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

65311

Vol. 62, No. 239

Friday, December 12, 1997

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

5 CFR Part 531

RIN 3206–AH65

Pay Under the General Schedule;

Locality Pay Areas for 1998

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel

Management is issuing final regulations

to remove two metropolitan areas from

the ‘‘Rest of U.S.’’ locality pay area and

establish two new locality pay areas in

January 1998 corresponding to these

metropolitan areas. The two

metropolitan areas affected by this

regulation are Hartford, CT, and

Orlando, FL. The President’s Pay Agent

made the final determination on the

boundaries of the new locality pay areas

after considering the recommendations

of the Federal Salary Council and public

comments.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The regulations are

effective on January 1, 1998, and are

applicable on the first day of the first

pay period beginning on or after January

1, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeanne D. Jacobson, (202) 606-2858,

FAX: (202) 606–0824, or email:

payleave@opm.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

October 25, 1996, the Office of

Personnel Management (OPM)

published proposed regulations to

remove two metropolitan areas from the

‘‘Rest of U.S.’’ locality pay area and

establish two new locality pay areas in

January 1998 corresponding to these

metropolitan areas based on the

recommendations of the Federal Salary

Council. (See 61 FR 55227.) OPM

received no public comments on the

proposed regulations. Therefore, after

considering the views of the Federal

Salary Council, the President’s Pay

Agent (consisting of the Secretary of

Labor, the Director of the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB), and

the Director of OPM) decided to adopt

the Federal Salary Council’s

recommendations on the two new

locality pay areas. This determination

was reflected in the Pay Agent’s

November 27, 1996, report to the

President. These final regulations list

the locality pay areas for 1998,

including the two new locality pay areas

corresponding to the following

Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA’s)

as defined by OMB—Hartford, CT,

including that portion of New London

County, CT, outside the Hartford, CT

MSA, and Orlando, FL.

The definitions of the MSA’s and

Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical

Areas (CMSA’s) that comprise the

locality pay areas are found in OMB

Bulletin No. 96–08, June 28, 1996.

Based on these definitions, the two new

locality pay areas for 1998 will be

composed of the following geographic

areas:

Hartford, CT, Locality Pay Area

Hartford County (part):

Avon town

Berlin town

Bloomfield town

Bristol city

Burlington town

Canton town

East Granby town

East Hartford town

East Windsor town

Enfield town

Farmington town

Glastonbury town

Granby town

Hartford city

Manchester town

Marlborough town

New Britain city

Newington town

Plainville town

Rocky Hill town

Simsbury town

Southington town

South Windsor town

Suffield town

West Hartford town

Wethersfield town

Windsor town

Windsor Locks town

Litchfield County (part):

Barkhamsted town

Harwinton town

New Hartford town

Plymouth town

Winchester town

Middlesex County (part):

Cromwell town

Durham town

East Haddam town

East Hampton town

Haddam town

Middlefield town

Middletown city

Portland town

New London County (all)

Tolland County (part):

Andover town

Bolton town

Columbia town

Coventry town

Ellington town

Hebron town

Mansfield town

Somers town

Stafford town

Tolland town

Vernon town

Willington town

Windham County (part):

Ashford town

Chaplin town

Windham town

Orlando, FL, Locality Pay Area

Lake County

Orange County

Osceola County

Seminole County

Hartford, CT, Locality Pay Area

In its November, 27, 1996, report to

the President, the President’s Pay Agent

accepted the Federal Salary Council’s

recommendation that Hartford, CT, be

established as a separate locality pay

area for General Schedule (GS) workers

in 1998, including the Hartford, CT

MSA, plus that portion of New London

County, CT, outside the Hartford, CT

MSA. The Pay Agent also adopted the

following criteria recommended by the

Federal Salary Council for consideration

of partial counties as ‘‘areas of

application’’ in New England. These

criteria are needed because OMB uses

cities and townships, instead of full

counties, to define metropolitan areas in

New England.

Criteria for partial-county areas of

application in New England:

1. The partial-county area must be

contiguous to the pay locality (exclusive
65312 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

of any other areas of application) and

must currently be included in the ‘‘Rest

of U.S.’’ locality pay area.

2. The partial-county area must

contain at least 2,000 GS employees.

3. The entire county must have a

population density of more than 200 per

square mile or at least 90 percent of the

population in urbanized areas.

4. The entire county must

demonstrate some economic linkage

with the pay locality, defined as

commuting at a level of 5 percent or

more into or from the areas in question.

(The areas in question are the entire

county under consideration and the

central core of the MSA as defined by

the Census Bureau for use in

establishing metropolitan areas.)

Because New London County, CT,

met all of the above-stated criteria, the

Pay Agent accepted the Federal Salary

Council’s recommendation that that

portion of New London County, CT,

outside the Hartford, CT MSA be

included in the Hartford, CT, locality

pay area as an ‘‘area of application’’ for

1998.

After the Pay Agent issued its

November 1996 report to the President

reflecting its determination to establish

Hartford, CT, as a new locality pay area

for 1998, OPM received a letter from a

Member of Congress expressing interest

in including the city of Springfield, MA,

in the Hartford, CT, locality pay area.

The Federal Salary Council determined

that Hampden County, MA, which

includes the city of Springfield, does

not meet the Federal Salary Council’s

criteria for consideration as an ‘‘area of

application.’’

Prior to the implementation of locality

pay in 1994, the President’s Pay Agent

adopted the Federal Salary Council’s

recommendation that the boundaries of

locality pay areas follow the boundaries

of MSA’s and CMSA’s as defined by

OMB. The Federal Salary Council also

recommended that certain areas outside

the boundaries of an MSA or CMSA

(i.e., ‘‘areas of application’’) be included

in the locality pay area if they meet

certain criteria.

In order for the Federal Salary

Council to recommend an area as a

county-wide area of application, the

affected county must—

1. Be contiguous to a pay locality;

2. Contain at least 2,000 GS–GM

employees;

3. Have a significant level of

urbanization, based on 1990 Census

data. A ‘‘significant level of

urbanization’’ is defined as a population

density of more than 200 per square

mile or at least 90 percent of the

population in urbanized areas; and

4. Demonstration some economic

linkage with the pay locality, defined as

commuting at a level of 5 percent or

more into or from the areas in question.

(The areas in question are the

contiguous county under consideration

and the central counties (or in the case

of New England, the central cores)

identified by the Census Bureau for the

process of defining the CMSA’s and

MSA’s involved.)

The Federal Salary Council

considered Hampden County, MA,

under these criteria as a potential area

of application before making its October

1996 recommendation to the Pay Agent

regarding the new Hartford, CT, locality

pay area. However, because Hampden

County did not pass the Federal Salary

Council’s criterion for GS employment

(having only 908 GS employees as of

March 1996), the Federal Salary Council

did not recommend it as an ‘‘area of

application’’ to the Hartford, CT,

locality pay area.

Orlando, FL, Locality Pay Area

The President’s Pay Agent accepted

the Federal Salary Council’s

recommendation that Orlando, FL, be

established as a separate locality pay

area. Although Bureau of Labor

Statistics (BLS) surveys showed the pay

disparity in Orlando was slightly below

the pay disparity for the ‘‘Rest of U.S.’’

locality pay area, the Federal Salary

Council’s established policy provides

that any surveyed area with a pay

disparity of less than 2/10ths of a

percentage point below the ‘‘Rest of

U.S.’’ pay disparity may qualify to be

established or continued as a locality

pay area.

The Pay Agent also accepted the

Federal Salary Council’s

recommendation that the Orlando, FL,

locality pay percentage be set equal to

the ‘‘Rest of U.S.’’ locality pay

percentage in 1998 and that the

Orlando, FL, pay gap be averaged with

the ‘‘Rest of U.S.’’ pay gap to determine

the combined pay gap for the two areas.

This is consistent with past practices for

dealing with locality pay areas in which

the pay disparity is below the ‘‘Rest of

U.S.’’ pay disparity. BLS will continue

to conduct surveys in Orlando, and the

Pay Agent and the Federal Salary

Council will reconsider these issues in

the future.

Waiver of Delay in Effective Date

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), I find

that good cause exists to make these

regulations effective in less than 30

days. The regulations are being made

effective on January 1, 1998, in order for

the locality payments for each locality

pay area authorized for 1998 to be

applicable on the first day of the first

pay period beginning on or after January

1, 1998.

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 apply only to Federal

agencies and employees.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 531

Government employees, Law

enforcement officers, Wages.

Office of Personnel Management.

Janice R. Lachance,

Director.

Accordingly, OPM is amending part

531 of title 5, Code of Federal

Regulations, as follows:

PART 531—PAY UNDER THE

GENERAL SCHEDULE

1. The authority citation for part 531

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5115, 5307, and 5338;

sec. 4 of Pub. L. 103–89, 107 Stat. 981; and

E.O. 12748, 56 FR 4521, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp.,

p. 316;

Subpart B also issued under 5 U.S.C.

5303(g), 5333, 5334(a), and 7701(b)(2);

Subpart C also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5304,

5305, and 5553; sections 302 and 404 of

FEPCA, Pub. L. 101–509, 104 Stat. 1462 and

1466; and section 3(7) of Pub. L. 102–378,

106 Stat. 1356;

Subpart D also issued under 5 U.S.C.

5335(g) and 7701(b)(2);

Subpart E also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5336;

Subpart F also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5304,

5305(g)(1), and 5553; and E.O. 12883, 58 FR

63281, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 682;

Subpart G also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5304,

5305, and 5553; section 302 of the Federal

Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990

(FEPCA), Pub. L. 101–509, 104 Stat. 1462;

and E.O. 12786, 56 FR 67453, 3 CFR, 1991

Comp., p. 376.

Subpart F—Locality-Based

Comparability Payments

2. In § 531.603, paragraph (b) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 531.603 Locality pay areas.

* * * * *

(b) The following are locality pay

areas for the purpose of this subpart:

(1) Atlanta, GA—consisting of the

Atlanta, GA MSA;

(2) Boston-Worcester-Lawrence, MA–

NH–ME–CT—consisting of the BostonWorcester-Lawrence, MA–NH–ME–CT

CMSA;

(3) Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL–IN–

WI—consisting of the Chicago-GaryKenosha, IL–IN–WI CMSA;

(4) Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH–KY–

IN—consisting of the CincinnatiHamilton, OH–KY–IN CMSA;
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 65313

(5) Cleveland-Akron, OH—consisting

of the Cleveland-Akron, OH CMSA;

(6) Columbus, OH—consisting of the

Columbus, OH MSA;

(7) Dallas-Fort Worth, TX—consisting

of the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX CMSA;

(8) Dayton-Springfield, OH—

consisting of the Dayton-Springfield,

OH MSA;

(9) Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO—

consisting of the Denver-BoulderGreeley, CO CMSA;

(10) Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, MI—

consisting of the Detroit-Ann ArborFlint, MI CMSA;

(11) Hartford, CT—consisting of the

Hartford, CT MSA, plus that portion of

New London County, CT, not located

within the Hartford, CT MSA;

(12) Houston-Galveston-Brazoria,

TX—consisting of the HoustonGalveston-Brazoria, TX CMSA;

(13) Huntsville, AL—consisting of the

Huntsville, AL MSA;

(14) Indianapolis, IN—consisting of

the Indianapolis, IN MSA;

(15) Kansas City, MO–KS—consisting

of the Kansas City, MO–KS MSA;

(16) Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange

County, CA—consisting of the Los

Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA

CMSA, plus Santa Barbara County, CA,

and that portion of Edwards Air Force

Base, CA, not located within the Los

Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA

CMSA;

(17) Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL—

consisting of the Miami-Fort

Lauderdale, FL CMSA;

(18) Milwaukee-Racine, WI—

consisting of the Milwaukee-Racine, WI

CMSA;

(19) Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN–WI—

consisting of the Minneapolis-St. Paul,

MN–WI MSA;

(20) New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island, NY–NJ–CT–PA—

consisting of the New York-Northern

New Jersey-Long Island, NY–NJ–CT–PA

CMSA;

(21) Orlando, FL—consisting of the

Orlando, FL MSA;

(22) Philadelphia-WilmingtonAtlantic City, PA–NJ–DE–MD—

consisting of the PhiladelphiaWilmington-Atlantic City, PA–NJ–DE–

MD CMSA;

(23) Pittsburgh, PA—consisting of the

Pittsburgh, PA MSA;

(24) Portland-Salem, OR–WA—

consisting of the Portland-Salem, OR–

WA CMSA;

(25) Richmond-Petersburg, VA—

consisting of the Richmond-Petersburg,

VA MSA;

(26) Sacramento-Yolo, CA—consisting

of the Sacramento-Yolo, CA CMSA;

(27) St. Louis, MO–IL—consisting of

the St. Louis, MO–IL MSA;

(28) San Diego, CA—consisting of the

San Diego, CA MSA;

(29) San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose,

CA—consisting of the San FranciscoOakland-San Jose, CA CMSA;

(30) Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton, WA—

consisting of the Seattle-TacomaBremerton, WA CMSA;

(31) Washington-Baltimore, DC–MD–

VA–WV—consisting of the WashingtonBaltimore, DC–MD–VA–WV CMSA,

plus St. Mary’s County, MD; and

(32) Rest of U.S.—consisting of those

portions of the 48 contiguous States not

located in another locality pay area.

[FR Doc. 97–32580 Filed 12–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

7 CFR Parts 401 and 457

RIN 0563–AB03

General Crop Insurance Regulations;

Hybrid Sorghum Seed Endorsement

and Common Crop Insurance

Regulations; Hybrid Sorghum Seed

Crop Insurance Provisions

AGENCY: Federal Crop Insurance

Corporation, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Federal Crop Insurance

Corporation (FCIC) finalizes specific

crop provisions for the insurance of

hybrid sorghum seed. The provisions

will be used in conjunction with the

Common Crop Insurance Policy, Basic

Provisions, which contain standard

terms and conditions common to most

crops. The intended effect of this action

is to provide policy changes to better

meet the needs of the insured, include

the current hybrid sorghum seed

endorsement under the Common Crop

Insurance Policy for ease of use and

consistency of terms, and to restrict the

effect of the current hybrid sorghum

seed endorsement to the 1997 and prior

crop years.

DATES: Effective December 12, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron

Nesheim, Insurance Management

Specialist, Research and Development,

Product Development Division, Federal

Crop Insurance Corporation, United

States Department of Agriculture, 9435

Holmes Road, Kansas City, MO 64131,

telephone (816) 926–7730.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order No. 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has determined this rule to be

exempt for the purposes of Executive

Order No. 12866 and, therefore, this rule

has not been reviewed by OMB.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), those

collections of information have been

approved by the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) under control

number 0563–0053.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. This rule contains no Federal

mandates (under the regulatory

provisions of title II of the UMRA) for

State, local, and tribal governments or

the private sector. Therefore, this rule is

not subject to the requirements of

sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

Executive Order No. 12612

It has been determined under section

6(a) of Executive Order No. 12612,

Federalism, that this rule does not have

sufficient federalism implications to

warrant the preparation of a Federalism

Assessment. The provisions contained

in this rule will not have a substantial

direct effect on States or their political

subdivisions, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

This regulation will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The effect of this regulation on small

entities will be no greater than on larger

entities. Under the current regulations,

a producer is required to complete an

application and an acreage report. If the

crop is damaged or destroyed, the

insured is required to give notice of loss

and provide the necessary information

to complete a claim for indemnity. This

regulation does not alter those

requirements.

The amount of work required of the

insurance companies delivering and

servicing these policies will not increase

significantly from the amount of work

currently required. This rule does not

have any greater or lesser impact on the

producer. Therefore, this action is

determined to be exempt from the

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 605), and no Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis was prepared.