Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2008/05/21/E8-11283/representative-rate-order-of-release-from-competitive-level-assignment-rights
Timestamp: 2018-07-22 09:59:23
Document Index: 710609210

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 351', 'art 351', 'art 351', '§\u2009351', '§\u2009351', '§\u2009351']

A Rule by the Personnel Management Office on 05/21/2008
73 FR 29387
E8-11283
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/E8-11283 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/E8-11283
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing final regulations clarifying how an agency determines employees' retention rights when the agency has positions in one or more pay bands. These regulations also clarify the order in which an agency releases employees from a competitive level. Finally, these regulations clarify how an agency determines employees' retention rights when a competitive area includes more than one local commuting area.
Effective Date: These regulations are effective June 20, 2008.
On March 15, 2007, OPM published proposed reduction in force regulations in the Federal Register at 72 FR 12122. Interested parties could submit comments to OPM on the regulations through May 14, 2007. OPM received comments from two agencies and one individual on these proposed regulations. Although OPM received comments from one agency and the individual shortly after the May 14, 2007, closing date, we considered these comments in publishing final regulations. We discuss all the comments below.
The individual asked OPM to clarify that the pay band provisions in the proposed regulations apply only to reduction in force actions under part 351 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), but do not apply to actions under demonstration projects. We found that no revision is necessary. If an alternative retention system (such as a retention system under a demonstration project) is not subject to part 351 of title 5, that system must clearly state the legal basis for exclusion from 5 CFR part 351.
The individual also asked OPM to clarify the definition of “representative rate” in section 351.203 for a General Schedule (GS) employee stationed outside the contiguous states (e.g., stationed in Alaska, Hawaii or overseas). We have not revised the regulations to address this suggestion. The definition of representative rate for any employee stationed outside the contiguous states remains unchanged and continues as the fourth step of the grade for a position covered by the GS using the base rate for GS positions. Employees in Alaska and Hawaii may receive nonforeign area cost-of-living allowance payments under 5 U.S.C. 5941. Employees in overseas locations may receive cost-of-living allowances under 5 U.S.C. 5924. Such allowances are not basic pay nor are they treated in a manner similar to locality pay for GS employees. Accordingly, such allowances are not included in a representative rate for reduction in force purposes.
One agency asked OPM to clarify the definition of “representative rate” in section 351.203 for a Federal Wage System (FWS) position. We are adopting this suggestion by adding a reference in section 351.203 to the definition of “representative rate” in 5 CFR 532.401 for FWS positions. Section 532.401 provides that the representative rate for an FWS position is the second rate on a five-rate regular wage schedule.
One agency suggested that OPM delete the definition of “representative rate” for pay band positions in paragraph (3) of proposed section 351.203. For an alternative, the agency suggested that, in reduction in force competition, it would instead use the pay-setting procedures that apply when one of its employees moves internally (e.g., via actions such as reassignment or voluntary demotion) from a pay band position to a position not covered by a pay band. We did not adopt this suggestion. The Supplementary Information section of the proposed regulations explained that comparing representative rates is an impartial procedure to determine employees' potential “bump” or “retreat” right to a position on a different retention register when the positions are under different pay schedules (e.g., to determine the assignment rights of employees to and from positions covered by the GS system, FWS, and pay bands). In contrast, an agency-specific procedure to set pay based upon a voluntary or management-initiated movement from a pay band position to a position not covered by a pay band may include variables not covered by the proposed definition of “representative rate” for pay band positions in section 351.203. As a result, an agency-specific pay-setting procedure would not necessarily ensure that all competing employees have equivalent retention rights to and from positions under different pay schedules.
The two agencies suggested that section 351.403(a)(5) include all the criteria that an agency uses to determine whether two or more positions are interchangeable for purposes of establishing reduction in force competitive levels. Another comment asked for clarification when pay band positions are not interchangeable. We found that no revision is needed because section 351.403(a)(5) as written explains that the agency applies section 351.403(a)(1) through (4) to determine whether positions are interchangeable and must be placed in the same competitive level.
One agency asked whether section 351.403(a)(5) requires an agency to establish separate competitive levels for pay band positions with different representative rates. The agency also asked whether all positions in a pay band must have different representative rates if the pay band includes more than one competitive level. As written, section 351.403(a)(5) provides that the agency establishes each pay band competitive level to include interchangeable positions. Only then does the agency determine which representative rate is applicable to that competitive level.
One agency and the individual asked that OPM provide criteria for the agency Start Printed Page 29388to consider under section 351.701(g) when determining which representative rate to use for reduction in force competition when a competitive area includes more than one local commuting area. We are not adopting this suggestion because we believe that the agency should have full discretion to determine which local commuting area is used as the basis for reduction in force representative rates under section 351.701(g). This is consistent with the agency's responsibility to make decisions under section 351.204.
The individual commenter noted that employees' potential assignment rights may differ, depending upon which local commuting area the agency designates under section 351.701(g) as the basis for representative rates when a competitive area includes more than one local commuting area. We explained in the Supplementary Information section of the proposed regulations that agencies will, for the first time, determine employees' reduction in force representative rates using a locality component for both GS and FWS positions. This is more equitable in determining employees' assignment rights than the current procedure in which the representative rate of FWS employees is based on a local prevailing rate, but the representative rate of GS employees does not include a locality component.
One agency asked OPM to clarify the range of potential assignment rights under section 351.708(h) when the competitive area includes only pay band positions. We found that no revision is needed. The language of the proposed regulation, which is further explained in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, provides that a competitive service employee has a potential assignment right to a position in the same pay band or one pay band lower than the pay band from which released. In addition, a competitive service preference eligible employee with a service-connected disability of 30 percent or more has a potential assignment right to a position in the same pay band or up to two pay bands lower than the pay band from which released. These grade limits defining the range of potential assignment rights are consistent with the grade limits for a pay band environment that OPM approved and tested for demonstration projects for more than two decades.
One agency asked OPM to provide criteria for the agency to consider when designating the representative rate for pay band positions under paragraph (3) of the definition in section 351.203 when, under section 351.701(i), the competitive area includes pay band positions and other positions not covered by a pay band. We are not adopting this suggestion because we believe that the agency should have full discretion to designate the representative rate for pay band positions, consistent with section 351.203 and the agency's responsibility to make decisions under section 351.204.
2. In § 351.203, the definition of “representative rate” is revised to read as follows:
(a) Each agency must select competing employees for release from a competitive level (including release from a competitive level involving a pay band) under this part in the inverse order of retention standing, beginning with the employee with the lowest retention standing on the retention register. An agency may not release a competing employee from a competitive level while retaining in that level an Start Printed Page 29389employee with lower retention standing except:
5. In § 351.701, paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) are added, to read as follows:
(1) Determining the representative rate of positions not covered by a pay band, consistent with § 351.203;
[FR Doc. E8-11283 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am]