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.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

26119

Vol. 65, No. 88

Friday, May 5, 2000

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

5 CFR Part 532

RIN 3206–AI95

Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition

of the Southern and Western Colorado

Appropriated Fund Wage Area

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel

Management is issuing a final rule to

remove Eagle, Garfield, Lake, Pitkin, Rio

Blanco, and Routt Counties, Colorado,

from the Southern and Western

Colorado appropriated fund Federal

Wage System (FWS) wage area. These

counties will now be in the Denver

wage area. We are also removing Mesa

County, CO, from the Southern and

Western Colorado FWS wage area and

adding it to the Utah FWS wage area.

These changes more accurately reflect

the regulatory criteria we use to define

FWS wage areas. Finally, we are

changing the name of the Southern and

Western Colorado FWS wage area to the

Southern Colorado FWS wage area to

more accurately describe the geographic

coverage of the redefined wage area.

DATES: Effective Date: This regulation is

effective on June 5, 2000. Applicability

Date: This regulation applies on the first

day of the first applicable pay period

beginning on or after June 5, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Hopkins by phone at (202) 606–

2848, by FAX at (202) 606–0824, or by

email at jdhopkin@opm.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

December 27, 1999, the Office of

Personnel Management (OPM)

published a proposed rule (64 FR

72292) to remove Eagle, Garfield, Lake,

Pitkin, Rio Blanco, and Routt Counties,

Colorado, from the Southern and

Western Colorado appropriated fund

FWS wage area and add them to the

Denver FWS wage area as areas of

application. We do not conduct wage

surveys in areas of application. Instead,

we apply the results that we obtain from

surveys in the other counties in the

applicable wage area. We also proposed

to remove Mesa County, CO, from the

Southern and Western Colorado FWS

wage area and add it to the Utah FWS

wage area as an area of application.

Finally, we proposed to change the

name of the Southern and Western

Colorado FWS wage area to Southern

Colorado.

Under section 5343 of title 5, United

States Code, OPM is responsible for

defining FWS wage areas. For this

purpose, we follow the regulatory

criteria in section 532.211 of title 5,

Code of Federal Regulations. The

Southern and Western Colorado wage

area meets all of the regulatory

requirements to remain a separate wage

area. About 1,800 FWS employees

currently work in this wage area. The

wage area’s host activity, the United

States Air Force Academy, has the

capability to host annual local wage

surveys. In addition, we find more than

sufficient local private industry wage

data in local wage surveys of the

Southern and Western Colorado wage

area to satisfy our regulatory

requirements.

We are moving Eagle, Garfield, Lake,

Pitkin, Rio Blanco, and Routt Counties

to the Denver wage area based on our

analysis of the regulatory criteria. The

distance criterion for these counties

favors the Denver wage area more than

the Southern and Western Colorado

wage area. The transportation facilities

and geographic features criteria for these

counties strongly favor the Denver wage

area because the most favorable route by

road from these counties goes through

the present Denver wage area before

reaching the Southern and Western

Colorado survey area. All the other

criteria we studied did not favor one

wage area more than another.

For Mesa County, CO, the distance to

the closest city criterion favors the Utah

wage area, while the distance to the

closest host installation criterion favors

the Denver wage area. The

transportation facilities and geographic

features criteria favor the Utah wage

area. The kinds and sizes of industry

and population criteria also favor the

Utah wage area. All of the other criteria

we studied had indeterminate findings.

Colorado National Monument, located

in Mesa County, is administratively in

the same National Park Service region as

most of the National Parks in Utah.

Arches National Park is in the Utah

wage area and is just across the State

line from Colorado National Monument.

We are placing Colorado National

Monument in the same wage area as

Arches National Park because of the

organizational relationships and

geographic proximity of National Park

Service facilities in this region.

The Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory

Committee, the national labormanagement committee responsible for

advising OPM on matters concerning

the pay of FWS employees, reviewed

and recommended these changes by

consensus. The proposed rule had a 30-

day public comment period, during

which OPM did not receive any

comments.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

I certify that these regulations will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities

because they will affect only Federal

agencies and employees.

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.

Janice R. Lachance,

Director.

Accordingly, the Office of Personnel

Management amends 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.

2. Appendix A to subpart B of part

532 is amended for the State of Colorado

by revising the wage area ‘‘Southern &

Western Colorado’’ to read ‘‘Southern

Colorado’’.

3. Appendix C to subpart B is

amended by revising the wage area

listings for the States of Colorado and

Utah, to read as follows:

26120 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 88 / Friday, May 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Appendix C to Subpart B of Part 532—

Appropriated Fund Wage and Survey

Areas

* * * * *

Colorado

Denver

Survey Area

Colorado:

Adams

Arapahoe

Boulder

Denver

Douglas

Gilpin

Jefferson

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Colorado:

Clear Creek

Eagle

Elbert

Garfield

Grand

Jackson

Lake

Larimer

Logan

Morgan

Park

Phillips

Pitkin

Rio Blanco

Routt

Sedgwick

Summit

Washington

Weld

Yuma

Southern Colorado

Survey Area

Colorado:

El Paso

Pueblo

Teller

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Colorado:

Alamosa

Archuleta

Baca

Bent

Chaffee

Cheyenne

Conejos

Costilla

Crowley

Custer

Delta

Dolores

Fremont

Gunnison

Hinsdale

Huerfano

Kiowa

Kit Carson

Las Animas

Lincoln

Mineral

Montrose

Otero

Ouray

Pitkin

Prowers

Rio Grande

Saguache

San Juan

San Miguel

* * * * *

Utah

Survey Area

Utah:

Box Elder

Davis

Salt Lake

Tooele

Utah

Weber

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Utah:

Beaver

Cache

Carbon

Daggett

Duchesne

Emery

Garfield

Grand

Iron

Juab

Millard

Morgan

Piute

Rich

San Juan (Only includes the Canyonlands

National Park portion.)

Sanpete

Sevier

Summit

Uintah

Wasatch

Washington

Wayne

Colorado:

Mesa

Moffat

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–11199 Filed 5–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–P

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

5 CFR Part 532

RIN 3206–AI86

Prevailing Rate Systems; Definition of

Napa County, CA, to a

Nonappropriated Fund Wage Area

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel

Management is issuing a final rule to

add Napa County, California, as an area

of application to the Solano, CA,

nonappropriated fund (NAF) Federal

Wage System (FWS) wage area. This

change is necessary because NAF FWS

employees will have work stations in

Napa County, and Napa County was not

previously an NAF wage area.

DATES: Effective Date: This regulation is

effective on June 5, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Hopkins, (202) 606–2848, FAX:

(202) 606–0824, or email

jdhopkin@opm.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

November 15, 1999, the Office of

Personnel Management (OPM)

published an interim rule (64 FR 61769)

to redefine the Solano, California,

nonappropriated fund (NAF) Federal

Wage System (FWS) wage area by

adding Napa County, CA, as an area of

application. Under section 5343 of title

5, United States Code, OPM is

responsible for defining FWS wage

areas. For this purpose, we follow the

regulatory criteria in section 532.219(b)

of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations.

The Solano wage area presently has

one survey county, Solano County, and

two area of application counties, Marin

and Sonoma Counties, CA. The Army

and Air Force Exchange Service

acquired the Yountville Retail Facility

located in Napa County and staffed the

new activity with approximately eight

employees, two of whom are FWS

employees. Under 5 CFR 532.219, each

NAF wage area ‘‘shall consist of one or

more survey areas, along with

nonsurvey areas, having

nonappropriated fund employees.’’

Napa County does not meet the

regulatory criteria under 5 CFR 532.219

to be a separate NAF wage area;

however, OPM may combine nonsurvey

counties with a survey area to form a

wage area. Therefore, OPM defined

Napa County as an area of application

to an existing NAF wage area. The

Solano wage survey consists of one

survey county, Solano County, and

three area of application counties,

Marin, Napa, and Sonoma Counties, CA.

The Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory

Committee, the national labormanagement committee responsible for

advising OPM on matters concerning

the pay of FWS employees, reviewed

and concurred by consensus with this

change. The interim rule had a 30-day

public comment period, during which

OPM did not receive any comments.

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 532

Administrative practice and

procedure, Freedom of information,

Government employees, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Wages.