9968 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Louisiana 

Lake Charles-Alexandria 

Survey Area 

Louisiana: 

Allen 

Beauregard 

Calcasieu 

Grant 

Rapides 

Sabine 

Vernon 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Louisiana: 

Acadia 

Avoyelles 

Caldwell 

Cameron 

Catahoula 

Concordia 

Evangeline 

Franklin 

Iberia 

Jefferson Davis 

Lafayette 

La Salle 

Madison 

Natchitoches 

St. Landry 

St. Martin 

Tensas 

Vermilion 

Winn 

New Orleans 

Survey Area 

Louisiana: 

Jefferson 

Orleans 

Plaquemines 

St. Bernard 

St. Charles 

St. John the Baptist 

St. Tammany 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Louisiana: 

Ascension 

Assumption 

East Baton Rouge 

East Feliciana 

Iberville 

Lafourche 

Livingston 

Pointe Coupee 

St. Helena 

St. James 

St. Mary 

Tangipahoa 

Terrebonne 

Washington 

West Baton Rouge 

West Feliciana 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–4923 Filed 3–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–39–P 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT 

5 CFR Part 532 

RIN 3206–AL82 

Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition 

of the Boise, ID, and Utah 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 is issuing a proposed rule 

that would redefine the geographic 

boundaries of the Boise, ID, and Utah 

appropriated fund Federal Wage System 

(FWS) wage areas. The proposed rule 

would redefine Franklin County, ID, 

from the Boise wage area to the Utah 

wage area. These changes are based on 

recent consensus recommendations of 

the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory 

Committee to best match the counties 

proposed for redefinition to a nearby 

FWS survey area. No other changes are 

proposed for the Boise and Utah FWS 

wage areas. 

DATES: We must receive comments on or 

before April 8, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments 

to Charles D. Grimes III, Deputy 

Associate Director for Performance and 

Pay Systems, Strategic Human 

Resources Policy Division, U.S. Office of 

Personnel Management, Room 7H31, 

1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20415–8200; e-mail pay-performancepolicy@opm.gov; or FAX: (202) 606– 

4264. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Madeline Gonzalez, (202) 606–2838; 

e-mail pay-performancepolicy@opm.gov; or FAX: (202) 606– 

4264. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 

is issuing a proposed rule to redefine 

the Boise, ID, and Utah appropriated 

fund Federal Wage System (FWS) wage 

areas. This proposed rule would 

redefine Franklin County, ID, from the 

Boise wage area to the Utah 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. 

Franklin County, ID and Cache 

County, UT, comprise the Logan, UT–ID 

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). 

The Logan MSA is split between the 

Boise, ID, wage area and the Utah wage 

area. Franklin County is part of the area 

of application of the Boise wage area 

and Cache County is part of the area of 

application of the Utah wage area. 

Based on an analysis of the regulatory 

criteria for Cache County, the location of 

the main population center in the Logan 

MSA, we recommend that the entire 

Logan MSA be defined to the Utah wage 

area. The distance criterion for Cache 

County favors the Utah wage area more 

than the Boise wage area. The 

commuting patterns criterion favors the 

Utah wage area. All other criteria are 

inconclusive. We believe our regulatory 

analysis findings indicate that Cache 

County is appropriately defined to the 

Utah wage area. OPM regulations at 5 

CFR 532.211 permit splitting MSAs only 

in very unusual circumstances (e.g., 

organizational relationships among 

closely located Federal activities). There 

appear to be no unusual circumstances 

that would permit splitting the Logan 

MSA. To comply with OPM regulations 

not to split MSAs, Franklin County 

would be redefined to the Utah wage 

area. 

The Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory 

Committee (FPRAC), the national labormanagement 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. FPRAC 

recommended no other changes in the 

geographic definitions of the Boise and 

Utah wage areas. 

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. 

Kathie Ann Whipple, 

Acting Director. 

Accordingly, the U.S. Office of 

Personnel Management is proposing to 

amend 5 CFR part 532 as follows: 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 9969 

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 Boise, ID, and Utah wage 

areas to read as follows: 

Appendix C to Subpart B of Part 532— 

Appropriated Fund Wage and Survey 

Areas 

* * * * * 

Idaho 

Boise 

Survey Area 

Idaho: 

Ada 

Boise 

Canyon 

Elmore 

Gem 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Idaho: 

Adams 

Bannock 

Bear Lake 

Bingham 

Blaine 

Bonneville 

Butte 

Camas 

Caribou 

Cassia 

Clark 

Custer 

Fremont 

Gooding 

Jefferson 

Jerome 

Lemhi 

Lincoln 

Madison 

Minidoka 

Oneida 

Owyhee 

Payette 

Power 

Teton 

Twin Falls 

Valley 

Washington 

* * * * * 

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 

Idaho: 

Franklin 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–4921 Filed 3–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–39–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

7 CFR Part 980 

[Doc. No. AMS FV–08–0097; FV09–980–1 

PR] 

Vegetables, Import Regulations; Partial 

Exemption to the Minimum Grade 

Requirements for Fresh Tomatoes 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule invites comments 

on a proposed partial exemption to the 

minimum grade requirements under the 

tomato import regulation. The Florida 

Tomato Committee (Committee) which 

locally administers the marketing order 

for tomatoes grown in Florida (order) 

recommended the change for Florida 

tomatoes. The change in the import 

regulation is required under section 8e 

of the Agricultural Marketing 

Agreement Act of 1937. A separate rule 

amending the rules and regulations 

under the order to exempt Vintage 

Ripes TM tomatoes (Vintage Ripes TM) 

from the shape requirements associated 

with the U.S. No. 2 grade is being issued 

by the Department of Agriculture 

(USDA). This rule would provide the 

same partial exemption under the 

import regulation so it would conform 

to the regulations under the order. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

May 8, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written comments 

concerning this proposal. Comments 

must be sent to the Docket Clerk, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Fax: (202) 720–8938; or 

Internet: http://www.regulations.gov. All 

comments should reference the 

document number and the date and 

page number of this issue of the Federal 

Register and will be available for public 

inspection in the Office of the Docket 

Clerk during regular business hours, or 

can be viewed at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. All comments 

submitted in response to this rule will 

be included in the record and will be 

made available to the public. Please be 

advised that the identity of the 

individuals or entities submitting the 

comments will be made public on the 

Internet at the address provided above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Doris Jamieson, Marketing Specialist, or 

Christian Nissen, Regional Manager, 

Southeast Marketing Field Office, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324– 

3375, Fax: (863) 325–8793; or E-mail: 

Doris.Jamieson@usda.gov or 

Christian.Nissen@usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720– 

2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or E-mail: 

Jay.Guerber@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposed rule is issued under section 8e 

of the Agricultural Marketing 

Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 

U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter referred to 

as the ‘‘Act,’’ which provides that 

whenever certain specified 

commodities, including tomatoes, are 

regulated under a Federal marketing 

order, imports of these commodities 

into the United States are prohibited 

unless they meet the same or 

comparable grade, size, quality, or 

maturity requirements as those in effect 

for the domestically produced 

commodity. 

USDA is issuing this rule in 

conformance with Executive Order 

12866. 

This proposal has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This rule is not intended 

to have retroactive effect. This proposal 

will not preempt any State or local laws, 

regulations, or policies, unless they 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS