Comment Number: OL-10506333
Received: 3/11/2005 1:50:11 PM
Subject: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment
Title: National Security Personnel System
CFR Citation: 5 CFR Chapter XCIX and Part 9901
No Attachments

Comments:

My comments deal specifically with all aspects of the Local Market Supplements as addressed in the proposed text of the Federal Register dated February 14, 2005. Under Pay and Administration-SubpartC, Setting and Adjusting Rate Ranges. My key objection is to any reference that ties the Local Market Supplements to any occupational factors or career group, pay schedule, or pay band. Under part 9901.103 Definitions, I object to the definition of basic pay including the local market supplement. Under part 9901.304 Definitions, I object to the definition of Local market supplement being an "...occupation-based supplement to basic pay." Under part 9901.332 Local market supplements. I object to the following from (a), "DoD may provide different local market supplements for different occupations and/or pay bands within the same career group in the same local market area." Later in that part, I also object to the statement in (c), "Local market supplements are considered baic pay for only the following purposes." The primary reasoning behind all of the above objections is simple, and ties to the verbiage in part 9901.332 (a) which states, "Local market supplements apply to employees whose official duty station is located in the given area." Past practice regarding locality pay (similar to the military Variable Housing Allowance - VHA) has been to provide compensation for personnel living and working in geographic localities or local markets where the cost of living was appreciably higher than other locations throughout the country where people were performing similar work. This pay supplement prevented personnel from experiencing a financial hardship created by the requirement to perform similar duties in geographic locations with significantly higher cost of living. Neither of these supplements was ever governed by differences in "career group" or "occupation." Variances in the compensation associated with an occupation should be appropriately addressed in the pay banding for that occupation, not in the locality supplement. Furthermore, including the local market supplement in basic pay for the purpose of retirement will significantly increase the amount of retirement pay for select individuals based on the location that they performed their service and the occupation or career group they were associated with, creating an elite class of occupations and/or duty assignments and limiting the desire for the workforce to either relocate or pursue career broadening positions outside those elite career groups due to potential financial impacts. I urge you to reconsider the approach being proposed for local market supplements to mirror the existing locality pay system currently in place. Having participated in the on-going acquisition demonstration program that utilizes a pay banding system, along with a standard locality pay percentage, I can see no justification for the approach being proposed. If there is a rationale for the proposed approach, I would like to see it addressed in some fashion on the NSPS website. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed rules in the Federal Register.