatives to
assist OPM in designing, conducting, and reviewing results of annual
COLA surveys; to improve the COLA program and OPM's administration of
the program; and to explore issues relating to the compensation of
Federal employees in the allowance areas. As with the MOU, the
information and experience that OPM will gain through the pilot project
will also be helpful in preparing our report to Congress. OPM believes
the MOU and COLA partnership will complement each other as they provide
information on different aspects of the COLA program. This information
will be very beneficial to Congress as it reviews and considers the
COLA program. Therefore, we believe it would be undesirable to postpone
the pilot project until the MOU process is complete or to modify the
functions of the COLA partnership committees.
Training, expertise, and resources: One of the commenters also
believed the partnership committees would have insufficient resources,
experience, and training to participate effectively. The commenter felt
that the COLA Defense Committees would be able to participate more
effectively and criticized OPM for not explicitly including
representatives from the COLA Defense Committees on the COLA
partnership committees.
As discussed above, the regulations allow for the COLA partnership
committees to expand their membership in consultation with OPM, and OPM
intends to be open to such requests. Therefore, if any COLA partnership
committee believes it would be appropriate to include representatives
from a COLA Defense Committee, OPM will try to support such a request,
provided that the size of the committee does not threaten its
effectiveness.
As also discussed above, OPM agrees that training, experience, and
support are important, and we plan to provide the resources and
information necessary for effective involvement. Although there may be
individuals in each area who have more experience with COLA issues, we
believe there is much to be gained from the involvement of a wide range
of views and interests, and we also believe effective experience
concerning COLA issues can be gained quickly through participation in
the COLA partnership pilot project.
Waiver of 30-Day Delay in Effective Date
Pursuant to section 553(d)(3) of title 5, United States Code, OPM
finds that good cause exists to make these regulations effective in
less than 30 days. The regulations are being made effective immediately
in order to provide sufficient time for the COLA partnership committees
to organize and prepare for the surveys to be conducted during the
first quarter of calendar year 1997.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities because it will affect
only Federal agencies and employees.
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 591
Government employees, Travel and transportation expenses, Wages.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
James B. King,
Director.
Accordingly, OPM amends 5 CFR part 591 as follows:
PART 591--ALLOWANCES AND DIFFERENTIALS
Subpart B--Cost-of-Living Allowance and Post Differential--
Nonforeign Areas
1. The authority citation for subpart B of part 591 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5941; E.O. 10000, 3 CFR, 1943-1948 Comp., p.
792; E.O. 12510, 3 CFR, 1985 Comp., p. 338.
2. Section 591.201 is amended by adding a definition of ``agency''
in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 591.201 Definitions.
* * * * *
Agency means an Executive agency as defined in section 105 of title
5, United States Code, but does not include Government-controlled
corporations. For the purposes of Sec. 591.212, ``agency'' also
includes the United States Postal Service.
* * * * *
3. Section 591.203 is amended by revising the section heading and
the introductory text to paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 591.203 Employees covered.
(a) This subpart applies to civilian employees whose rates of basic
pay are fixed by statute and who are employed by an agency. The
following pay plans are covered by this subpart:
* * * * *
4. Section 591.212 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 591.212 COLA Partnership Pilot Project.
(a) Purpose and duration of COLA Partnership Pilot Project. The
COLA Partnership Pilot Project is designed to assess the efficacy of a
plan to increase agency and employee involvement in the allowance
program. The pilot project shall be in effect for a period not to
exceed 2 years from November 21, 1996.
(b) Purpose and establishment of committees. To assist OPM in
reviewing and improving the allowance program and to help OPM, affected
agencies, and their employees better understand issues relating to the
compensation of Federal employees in the allowance areas, OPM may
establish one or more COLA partnership committees in the allowance
areas and in the Washington, DC, area. Committees established under
this section function at the discretion of OPM and may be
disestablished at any time. A committee may represent agencies and
employees in more than one allowance area and will meet from time to
time as requested by OPM.
(c) Composition of committees. Each committee shall be composed of
one or more representatives of Federal agencies and labor
organizations. All committee members shall be current full-time Federal
employees performing official business of the Federal Government and
will serve at their agencies' and OPM's discretion. All non-OPM
committee members shall be from the area represented by the committee.
The representatives shall be selected as follows:
(1) Agency representatives. (i) OPM will identify the largest
agencies (in terms of allowance recipients) in the area represented by
the committee. For the Washington, DC, area committee, if established,
OPM will identify the largest agencies in terms of allowance recipients
in all of the allowance areas. OPM will invite up to four agencies each
to designate a representative to serve on the committee. In areas where
a Federal Executive Association (FEA) or Federal Executive Board (FEB)
is located, OPM will invite the FEA or FEB to nominate an FEA or FEB
member employed by an agency not otherwise represented on the
committee, and OPM will select the nominee in consultation with the
nominee's employing agency.
[[Page 59178]]
In areas where there is no FEA or FEB, or where an FEA or EB declines
to participate, OPM will invite one additional agency selected from
among the other agencies in each committee area to designate a
representative to serve on the committee on a 1-year rotational basis.
To select this agency, OPM will use sampling with probability
proportional to the size of the agency. If mutually agreeable among the
agencies, they may select representatives using other means and may
rotate committee positions among agencies on other than a 1-year
rotational basis.
(ii) OPM will appoint one or more of its employees to serve on each
COLA partnership committee.
(2) Employee representatives. OPM will identify the largest labor
organizations (in terms of allowance recipients) in the area
represented by the committee. For the Washington, DC, area committee,
if established, OPM will identify the largest labor organizations in
terms of allowance recipients in all of the allowance areas. OPM will
invite up to four labor organizations each to nominate a representative
to serve on the committee. OPM will further invite one additional labor
organization selected from among the other labor organizations in each
committee area to nominate a representative to serve on the committee
on a 1-year rotational basis. To select this labor organization, OPM
will use sampling with probability proportional to the size of the
labor organization. If mutually agreeable among the labor
organizations, they may nominate representatives using other means and
may rotate committee positions among labor organizations on other than
a 1-year rotational basis. OPM will select committee members from among
the nominees in consulation with the nominees' employing agencies.
(3) Postal Service. No committee shall have a representative from
the United States Postal Service (USPS) unless USPS labor organizations
have the opportunity to participate as provided by paragraph (g) of
this section. No committee shall have more than one employee
representative from USPS labor organizations.
(4) Other members. In consultation with the committee members, OPM
may invite other current full-time Federal employees to serve on the
committees. OPM will coordinate such invitations with the employing
agencies.
(d) Functions of committees. COLA partnership committees may--
(1) Advise and assist OPM in planning living-cost surveys;
(2) Provide or arrange for observers for data collection during
living-cost surveys;
(3) Advise and assist OPM in the review of survey data;
(4) Advise OPM on its administration of the COLA program, including
survey methodology and other issues relating to the compensation of
Federal employees in the allowance areas; and
(5) Assist OPM in the dissemination of information to affected
employees about the living-cost surveys and the COLA program.
(e) Data collection observers. In consultation with the committees,
OPM will determine the number of observers required to accompany OPM
officials during the collection of living-cost data. All observers
shall be from the local area and shall be full-time Federal employees
performing official business of the Federal Government. The committees
will nominate observers, and OPM will select from among these
nominations in consultation with the nominees' employing agencies.
(f) Subcommittees. In consultation with the committees, OPM may
establish one or more subcommittees to advise the committee on issues
relating to the allowance areas and survey areas within the geographic
area represented by the committee. If such subcommittees are
established, they shall be composed of up to two agency representatives
and two employee representatives from the local area, as well as one or
more OPM representatives. OPM may, in consultation with the committee
and subcommittee, invite additional Federal employees to serve on the
subcommittee. Subcommittee agency and employee representatives shall be
nominated and appointed in the same manner as committee members. All
subcommittee members shall be current full-time Federal employees
performing official business of the Federal Government.
(g) Agency release of employees for committee/subcommittee
activities. Employers shall cooperate and release nominated employees
for committee/subcommittee proceedings and activities unless the
employers can demonstrate that exceptional circumstances directly
related to the accomplishment of the work units' missions require their
presence on their regular jobs. Employees serving as committee or
subcommittee members are considered to be on official assignment to an
interagency function, rather than on leave.
[FR Doc. 96-29773 Filed 11-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M
