2020-12805. Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition of the Little Rock, Arkansas, and Tulsa, Oklahoma, Appropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage Areas

AGENCY:

Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a final rule to redefine the geographic boundaries of the Little Rock, Arkansas, and Tulsa, Oklahoma, appropriated fund Federal Wage System (FWS) wage areas. The final rule will redefine the Fort Chaffee portion of Franklin County, AR, to the Tulsa wage area. This change is based on a consensus recommendation of the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee (FPRAC).

DATES:

Effective date: June 26, 2020.

Applicability date: This change applies on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after July 27, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Madeline Gonzalez, by telephone at [phone] or by email at [e-mail].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On February 13, 2020, OPM issued a proposed rule (85 FR 8205) to redefine the Fort Chaffee portion of Franklin County, AR, from the Little Rock, AR, wage area to the Tulsa, OK, wage area.

FPRAC, the national labor-management committee responsible for advising OPM on matters concerning the pay of FWS employees, reviewed and recommended these changes by consensus.

The 30-day comment period ended on March 16, 2020. OPM received one comment supporting the move of the Fort Chaffee portion of Franklin County to the Tulsa wage area and asking OPM to define Monroe County, PA, from the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA, wage area to the New York, NY, wage area. The wage area definition of Monroe County is beyond the scope of this rule.

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 rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this 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 amending 5 CFR part 532 as follows:

PART 532—PREVAILING RATE SYSTEMS

1. The authority citation for part 532 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5343, 5346; § 532.707 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552.

Appendix C to Subpart B of Part 532—Appropriated Fund Wage and Survey Areas

2. In Appendix C to subpart B amend the table by revising the wage area listings for the States of Arkansas and Oklahoma to read as follows:

Definitions of Wage Areas and Wage Area Survey Areas

*    *    *    *    *

ARKANSAS

Little Rock

Survey Area

Arkansas:

Jefferson

Pulaski

Saline

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Arkansas:

Arkansas

Ashley

Baxter

Boone

Bradley

Calhoun

Chicot

Clay

Clark

Cleburne

Cleveland

Conway

Dallas

Desha

Drew

Faulkner

Franklin (Does not include the Fort Chaffee portion)

Fulton

Garland

Grant

Greene

Hot Spring

Independence

Izard

Jackson

Johnson

Lawrence

Lincoln

Logan

Lonoke

Marion

Monroe

Montgomery

Newton

Ouachita

Perry

Phillips

Pike

Polk

Pope

Prairie

Randolph

Scott

Searcy

Sharp

Stone

Union

Van Buren

White

Woodruff

Yell

*    *    *    *    *

OKLAHOMA

Oklahoma City

Survey Area

Oklahoma:

Canadian

Cleveland

McClain

Oklahoma

Pottawatomie

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Oklahoma:

Alfalfa

Atoka

Beckham

Blaine

Bryan

Caddo

Carter

Coal

Custer

Dewey

Ellis

Garfield

Garvin

Grady

Grant

Harper

Hughes

Johnston

Kingfisher

Lincoln

Logan

Love

Major

Marshall

Murray

Noble

Payne

Pontotoc

Roger Mills

Seminole

Washita

Woods

Woodward

Tulsa

Survey Area

Oklahoma:

Creek

Mayes

Muskogee

Osage

Pittsburg

Rogers

Tulsa

Wagoner

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Arkansas:

Benton

Carroll

Crawford

Franklin (Only includes the Fort Chaffee portion)

Madison

Sebastian

Washington

Missouri:

McDonald

Oklahoma:

Adair

Cherokee

Choctaw

Craig

Delaware

Haskell

Kay

Latimer

LeFlore

McCurtain

McIntosh

Nowata

Okfuskee

Okmulgee

Ottawa

Pawnee

Pushmataha

Sequoyah

Washington

* * * * *