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

65245

Vol. 60, No. 243

Tuesday, December 19, 1995

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

5 CFR Part 532

RIN 3206–AH27

Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition

of Certain Federal Wage System Wage

Areas

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Proposed rule with request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel

Management (OPM) is issuing a

proposed rule that would redefine

several Federal Wage System (FWS)

wage areas for pay-setting purposes.

OPM is engaged in an ongoing project

to review the geographic definitions of

selected FWS wage areas. Based on

recent reviews of wage and survey area

boundaries in a number of wage areas,

OPM proposes redefinitions and/or

renamings affecting the following FWS

wage areas: Hagerstown-MartinsburgChambersburg, MD; Biloxi, MS;

Columbus-Aberdeen, MS; Jackson, MS;

Meridian, MS; Great Falls, MT;

Pittsburgh, PA; Eastern Tennessee;

Corpus Christi, TX; San Antonio, TX;

and West Virginia.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before January 18, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments

to Donald J. Winstead, Assistant

Director for Compensation Policy,

Human Resources Systems Service,

Office of Personnel Management, Room

6H31, 1900 E Street NW., Washington,

DC 20415, or FAX: (202) 606–0824.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Allen, (202) 606–2848.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OPM is

engaged in an ongoing project to review

the geographic definitions of selected

FWS appropriated fund wage areas.

Section 532.211 of title 5, Code of

Federal Regulations, lists the following

criteria for consideration when OPM

defines 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.

As part of the system-wide review of

wage area boundaries, OPM is also

considering whether the survey areas

within each wage area should be

expanded or reduced in size.

OPM recently completed reviews of

the definitions of several FWS wage

areas and, based on analyses of the

regulatory criteria for defining wage

areas, is proposing the changes

described below. The Federal Prevailing

Rate Advisory Committee, the statutory

national-level labor-management

committee responsible for advising

OPM on matters concerning the pay of

FWS employees, has reviewed and

concurred by consensus with all of the

changes described in this proposed rule.

Hagerstown-MartinsburgChambersburg, MD: OPM proposes to

remove Fulton County, PA, from the

Pittsburgh, PA, area of application and

redefine the county to the HagerstownMartinsburg-Chambersburg, MD, area of

application. An analysis of the

regulatory criteria for defining FWS

wage areas shows that, while other

regulatory criteria are indeterminate,

distance and commuting pattern criteria

strongly favor definition of Fulton

County to the Hagerstown-MartinsburgChambersburg wage area instead of to

the Pittsburgh wage area. For example,

an analysis of the distances between

Fulton County and the HagerstownMartinsburg-Chambersburg and

Pittsburgh survey areas shows that

Fulton County is about 232 km (144

miles) away from Pittsburgh, but is only

about 37 km (23 miles) away from

Chambersburg, PA, the closest of the

three main population centers in the

Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg

survey area. Also, an analysis of the

commuting patterns of Fulton County’s

resident workforce shows that about 55

percent of Fulton County’s resident

workforce commutes to work in the

Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg

survey area, and less than 1 percent of

Fulton County’s resident workforce

commutes to work in the Pittsburgh

survey area.

This change would be effective for the

next full-scale wage survey in the

Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg

wage area, which is scheduled to begin

in January 1996. There are currently no

FWS employees stationed in Fulton

County. No other changes are proposed

for the Hagerstown-MartinsburgChambersburg wage area.

Biloxi, MS: For the following reasons,

OPM proposes that Stone County, MS,

be removed from the Biloxi survey area:

No FWS employees are stationed in

Stone County; the county is no longer

defined as part of a Metropolitan

Statistical Area (MSA); and the wage

survey data yield from private industrial

establishments located in Stone County

accounted for less than 1 percent of the

Biloxi wage area’s survey data during

the last full-scale wage survey in the

wage area.

This change would be effective for the

next full-scale wage survey in the Biloxi

wage area, which is scheduled to begin

in November 1997. Stone County would

remain in the Biloxi area of application.

No other changes are proposed for the

Biloxi wage area.

Columbus-Aberdeen, MS: Based on

current FWS employment patterns in

the Columbus-Aberdeen wage area,

OPM proposes to add Grenada and

Leflore Counties, MS, to the ColumbusAberdeen survey area. Grenada and

Leflore Counties are currently defined to

the Columbus-Aberdeen area of

application. A majority of the FWS

employees currently stationed in the

Columbus-Aberdeen wage area—about

70 percent—work in the ColumbusAberdeen wage area’s area of

application rather than its survey area.

Grenada and Leflore Counties are

located in the central and western

portions of the Columbus-Aberdeen

wage area and are the only nonsurveyed counties in the wage area with

substantial FWS employment. With the

addition of Grenada and Leflore

Counties to the Columbus-Aberdeen

survey area, about 82 percent of wage

area employees would be included

within the survey area.

This proposed survey area expansion

would not create an undue survey

burden on the lead agency for the wage

area (the Department of Defense) and is

strongly justified by the geographic

distribution of local FWS employment.

To more accurately reflect the broader

geographic coverage of the expanded

survey area, OPM proposes to rename

the Columbus—Aberdeen wage area

‘‘Northern Mississippi.’’ These changes
65246 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Proposed Rules

would be effective for the next full-scale

wage survey in the wage area, which is

scheduled to begin in February 1996. No

other changes are proposed for this

wage area.

Jackson, MS: OPM proposes to

remove Adams, Claiborne, and Jefferson

Counties, MS, from the Jackson survey

area. In 1973, the Civil Service

Commission, based on the consensus

recommendation of FPRAC, added

Adams, Claiborne, and Jefferson

Counties to the Jackson survey area.

FPRAC recommended this change to

allow the inclusion in local wage

surveys of counties along the

Mississippi River that had experienced

recent industrial growth. Regional

commuting patterns and transportation

facilities were also cited as factors

favoring expansion of the survey area.

Based on current FWS employment

patterns in the Jackson wage area and

the large size of the current Jackson

survey area, OPM considers it

unnecessary to continue surveying

Adams, Claiborne, and Jefferson

Counties. Only about nine FWS

employees, or less than 2 percent of the

Jackson wage area total, are currently

stationed in the three counties

considered for removal from the survey

area. The wage survey data yield from

Adams, Claiborne, and Jefferson

Counties has been relatively low in past

surveys; only about 11 percent of the

Jackson survey data during the last fullscale wage survey came from private

industrial establishments located in

these three counties. Also, the three

counties considered for removal from

the survey area are inconveniently

located for survey purposes. For

example, the surveyable private

industrial establishments in Adams

County are located approximately 185

km (115 miles) away from the city of

Jackson, the main population center and

the main FWS employment location in

the Jackson wage area.

This change in the Jackson survey

area would be effective for the next fullscale wage survey in the Jackson wage

area, which is scheduled to begin In

February 1997. As explained below for

the Meridian, MS, wage area, OPM also

proposes to remove Lamar County, MS,

from the Jackson area of application and

redefine the county to the Meridian

survey area. No other changes are

proposed for the Jackson wage area.

Meridian, MS: OPM proposes to

remove Lamar County, MS, from the

Jackson, MS, area of application and

redefine the county to the Meridian

FWS survey area. An analysis of the

regulatory criteria for defining FWS

wage areas shows that, while other

regulatory criteria are indeterminate,

distance and commuting pattern criteria

strongly favor definition of Lamar

County to the Meridian wage area

instead of the Jackson wage area. For

example, an analysis of the distances

between Lamar County and the

Meridian and Jackson survey areas

shows that Lamar County is about 179

km (111 miles) away from Jackson, but

is only about 27 km (17 miles) away

from Hattiesburg, MS, the closest of the

two main population centers in the

Meridian survey area. Also, an analysis

of the commuting patterns of Lamar

County’s resident workforce shows that

about 50 percent of Lamar County’s

resident workforce commutes to work in

the Meridian survey area, but less than

1 percent of Lamar County’s resident

workforce commutes to work in the

Jackson survey area.

While there are currently no FWS

employees stationed in Lamar County,

the addition of Lamar County to the

Meridian survey area would provide a

desirable increase in the number of

surveyable private sector industrial

establishments in the Meridian survey

area—about 14 percent more than in the

current Meridian survey area. Also,

Lamar County is one of the two counties

of the Hattiesburg, MS MSA. The other

county of the Hattiesburg MSA, Forrest

County, is already defined to the

Meridian survey area.

This change would be effective for the

next full-scale wage survey in the

Meridian wage area, which is scheduled

to begin in February 1997. No other

changes are proposed for the Meridian

wage area.

Great Falls, MT: The survey area of

the Great Falls wage area explained in

1973 with the addition of Yellowstone

County, MT, and again expanded in

1981 with the addition of Lewis and

Clark County, MT. Because the Great

Falls survey area currently includes

both the Great Falls, MT MSA and the

Billings, MT MSA, OPM proposes to

rename the wage area ‘‘Montana’’ to

better reflect the broader geographic

coverage of the current survey area than

is suggested by the current wage area

name.

This change would be effective for the

next full-scale wage survey in the wage

area,which is scheduled to begin in July

1996. No other changes are proposed for

this wage area.

Pittsburgh, PA: Based on current FWS

employment patterns in the Pittsburgh

wage area, OPM proposes to add Butler

County, PA, to the Pittsburgh survey

area. Butler County is currently defined

to the Pittsburgh area of application.

There are currently about 170 FWS

employees—about 8 percent of the

Pittsburgh wage area total—stationed in

Butler County. Butler County is

currently a non-surveyed part of the

Pittsburgh, PA MSA. Three of the

counties of the Pittsburgh MSA (Beaver,

Washington, and Westmoreland) are

currently included in the Pittsburgh

survey area, but far fewer FWS

employees are stationed in those three

counties than in Butler County.

This proposed survey area expansion

would not create an undue survey

burden on the lead agency for the

Pittsburgh wage area (the Department of

Veterans Affairs) and is strongly

justified by the geographic distribution

of local FWS employment. This change

in the Pittsburgh survey area definition

would be effective for the next full-scale

wage survey in the wage area, which is

scheduled to begin in August 1997.

Also, as explained above for the

Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg,

MD, wage area, OPM proposes to

remove Fulton County, PA, from the

Pittsburgh area of application and

redefine the county to the HagerstownMartinsburg-Chambersburg, MD, area of

application. No other changes are

proposed for the Pittsburgh wage area.

Eastern Tennessee: As explained

below for the West Virginia wage area,

OPM proposes to remove Norton city

from the Eastern Tennessee area of

application and redefine the city to the

West Virginia area of application. No

other changes are proposed for the

Eastern Tennessee wage area.

Corpus Christi, TX: OPM proposes to

remove Brooks, Cameron, Hidalgo,

Kenedy, Starr, and Willacy Counties,

TX, from the San Antonio, TX, area of

application and define these six

counties to the Corpus Christi area of

application. An analysis of the

regulatory criteria for defining FWS

wage areas shows that the distance

criterion favors the definition of these

counties to the Corpus Christi wage area

much more than to the San Antonio

wage area. Also, because the most

favorable routes by road from the

counties go through the present Corpus

Christi wage area before reaching the

San Antonio survey area, transportation

facilities and geographic features criteria

strongly favor the Corpus Christi wage

more than the San Antonio wage area.

Although all the other regulatory criteria

are indeterminate, the redefinition of

Brooks, Cameron, Hidalgo, Kenedy,

Starr, and Willacy Counties to the

Corpus Christi area of application is

strongly justified by the extent to which

the distance, transportation facilities,

and geographic features criteria favor

the Corpus Christi wage area.

The following agencies currently have

FWS employees stationed in the six

Texas counties proposed for redefinition
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Proposed Rules 65247

to the Corpus Christi area of application:

The Department of Agriculture; the

Department of the Army; the General

Services Administration; the

Department of the Interior; the

International Boundary and Water

Commission, United States and Mexico;

and the Department of Justice. These

changes would become effective when

the final rule following this proposed

rule becomes effective. No other

changes are proposed for the Corpus

Christi wage area.

West Virginia: OPM proposes to

remove Norton city, an independent

Virginia city, from the Eastern

Tennessee area of application and

redefine the city to the West Virginia

area of application. Although Norton

city is currently defined to the Eastern

Tennessee area of application, the city

is completely surrounded by Wise

County, which is defined to the West

Virginia area of application. Because of

their special geographic relationship,

Wise County and North city should be

defined to the same area of application.

This change would be effective for the

next full-scale wage survey in the West

Virginia wage area, which is scheduled

to begin in March 1997. There are no

FWS employees currently stationed in

North city. No other changes are

proposed for the West Virginia wage

area.

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.

Office of Personnel Management.

Lorraine A. Green,

Deputy Director.

Accordingly, OPM proposes 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 Hagerstown-MartinsburgChambersburg, MD; Biloxi, MS;

Columbus-Aberdeen, MS; Jackson, MS;

Meridian, MS; Great Falls, MT;

Pittsburgh, PA; Eastern Tennessee;

Corpus Christi, TX; San Antonio, TX;

and West Virginia to read as follows:

Appendix C to Subpart B of Part 532—

Appropriated Fund Wage and Survey

Areas.

* * * * *

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):

Clarke

Culpeper

Frederick

Greene

Madison

Page

Rappahannock

Rockingham

Shenandoah

Warren

West Virginia:

Hampshire

Hardy

Jefferson

Mineral

Morgan

* * * * *

Mississippi

Biloxi

Survey Area

Mississippi:

Hancock

Harrison

Jackson

Area of Application. Survey Area Plus

Mississippi:

George

Pearl River

Stone

Jackson

Survey Area

Mississippi:

Hinds

Rankin

Warren

Area of Application. Survey Area Plus

Mississippi:

Adams

Amite

Attala

Claiborne

Copiah

Covington

Franklin

Holmes

Humphreys

Issaquena

Jefferson

Jefferson Davis

Lawrence

Lincoln

Madison

Marion

Pike

Scott

Sharkey

Simpson

Smith

Walthall

Wilkinson

Yazoo

Meridian

Survey Area

Mississippi:

Forrest

Lamar

Lauderdale

Alabama:

Choctaw

Area of Application. Survey Area Plus

Mississippi:

Clarke

Greene

Jasper

Jones

Kemper

Leake

Neshoba

Newton

Perry

Wayne

Alabama:

Sumter

Northern Mississippi

Survey Area

Mississippi:

Clay

Grenada

Leflore

Lee

Lowndes

Monroe

Oktibbeha

Area of Application. Survey Area Plus

Mississippi:

Alcorn

Bolivar

Calhoun

Carroll

Chickasaw

Choctaw

Coahoma

Itawamba

Lafayette 15

Montgomery

Noxubee

Panola

Pontotoc 15

Prentiss

Quitman

Sunflower

Tallahatchie
65248 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Proposed Rules

15Excluding Holly Springs National Forest.

Tishomingo

Union 15

Washington

Webster

Winston

Yalobusha

* * * * *

Montana

Montana

Survey Area

Montana:

Cascade

Lewis and Clark

Yellowstone

Area of Application. Survey Area Plus

Montana:

Beaverhead

Big Horn

Blaine

Broadwater

Carbon

Carter

Chouteau

Custer

Daniels

Dawson

Deer Lodge

Fallon

Fergus

Flathead

Gallatin

Garfield

Glacier

Golden Valley

Granite

Hill

Jefferson

Judith Basin

Lake

Liberty

Lincoln

McCone

Madison

Meagher

Mineral

Missoula

Musselshell

Park

Petroleum

Phillips

Pondera

Powder River

Powell

Prairie

Ravalli

Richland

Roosevelt

Rosebud

Sanders

Sheridan

Silver Bow

Stillwater

Sweet Grass

Teton

Toole

Treasure

Valley

Wheatland

Wibaux

Wyoming:

Big Horn

Park

* * * * *

Pennsylvania

* * * * *

Pittsburgh

Survey Area

Pennsylvania:

Allegheny

Beaver

Butler

Washington

Westmoreland

Area of Application. Survey Area Plus

Pennsylvania:

Armstrong

Bedford

Blair

Cambria

Cameron

Centre

Clarion

Clearfield

Clinton

Crawford

Elk

Erie

Fayette

Forest

Greene

Huntingdon

Indiana

Jefferson

Lawrence

McKean

Mercer

Potter

Somerset

Venango

Warren

Ohio:

Belmont

Carroll

Harrison

Jefferson

Tuscarawas

West Virginia:

Brooke

Hancock

Marshall

Ohio

* * * * *

Tennessee

Eastern Tennessee

Survey Area

Tennessee:

Carter

Hawkins

Sullivan

Unicoi

Washington

Virginia (city):

Bristol

Virginia (counties):

Scott

Washington

Area of Application. Survey Area Plus

Tennessee:

Cocke

Greene

Hancock

Johnson

Virginia:

Buchanan

Grayson

Lee

Russell

Smyth

Tazewell

North Carolina:

Alleghany

Ashe

Watauga

Kentucky:

Harlan

Letcher

* * * * *

Texas

* * * * *

Corpus Christi

Survey Area

Texas:

Nueces

San Patricio

Area of Application. Survey Area Plus

Texas:

Aransas

Bee

Brooks

Calhoun

Cameron

Goliad

Hidalgo

Jim Wells

Kenedy

Kleberg

Live Oak

Refugio

Starr

Victoria

Willacy

* * * * *

San Antonio

Survey Area

Texas:

Bexar

Comal

Guadalupe

Area of Application. Survey Area Plus

Texas:

Atascosa

Bandera

De Witt

Dimmit

Duval

Edwards

Frio

Gillespie

Gonzales

Jim Hogg

Karnes

Kendall

Kerr

Kinney

La Salle

McMullen

Maverick

Medina

Real

Uvalde

Val Verde

Webb
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Proposed Rules 65249

Wilson

Zapata

Zavala

* * * * *

West Virginia

West Virginia

Survey Area

West Virginia:

Cabell

Harrison

Kanawha

Marion

Monongalia

Putnam

Wayne

Ohio:

Lawrence

Kentucky:

Boyd Greenup

Area of Application. Survey Area Plus

West Virginia:

Barbour

Boone

Braxton

Calhoun

Clay

Doddridge

Fayette

Gilmer

Grant

Greenbrier

Jackson

Lewis

Lincoln

Logan

McDowell

Mason

Mercer

Mingo

Monroe

Nicholas

Pendleton

Pleasants

Pocahontas

Preston

Raleigh

Randolph

Ritchie

Roane

Summers

Taylor

Tucker

Tyler

Upshur

Webster

Wetzel

Wirt

Wood

Wyoming

Ohio:

Athens

Gallia

Jackson

Meigs

Monroe

Morgan

Noble

Pike

Scioto

Vinton

Washington

Kentucky:

Carter

Elliott

Floyd

Johnson

Lawrence

Lewis

Magoffin

Martin

Pike

Virginia (city):

Norton

Virginia (counties):

Dickenson

Wise

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–30737 Filed 12–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–M

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

5 CFR Chapter LVIII

12 CFR Part 264

[Docket No. R–0900]

RIN 3209–AA15

Supplemental Standards of Ethical

Conduct for Employees of the Board of

Governors of the Federal Reserve

System

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System (Board).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System, with the

concurrence of the Office of

Government Ethics (OGE), proposes to

issue regulations for the officers and

employees of the Board that supplement

the Standards of Ethical Conduct for

Employees of the Executive Branch

issued by OGE. The proposed regulation

is a necessary supplement to the

Executive Branch-wide Standards

because it addresses ethical issues

unique to the Board. The regulation as

proposed would establish rules relating

to: financial interests and transactions;

borrowing and extensions of credit;

employment relationships of immediate

family members; and outside

employment. The Board is also

proposing to replace its old employee

conduct regulation with a residual

cross-reference to the new provisions.

DATES: Comments are invited and must

be received on or before February 20,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

Docket No. R–0900, and may be mailed

to Williams W. Wiles, Secretary, Board

of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, 20th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20551.

Comments also may be delivered to

Room B–2222 of the Eccles Building

between 8:45 a.m. and 5:15 p.m.

weekdays, or to the guard station in the

Eccles Building courtyard on 20th

Street, NW. (between Constitution

Avenue and C Street) at any time.

Comments received will be available for

inspection in Room MP–500 of the

Martin Building between 9:00 a.m. and

5:00 p.m. weekdays, except as provided

in 12 CFR 261.8 of the Board’s rules

regarding availability of information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cary

Williams, Managing Senior Counsel,

Legal Division, Board of Governors of

the Federal Reserve System, telephone

(202) 452–3295, FAX (202) 452–3101.

For the hearing impaired only,

Telecommunications Device for the

Deaf, Dorothea Thompson (202) 452–

3544.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On August 7, 1992, OGE published

the Standards of Ethical Conduct for

Employees in the Executive Branch. See

57 FR 35006–35067, as corrected at 57

FR 48557 and 57 FR 52583, with

additional grace period extensions at 59

FR 4779–4780 and 60 FR 6390–6391.

The Executive Branch-wide Standards

are now codified at 5 CFR part 2635.

Effective February 3, 1993, they

established uniform ethical conduct

standards applicable to all executive

branch personnel.

With the concurrence of OGE, 5 CFR

2635.105 authorizes executive agencies

to publish agency-specific supplemental

regulations necessary to implement

their respective ethics programs. The

Board, with OGE’s concurrence, has

determined that the following proposed

supplemental regulations are necessary

to implement the Board’s ethics

program successfully, in light of the

Board’s unique programs and

operations. The proposed supplemental

rule addresses issues relevant to the

Board’s roles with respect to monetary

policy and banking regulation. The

Board is also proposing to delete the

existing provisions of 12 CFR part 264

that its supplemental regulation, once

finally adopted, and the Executive

Branch-wide Standards supersede and

to add in their place a residual crossreference to the current provisions.

II. Analysis of the Proposed Regulations

Section 6801.101 General

Section 6801.101 explains that the

proposed regulations contained in the

rule would apply to all Board

employees, including Board members,

and are supplemental to the Executive

Branch-wide Standards.