This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

5487 

Vol. 80, No. 21 

Monday, February 2, 2015 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT 

5 CFR Part 532 

RIN 3206–AN15 

Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition 

of the Jacksonville, FL; Savannah, GA; 

Hagerstown-MartinsburgChambersburg, MD; Richmond, VA; 

and Roanoke, VA, Appropriated Fund 

Federal Wage System Wage Areas 

AGENCY: U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management. 

ACTION: Proposed rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) is issuing a 

proposed rule that would redefine the 

geographic boundaries of the 

Jacksonville, FL; Savannah, GA; 

Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg, 

MD; Richmond, VA; and Roanoke, VA, 

appropriated fund Federal Wage System 

(FWS) wage areas. The proposed rule 

would redefine Brantley, Glynn, and 

Pierce Counties, GA, from the 

Jacksonville wage area to the Savannah 

wage area; Greene County, VA, from the 

Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg 

wage area to the Richmond wage area; 

and Nelson County, VA, from the 

Roanoke wage area to the Richmond 

wage area. These changes are based on 

recent consensus recommendations of 

the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory 

Committee (FPRAC) to best match the 

counties proposed for redefinition to a 

nearby FWS survey area. 

DATES: We must receive comments on or 

before March 4, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by ‘‘RIN 3206–AN15,’’ using 

any of the following methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Mail: Brenda L. Roberts, Deputy 

Associate Director for Pay and Leave, 

Employee Services, U.S. Office of 

Personnel Management, Room 7H31, 

1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 

20415–8200. 

Email: pay-leave-policy@opm.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Madeline Gonzalez, (202) 606–2838; 

email pay-leave-policy@opm.gov; or 

FAX: (202) 606–4264. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OPM is 

issuing a proposed rule that would 

redefine the geographic boundaries of 

the Jacksonville, FL; Savannah, GA; 

Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg, 

MD; Richmond, VA; and Roanoke, VA, 

appropriated fund FWS wage areas. The 

proposed rule would redefine Brantley 

and Glynn Counties, GA, from the 

Jacksonville wage area to the Savannah 

wage area; Greene County, VA, from the 

Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg 

wage area to the Richmond wage area; 

and Nelson County, VA, from the 

Roanoke wage area to the Richmond 

wage area. 

OPM considers the following 

regulatory criteria under 5 CFR 532.211 

when defining FWS wage area 

boundaries: 

(i) Distance, transportation facilities, 

and geographic features; 

(ii) Commuting patterns; and 

(iii) Similarities in overall population, 

employment, and the kinds and sizes of 

private industrial establishments. 

In addition, OPM regulations at 5 CFR 

532.211 do not permit splitting 

Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) 

for the purpose of defining a wage area, 

except in very unusual circumstances. 

OPM recently completed reviews of 

the definitions of the Brunswick, GA 

and Charlottesville, VA MSAs and, 

based on analyses of the regulatory 

criteria for defining wage areas, is 

proposing the changes described below. 

FPRAC, the national labor-management 

committee responsible for advising 

OPM on matters concerning the pay of 

FWS employees, recommended these 

changes by consensus. These changes 

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. 

Brunswick, GA Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

Brantley, Glynn, and McIntosh 

Counties, GA, comprise the Brunswick, 

GA MSA. The Brunswick MSA is 

currently split between the Jacksonville, 

FL, and Savannah, GA, wage areas. 

Brantley and Glynn Counties are part of 

the area of application of the 

Jacksonville wage area and McIntosh 

County is part of the area of application 

of the Savannah wage area. 

Based on an analysis of the regulatory 

criteria for Glynn County, the core 

county in the Brunswick MSA, we 

recommend that the entire Brunswick 

MSA be defined to the Savannah area of 

application. When measuring to cities, 

the distance criterion does not favor one 

wage area more than another. When 

measuring to host installations, the 

distance criterion favors the Savannah 

wage area more than the Jacksonville 

wage area. The commuting patterns 

criterion does not favor one wage area 

more than another. Glynn County does 

not resemble one survey area more than 

another survey area in terms of the 

overall population, employment, and 

the kinds and sizes of private industrial 

establishments criteria. 

Based on this analysis, we find that 

Glynn County would be more 

appropriately defined to the Savannah 

wage area. Since there appear to be no 

unusual circumstances that would 

permit splitting the Brunswick MSA, 

OPM proposes to redefine Brantley and 

Glynn Counties to the Savannah wage 

area so that the entire Brunswick MSA 

is in one wage area. The remaining 

county in the Brunswick MSA, 

McIntosh County, is already defined to 

the Savannah wage area. There are 

currently no FWS employees working in 

Brantley County. There are currently 45 

FWS employees working in Glynn 

County. 

Because Pierce County, GA, borders 

Brantley County to the northwest and is 

located in-between the Brunswick MSA 

and the Albany, GA, and Savannah 

wage areas, Pierce County would also be 

redefined from the Jacksonville wage 

area to the Savannah wage area. When 

measuring to cities, the distance 

criterion does not favor one wage area 

more than another. When measuring to 

host installations, the distance criterion 

favors the Savannah wage area more 

than the Albany wage area. The 

commuting patterns criterion does not 

favor one wage area more than another. 

Pierce County does not favor one survey 

area more than another survey area in 

terms of the overall population and 

employment and the kinds and sizes of 

private industrial establishments 

criteria. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

5488 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 21 / Monday, February 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Based on this analysis, we find that 

Pierce County would be more 

appropriately defined to the Savannah 

wage area. There are currently no FWS 

employees working in Pierce County. 

Charlottesville, VA Metropolitan 

Statistical Area 

Charlottesville City, VA, and 

Albemarle, Buckingham, Fluvanna, 

Greene, and Nelson Counties, VA, 

comprise the Charlottesville, VA MSA. 

The Charlottesville MSA is split 

between the Hagerstown-MartinsburgChambersburg, MD, Richmond, VA, and 

Roanoke, VA, wage areas. Greene 

County is part of the area of application 

of the Hagerstown-MartinsburgChambersburg wage area. Charlottesville 

City and Albemarle, Buckingham, and 

Fluvanna Counties are part of the area 

of application of the Richmond wage 

area. Nelson County is part of the area 

of application of the Roanoke wage area. 

Based on an analysis of the regulatory 

criteria for Greene County, the core 

county in the Charlottesville MSA, the 

entire Charlottesville MSA would be 

defined to the Richmond wage area. The 

distance criterion favors the Richmond 

wage area. The commuting patterns 

criterion slightly favors the Richmond 

wage area. The overall population and 

employment and the kinds and sizes of 

private industrial establishments criteria 

do not favor one wage area more than 

another. 

Based on this analysis, we find that 

Greene County would be more 

appropriately defined to the Richmond 

wage area. Since there appear to be no 

unusual circumstances that would 

permit splitting the Charlottesville 

MSA, OPM proposes to redefine Greene 

and Nelson Counties to the Richmond 

wage area so that the entire 

Charlottesville MSA is in one wage area. 

The remaining city and counties in the 

Charlottesville MSA, Charlottesville 

City and Albemarle, Buckingham, and 

Fluvanna Counties, are already defined 

to the Richmond wage area. There are 

currently three FWS employees working 

in Greene County. There are currently 

no FWS employees working in Nelson 

County. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

I certify that these regulations would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

because they would 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. 

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 

Katherine Archuleta, 

Director. 

Accordingly, the U.S. Office of 

Personnel Management is proposing to 

amend 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 C to subpart B is 

amended by revising the wage area 

listings for the Jacksonville, FL; 

Savannah, GA; HagerstownMartinsburg-Chambersburg, MD; 

Richmond, VA; and Roanoke, VA, wage 

areas to read as follows: 

Appendix C to Subpart B of Part 532— 

Appropriated Fund Wage and Survey 

Areas 

* * * * * 

FLORIDA 

* * * * * 

Jacksonville 

Survey Area 

Florida: 

Alachua 

Baker 

Clay 

Duval 

Nassau 

St. Johns 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Florida: 

Bradford 

Citrus 

Columbia 

Dixie 

Flagler 

Gilchrist 

Hamilton 

Lafayette 

Lake 

Levy 

Madison 

Marion 

Orange 

Osceola 

Putnam 

Seminole 

Sumter 

Suwannee 

Taylor 

Union 

Volusia 

Georgia: 

Camden 

Charlton 

* * * * * 

GEORGIA 

* * * * * 

Savannah 

Survey Area 

Georgia: 

Bryan 

Chatham 

Effingham 

Liberty 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Georgia: 

Appling 

Bacon 

Brantley 

Bulloch 

Candler 

Evans 

Glynn 

Jeff Davis 

Long 

McIntosh 

Pierce 

Screven 

Tattnall 

Toombs 

Wayne 

South Carolina: 

Beaufort (the portion south of Broad 

River) 

Hampton 

Jasper 

* * * * * 

MARYLAND 

* * * * * 

Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg 

Survey Area 

Maryland: 

Washington 

Pennsylvania: 

Franklin 

West Virginia: 

Berkeley 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Maryland: 

Allegany 

Garrett 

Pennsylvania: 

Fulton 

Virginia (cities): 

Harrisonburg 

Winchester 

Virginia (counties): 

Frederick 

Madison 

Page 

Rockingham 

Shenandoah 

West Virginia: 

Hampshire 

Hardy 

Mineral 

Morgan 

* * * * * 

VIRGINIA 

* * * * * 

Richmond 

Survey Area 

Virginia (cities): 

Colonial Heights 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 21 / Monday, February 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules 5489 

Hopewell 

Petersburg 

Richmond 

Virginia (counties): 

Charles City 

Chesterfield 

Dinwiddie 

Goochland 

Hanover 

Henrico 

New Kent 

Powhatan 

Prince George 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Virginia (cities): 

Charlottesville 

Emporia 

Virginia (counties): 

Albemarle 

Amelia 

Brunswick 

Buckingham 

Caroline 

Charlotte 

Cumberland 

Essex 

Fluvanna 

Greene 

Greensville 

King and Queen 

King William 

Lancaster 

Louisa 

Lunenburg 

Mecklenburg 

Middlesex 

Nelson 

Northumberland 

Nottoway 

Orange 

Prince Edward 

Richmond 

Sussex 

Westmoreland 

Roanoke 

Survey Area 

Virginia (cities): 

Radford 

Roanoke 

Salem 

Virginia (counties): 

Botetourt 

Craig 

Montgomery 

Roanoke 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Virginia (cities): 

Bedford 

Buena Vista 

Clifton Forge 

Covington 

Danville 

Galax 

Lexington 

Lynchburg 

Martinsville 

South Boston 

Staunton 

Waynesboro 

Virginia (counties): 

Alleghany 

Amherst 

Appomattox 

Augusta 

Bath 

Bedford 

Bland 

Campbell 

Carroll 

Floyd 

Franklin 

Giles 

Halifax 

Henry 

Highland 

Patrick 

Pittsylvania 

Pulaski 

Rockbridge 

Wythe 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–01937 Filed 1–30–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–39–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0940; Directorate 

Identifier 2014–NE–15–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Lycoming 

Engines Reciprocating Engines (Type 

Certificate Previously Held by Textron 

Lycoming Division, AVCO Corporation) 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Lycoming TIO–540–AJ1A reciprocating 

engines. This proposed AD was 

prompted by several reports of cracked 

engine exhaust pipes. This proposed AD 

would require inspection of the engine 

exhaust pipes for cracks and 

replacement of the turbocharger 

mounting bracket. We are proposing this 

AD to prevent failure of the exhaust 

system due to cracking, which could 

lead to uncontrolled engine fire, 

harmful exhaust gases entering the 

cabin resulting in crew incapacitation, 

and damage to the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by April 3, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Lycoming 

Engines, 652 Oliver Street, 

Williamsport, PA 17701; phone: 800– 

258–3279; fax: 570–327–7101; Internet: 

www.lycoming.com/Lycoming/ 

SUPPORT/TechnicalPublications/ 

ServiceBulletins.aspx. You may view 

this service information at the FAA, 

Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, 

MA. For information on the availability 

of this material at the FAA, call 781– 

238–7125. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2014– 

0940; or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Norm Perenson, Aerospace Engineer, 

New York Aircraft Certification Office, 

FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 

1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, 

Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516–228– 

7337; fax: 516–794–5531; email: 

norman.perenson@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this NPRM. Send your comments to an 

address listed under the ADDRESSES

section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA– 

2014–0940; Directorate Identifier 2014– 

NE–15–AD’’ at the beginning of your 

comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this NPRM. We will consider 

all comments received by the closing 

date and may amend this NPRM 

because of those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS