Federal Management Regulation: Designation of Authority and Sustainable Siting

Federal Management Regulation; Designation of Authority and Sustainable Siting

Supplementary Information

I. Background

This final rule amends the Federal Management Regulation (FMR) to elaborate on the factors that are advantageous to the Government when planning for location decisions. The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on October 24, 2023 (88 FR 72974).

The Administrator of General Services (Administrator) is authorized to acquire real estate and interests in real estate to accommodate the space needs of federal agencies. In particular, these authorities are codified at 40 U.S.C. 301 note (specifically, the 1950 Reorganization Plan No. 18), 113(d), 581(c)(1), 585, and 3304, and 28 U.S.C. 462(f). In addition, 40 U.S.C. 584 requires the Administrator to assign space to executive agencies in accordance with policies and directives the President prescribes under 40 U.S.C. 121(a), after consultation with the affected agency, and based on a determination by the Administrator that the assignment or reassignment is advantageous to the Government in terms of economy, efficiency, or national security.

There are several other statutory authorities that underlie federal site location policy. The Rural Development Act of 1972, as amended (7 U.S.C. 2204b-1) (RDA), requires executive agencies to give first priority to locating in rural areas.

The Federal Urban Land Use Act of 1949, as amended (40 U.S.C. 901-905), requires GSA and other Federal agencies to consult and engage with the unit of general local government exercising zoning and land use jurisdiction so that Federal urban land acquisitions and uses are developed in accordance with local zoning, land use practices and planning and development objectives to the greatest extent practicable. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq. ) (NHPA), encourages the preservation and utilization of all usable elements of the Nation's historic built environment. The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, as amended (41 U.S.C. 3301 et seq. ) (CICA), requires executive agencies to consider whether the location decision or delineated area will provide for adequate competition when acquiring leased space. Finally, 40 U.S.C. 121(c) authorizes the Administrator to issue regulations that the Administrator considers necessary to carry out the Administrator's functions under, as relevant here, subtitle I of chapter 40 of the United States Code. Thus, this rule implements the requirements of the statutes described above and establishes factors to be considered in the pre-procurement or acquisition process for federal agency location decisions.

This rule updates the existing part 102-83 by incorporating new terminology but continues to implement the underlying principles for planning for location decisions that have been in existence for almost 50 years. These principles were first incorporated in 41 CFR part 101-17, Assignment and Utilization of Space (45 FR 37200-37206, June 2, 1980), and continue to be the foundation for the factors elaborated on today. The procedures for location decisions were eventually given a separate part in the FMR in 2002, when 41 CFR part 102-83, Location of Space, was issued. This part was last revised and published in the Federal Register on November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67857-67860).

The rule continues to be guided by the longstanding Executive Order (E.O.) 12072, "Federal Space Management," which prescribes policies and directives for the planning, acquisition, utilization, and management of federal space facilities in accordance with 40 U.S.C. 121(a) (43 FR 36869, August 18, 1978). E.O. 12072 requires that "serious consideration" be given "to the impact a site selection will have on improving the social, economic, environmental, and cultural conditions of the communities in the urban area."

In addition, in accordance with the NHPA and consistent with E.O. 12072, E.O. 13006, "Locating Federal Facilities on Historic Properties in Our Nation's Central Cities" (61 FR 26071, May 24, 1996), requires Federal agencies to give first consideration to historic properties within historic districts. If no such property is suitable, then Federal agencies must consider other developed or undeveloped sites within historic districts. If no suitable site exists within historic districts, Federal agencies must then consider historic properties outside of historic districts.

On May 15, 2023, GSA published a bulletin to the FMR (88 FR 30975, May 15, 2023) to bring the regulation into alignment with current terminology and concepts, and to attempt to provide consistency when applying the existing regulation across Federal agencies. As these concepts and associated terminology are incorporated into this final rule, GSA will cancel the bulletin once this rule takes effect.

Other E.O.s and more recent administration policies further inform this rule by providing new terminology to help understand and address what it means to consider the impact of social, economic, environmental, and cultural conditions. For example, E.O 11988,"Floodplain Management" (42 FR 26951, May 25, 1977), as amended by E.O 13690, "Establishing a Flood Risk Management Standard and a Process for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input" (80 FR 6425, Feb. 4, 2015), and E.O. 11990, "Wetlands Protection" (42 FR 26961, May 24, 1977), direct agencies to avoid locating in a floodplain and disturbing wetlands. E.O. 14057, "Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability" (86 FR 70935, December 13, 2021), its accompanying Implementing Instructions, dated August 31, 2022, and the associated Office of Management and Budget (OMB), White House Council on Environmental Quality and National Climate Policy Office memorandum (M-22-06, 12/8/2021), direct Federal agencies to promote sustainable locations for Federal facilities and strengthen the vitality and livability of the communities in which Federal facilities are located. These directives charge agencies with advancing sustainable land use that promotes the conservation of natural resources, reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and increases resilience to the impacts of climate change; efficient use of local infrastructure; expanded public transportation use and access; equitable development that promotes environmental justice and economic opportunity for disadvantaged communities; and coordination and alignment with the development plans of Tribal, State, and local or regional governments that advance these and related goals. Note that while E.O. 12072 and E.O. 13006 only address urban areas, E.O. 14057 applies many of the same goals to both urban and rural areas.

E.O. 14008, "Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad" (86 FR 7619, February 1, 2021), directs Federal agencies to employ a Government-wide approach across a wide range of activities and goals related to tackling the climate change crisis. Most relevant to this part, it directs agencies to reduce climate pollution, increase resilience to the impacts of climate change, and deliver environmental justice, spur economic opportunity for disadvantaged communities that have been historically marginalized, and overburdened by pollution and underinvestment in housing, transportation, water and wastewater infrastructure, and health care.

E.O. 14091, "Further Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government" (88 FR 10825, February 22, 2023), directs Federal agencies to advance equity for all communities, especially those populations that historically have suffered from underinvestment and inequality, discrimination and persistent poverty, and to give equitable treatment to all individuals in a consistent and systematic manner. The order further promotes efficiency by directing Federal agencies, when planning for Federally owned and leased facilities, to consider locations near existing employment centers and public transit so that a broad range of the region's workforce and population may access the jobs and services at those facilities. This enables the agencies for which GSA provides space to more readily carry out their missions. Where the Federal development may spur displacement of current community populations, the E.O. instructs Federal agencies to engage further with those communities and the relevant regional and local officials to address displacement risks.

E.O. 14096, "Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All" (88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023), builds on the E.O.s described above to reinforce agency use of data analysis in identifying communities suffering environmental injustice, including related to climate change and cumulative impacts, and targeting mitigation or harm avoidance through Federal actions. GSA and other Federal agencies can use various data sets and tools to identify if proposed locations for Federally owned and leased facilities are in communities with environmental justice concerns. For example, the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool  ⁽¹⁾ (CEJST) identifies geographically defined disadvantaged communities, includes an interactive map, and uses datasets that are indicators of burdens in eight categories: climate change, energy, health, housing, legacy pollution, transportation, water and wastewater, and workforce development. The tool uses this information to identify disadvantaged communities that are experiencing these burdens. These are the communities that are disadvantaged because they are overburdened by pollution and marginalized by underinvestment. The order also re-emphasizes consultation and engagement with members of affected communities that allow meaningful participation for those communities in agency decision-making, including individuals with limited English proficiency and individuals with disabilities. This is in keeping with the requirements of the Federal Urban Land Use Act. As mentioned above, the principles that underlie this rule have been in existence for decades and it is well established that GSA has broad discretion regarding the substance of this regulation because it involves managerial and economic choices that are dependent on GSA's special expertise in this area. Moreover, when a project subject to 40 U.S.C. 3307 is contemplated, as part of the appropriations process, GSA provides the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives notice of the delineated area for locating the project and a comprehensive plan that demonstrates that the project will enhance the architectural, historical, social, cultural, and economic environment of the locality. Thus, by adopting resolutions approving the appropriation of the funds for the proposed project, there is a presumption of congressional approval of the delineated area and the process completed by which either GSA or the agencies operating under GSA's authority, or both, establish the location decision. The congressional approval of the future location decision is further evidenced by a provision that Congress routinely includes in GSA's annual appropriations act (See, for example, section 525 of title V of division E of section 2 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, Pub. L. 117-328, 136 Stat. 4459, 4687). That provision requires the Administrator to ensure that the delineated area of a prospectus-level lease procurement is identical to the delineated area included in the approved prospectus and, if the Administrator determines that the delineated area of the procurement should not be identical to the delineated area included in the prospectus, the Administrator must provide an explanatory statement to GSA's authorizing and appropriations committees.

For non-prospectus projects, GSA exercises its discretion in accordance with the principles that underlie this rule.

It is important to note that these final rule changes work in concert with, and not in lieu of, agency mission and physical security needs, CICA, cost considerations, consolidation and reductions in square footage, prioritizing Federally owned space, and other procurement policies. In accordance with the statutes and policies described above, the optimal Federal location decision is the one that meets Federal agency mission needs, at an appropriate cost to taxpayers, while achieving the necessary level of security and leveraging Federal development in support of other Federal and local goals.

This final rule will revise in its entirety 41 CFR part 102-83, Location of Space. Federal agencies operating under or subject to the real property authorities of the Administrator of General Services must comply with the provisions of the FMR that cover real property (41 CFR parts 102-71 through 102-85).

II. Discussion of the Final Rule

A. Summary of Major Changes

The following updates and clarification changes are incorporated into the amended part 102-83:

• Social, Economic, Environmental, and Cultural factors in Location Decisions

The rule now more explicitly explains the factors associated with social, economic, environmental, and cultural conditions to be considered in location decisions.

• Central Cities to Principal Cities

The term "central cities" has, for many years, been retired in favor of the term "principal cities," as published in the OMB "2010 Standards for Delineating Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas" (75 FR 37246, June 28, 2010) (the 2010 Standards). This term reflects new consideration for how single or multiple urban centers function as commuting destinations and population centers within a single core-based statistical area (CBSA). This final rule updates the terminology throughout the part accordingly.

• Metropolitan Areas to Core-Based Statistical Areas

The shift from metropolitan areas (MA) to CBSAs reflects the change that first appeared in the OMB "2000 Standards for Delineating Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas" (65 FR 82228, December 27, 2000) (the 2000 Standards) to recognize both MAs and micropolitan statistical areas as having an urbanized core and surrounding areas with a high degree of integration to that core. The 2000 Standards were replaced and superseded by the 2010 Standards, and the most recent delineations for CBSA boundaries appeared in OMB Bulletin No. 18-04 on September 14, 2018. This final rule updates the term throughout the part accordingly.

• Urban/Rural Definitions

The definitions for "urban area" and "rural area" in the existing regulations are difficult to interpret because they draw on two different sources, and these definitions are not necessarily mutually exclusive from one another. The current part 102-83 has a definition for urban that relies on the boundaries of MAs defined by OMB.

The current definition for rural area comes not from the RDA, but rather from the Consolidated Farmers Home Administration Act of 1961 (CFHA), as amended by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, which identifies a rural area for general purposes of CFHA as any area except a city or town with a population greater than 50,000 people or adjacent urbanized areas. The original definition of rural area applicable to the RDA was stricken from the statute and, subsequently, GSA adopted the CFHA definition. The circularity of these current definitions, however, makes the boundaries of urban and rural difficult to interpret. Among the difficulties are the fact that the boundaries established by the definitions do not relate to jurisdictional boundaries and are measured at the fine grain of census blocks, meaning that adjacent parcels within the same jurisdiction may be designated one as rural and the other as urban. With urban and rural areas immediately across the street from each other, making the case that an agency can only meet its need in the parcel designated as urban rather than the adjacent parcel designated rural, or vice versa, needlessly opens the Federal space action to protest.

Given that subsequent revisions of the RDA have actually eliminated the original definition of rural area, GSA has chosen a definition that better meets the needs of the Federal location decision process, and this final rule simplifies the definition to the boundaries of CBSAs, which follow county lines. Those areas contained within the boundaries are considered urban, and those outside the boundaries are considered rural. As with the current definitions, agency mission need remains the primary determinant of whether a Federal agency will seek space in an urban or rural area.

• Considering Real Estate Cost and Efficiency Factors

Federal location policy has long advocated that Federal agencies balance cost, mission and real estate efficiencies, as well as local development goals, when making location decisions. This derives from statute and related policies. This revised part enumerates these factors to encourage agencies to reach balanced, holistic decisions, and to clarify agency latitude to consider cost and other business factors.

• Local Consultation and Engagement Requirements

The various governing authorities and directives for this part require that Federal agencies consult and engage with local officials when making real estate decisions and that they seek opportunities for Federal action to support local development objectives. These authorities and policies include the Federal Urban Land Use Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 901-905); the RDA; and E.O. 12072. For the Federal Government to consider locating Federal facilities in a specific area or jurisdiction in keeping with the goals of this part, the existing or planned development composition for that area needs to be appropriate both to meeting Federal agency mission and space needs and local development goals.

Determining whether a specific area is appropriate for Federal facilities calls for consultation and engagement with State and local officials, Tribal governments, Alaska Native corporations, and Native Hawaiian Organizations, and meaningful engagement with communities in applicable geographies, to better understand local conditions and development goals, including those related to sustainability, climate change mitigation and resilience, and environmental justice. Further, where Federal agencies determine through data analysis, including through use of CEJST or other applicable Federal tools, and local consultation and other engagement that displacement risks or other environmental justice concerns exist for current populations in the vicinity of a planned facility, Federal agencies are directed to engage with the affected communities and relevant regional and local officials to address mitigating those risks.

To encourage both effective long-term consultation and engagement and efficient processes that are not overly burdensome to Federal agencies, this revised part outlines the latitude that agencies have to develop efficient internal policy and procedure.

B. Analysis of Public Comments

In response to the notice of public rulemaking, five commenters submitted comments on the provisions of the proposed rule, including three environmental advocacy groups, one individual and one anonymous commenter.

GSA appreciates the thorough public response to the proposed rule, and carefully considered all comments received. Commenters provided feedback on several provisions of the proposed rule, but primarily focused on the following topics: referencing the numerous statutory and executive authorities governing the process by which the agency plans for location decisions; providing an explanation on how to apply the changes in the regulation; explaining the hard to quantify benefits of the rule; and protection of floodplains and wetlands to avoid harming these critical native ecosystems.

Citing Additional Authorities for This Rule

Some of the commenters requested GSA include additional authorities that pertain to the selection of a specific site. GSA has based the rule on the existing authorities pertaining to the factors that are advantageous to the Government when planning for location decisions. This rule establishes the process for determining the delineated area and, once the delineated area is determined, helps to inform the specific site selection decision. The references cited by commenters are better addressed at the point in the process when specific sites are under consideration.

Explain How To Apply Changes in the Rule

The FMR outlines, at a high level, what must be considered when planning for location decisions to meet Federal space needs. The comments regarding specific procedures to implement the changes in the regulation will be addressed in subsequent implementation policies and guidance to be published after the rule takes effect.

Explain the Non-Quantifiable Benefits of the Rule

GSA notes that when selecting a site to accommodate Federal space needs, there are considerations, such as equity, environmental justice and sustainability, whose benefits to society are difficult to quantify. This rule outlines those factors that Federal agencies must consider in location decisions, but it does not dictate outcomes. Even if the specific location decision and the associated outcomes were addressed in this rule, that decision would be very difficult to anticipate, given that the Federal real estate inventory is highly diverse in terms of geography, scale, and function. The scope of the analysis is, therefore, limited to the processes of governments and stakeholders rather than the outcomes of those processes.

Floodplain and Wetlands Protection

GSA made an edit to the rule to acknowledge the protection of the natural environment by preserving ecosystems, including native ecosystems, avoiding development of green space, and promoting climate change adaptation planning. GSA reiterates, though, that mitigating the impact to wetlands and floodplains largely occurs during the site planning and design steps in the process, after the location decision itself. Those steps are not the subject of this rule.

III. Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and 14094

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 ( Regulatory Planning and Review ) directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 ( Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review ) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. E.O. 14094 ( Modernizing Regulatory Review ) amends subsection 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and supplements and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary regulatory review established in E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563. OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is a significant regulatory action and, therefore, it is subject to review under subsection 6(b) of E.O. 12866.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

GSA does not expect this final rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

V. Regulatory Impact Analysis

During the first and subsequent years after publication of the rule, Federally owned new construction members and leasing acquisition members (which include a combination of Planning Managers, Site Acquisition Staff, Program Managers, Lease Contracting Officers, and Lease Project Managers) will need to learn about GSA's government-wide plan and compliance requirements. GSA estimates this cost by multiplying the time required to review the regulations and guidance implementing the rule by the estimated hourly compensation. GSA calculates the estimated hourly compensation using the U.S. Office of Personnel Management's 2023 General Schedule (GS) Rest of United States Locality Pay Table, a full fringe benefit cost factor of 36.25% and an overhead cost factor of 12%. ^{(2 3 4 5)}

GSA assumes the Federally owned new construction members and leasing acquisition members will, on average, stay consistent in the subsequent years. GSA also delegates leasing authority to several agencies, which are required to follow GSA's policies. As of July 2023, GSA has nine agencies actively using delegated leasing authority. The numbers and assumptions also apply to agencies using delegated leasing authority.

1. Government Costs

a. Federally Owned New Construction

The Government must educate its Federally owned new construction members via a government-wide plan to heighten their familiarity with the rule. GSA makes these assumptions based on historical familiarization and subject matter expert judgment. Below is a list of training and communication activities related to regulatory familiarization and compliance that GSA anticipates will occur.

GSA estimates it will take 5 GSA employees on average, with a GS-14 step 5 with an average hourly rate of $93.70/hour, 20 hours each in year 1 to develop new content for planning managers and site acquisition staff training. Therefore, GSA estimates the total estimated cost for this part of the rule to be $9,370 (= 5 × $93.70 GS-14 step 5 rate × 20 hours).

GSA estimates it will take 5 GSA employees on average, with a GS-14 step 5 with an average hourly rate of $93.70/hour, 1 hour each in years 3, 5, 7, and 9 to update new content for planning managers and site acquisition staff training. Therefore, GSA estimates the total annual estimated cost for this part of the rule to be $469 (= 5 × $93.70 GS-14 step 5 rate × 1 hour).

GSA estimates it will take 5 GSA employees on average, with a GS-14 step 5 with an average hourly rate of $93.70/hour, 1.5 hours each in years 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 to deliver new training content to planning managers and site acquisition staff. Therefore, GSA estimates the total annual estimated cost for this part of the rule to be $703 (= 5 × $93.70 GS-14 step 5 rate × 1.5 hours).

GSA estimates it will take 103 GSA planning managers and site acquisition staff on average, with a GS-13 step 5 with an average hourly rate of $79.29/hour, 1.5 hours each in years 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 to receive new training content. Therefore, GSA estimates the total annual estimated cost for this part of the rule to be $12,251 (= 103 × $79.29 GS-13 step 5 rate × 1.5 hours).

GSA estimates it will take 5 GSA employees on average, with a GS-14 step 5 with an average hourly rate of $93.70/hour, 4 hours each in year 1 to develop new content for training for client agencies. Therefore, GSA estimates the total estimated cost for this part of the rule to be $1,874 (= 5 × $93.70 GS-14 step 5 rate × 4 hours).

GSA estimates it will take 5 GSA employees on average, with a GS-14 step 5 with an average hourly rate of $93.70/hour, 1 hour each in years 3, 5, 7, and 9 to develop new content for training for client agencies. Therefore, GSA estimates the total annual estimated cost for this part of the rule to be $469 (= 5 × $93.70 GS-14 step 5 rate × 1 hour).

GSA estimates it will take 5 GSA Central Office program managers on average, with a GS-14 step 5 with an average hourly rate of $93.70/hour, 1.5 hours each in years 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 to provide training to client agencies. Therefore, GSA estimates the total annual estimated cost for this part of the rule to be $703 (= 5 × $93.70 GS-14 step 5 rate × 1.5 hours).

GSA estimates it will take 400 client agency employees on average, with a GS-13 step 5 with an average hourly rate of $79.29/hour, 1.5 hours each in years 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 to receive training. Therefore, GSA estimates the total annual estimated cost for this part of the rule to be $47,577 (= 400 × $79.29 GS-13 step 5 rate × 1.5 hours).

GSA estimates it will take 11 GSA regional office employees on average, with a GS-13 step 5 with an average hourly rate of $79.29/hour, 1 hour each in years 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 to provide additional communications from GSA regional offices to client agency regional offices on the new training content. Therefore, GSA estimates the total annual estimated cost for this part of the rule to be $872 (= 11 × $79.29 GS-13 step 5 rate × 1 hour).

GSA estimates it will take 400 client agency regional office employees on average, with a GS-13 step 5 with an average hourly rate of $79.29/hour, 0.5 hours each in years 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 to review the GSA regional office communications on the new training content. Therefore, GSA estimates the total annual estimated cost for this part of the rule to be $15,859 (= 400 × $79.29 GS-13 step 5 rate × 0.5 hours).

GSA estimates it will take 2 GSA project managers on average, with a GS-13 step 5 with an average hourly rate of $79.29/hour, 2 hours each in years 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 to share GSA location decision information with community organizations. Therefore, GSA estimates the total annual estimated cost for this part of the rule to be $317 (= 2 × $79.29 GS-13 step 5 rate × 2 hours).

Beyond the direct costs of educating users and stakeholders about the policy changes associated with the rule, the location decisions resulting from incorporating sustainability factors and engaging with local stakeholders could be different from what they otherwise might have been without this revised rule. GSA anticipates that changes in outcomes will come with changes in costs and benefits. Inclusion of those costs and benefits in the regulatory impact analysis are not easily quantifiable. This rule guides processes in location decisions but does not mandate outcomes. Outcomes, moreover, would be very difficult to anticipate across the breadth of the Federal location decisions, which are highly diverse in geography, scale, and function and highly variable in quantity across a given time period. By incorporating sustainability factors and local planning goals into agency location decision making, GSA seeks to maximize benefits to the Federal Government, the environment and local communities and minimize negative externalities. Direct costs and indirect impacts associated with location decisions will depend on the specific characteristics of each decision and will more appropriately be addressed at the time an agency makes such a decision. Lastly, while impossible to predict for future projects, in GSA's experience the community engagement and collaboration envisioned by the rule are more likely to lead to outcomes that reduce rather than increase project costs for two reasons:

(1) effective collaboration with local stakeholders and coordination with local officials tends toward reducing risk of opposition to a project along with attendant costs associated with delay; and

(2) site selections that align with local goals are often supported by local government through donation or discount to the Federal Government or assistance with land assembly.

b. Leased Buildings

The Government must educate its leasing acquisition members via a government-wide plan to heighten their familiarity with the rule. Below is a list of training and communication activities related to regulatory familiarization and compliance that GSA anticipates will occur.

GSA estimates it will take 3 GSA employees on average, with a GS-14 step 5 with an average hourly rate of $93.70/hour, 5 hours each in year 1 to develop new contract language relating to location and preferences. Therefore, GSA estimates the total estimated cost for this part of the rule to be $1,406 (= 3 × $93.70 GS-14 step 5 rate × 5 hours).

GSA estimates it will take 3 GSA employees on average, with a GS-14 step 5 with an average hourly rate of $93.70/hour, 1 hour each in years 2 and 3 to develop new contract language relating to location and preferences. Therefore, GSA estimates the total annual estimated cost for this part of the rule to be $281 (= 3 × $93.70 GS-14 step 5 rate × 1 hour).

GSA estimates it will take 1 GSA employee on average, with an SES Level 3 with an average hourly rate of $138.52/hour, 2 hours in year 1 to develop new contract language relating to location and preferences. Therefore, GSA estimates the total estimated cost for this part of the rule to be $277 (= 1 × $138.52 SES Level 3 rate × 2 hours).

GSA estimates it will take 1 GSA employee on average, with an SES Level 3 with an average hourly rate of $138.52/hour, 1 hour in years 2 and 3 to develop new contract language relating to location and preferences. Therefore, GSA estimates the total annual estimated cost for this part of the rule to be $139 (= 1 × $138.52 SES Level 3 rate × 1 hour).

GSA estimates it will take 3 GSA employees on average, with a GS-14 step 5 with an average hourly rate of $93.70/hour, 5 hours each in year 1 to update existing locational policy guidance. Therefore, GSA estimates the total estimated cost for this part of the rule to be $1,406 (= 3 × $93.70 GS-14 step 5 rate × 5 hours).

GSA estimates it will take 3 GSA employees on average, with a GS-14 step 5 with an average hourly rate of $93.70/hour, 1 hour each in years 2 and 3 to update existing locational policy guidance. Therefore, GSA estimates the total annual estimated cost for this part of the rule to be $281 (= 3 × $93.70 GS-14 step 5 rate × 1 hour).

GSA estimates it will take 1 GSA employee on average, with an SES Level 3 with an average hourly rate of $138.52/hour, 2 hours in year 1 to update existing locational policy guidance. Therefore, GSA estimates the total estimated cost for this part of the rule to be $277 (= 1 × $138.52 SES Level 3 rate × 2 hours).

GSA estimates it will take 1 GSA employee on average, with an SES Level 3 with an average hourly rate of $138.52/hour, 1 hour in years 2 and 3 to update existing locational policy guidance. Therefore, GSA estimates the total annual estimated cost for this part of the rule to be $139 (= 1 × $138.52 SES Level 3 rate × 1 hour).

GSA estimates it will take 1 GSA employee on average, with a GS-13 step 5 with an average hourly rate of $79.29/hour, 1 hour in year 1 to update training for Lease Contracting Officers and Lease Project Managers. Therefore, GSA estimates the total estimated cost for this part of the rule to be $79 (= 1 × $79.29 GS-13 step 5 rate × 1 hour).

GSA estimates it will take 1 GSA employee on average, with a GS-13 step 5 with an average hourly rate of $79.29/hour, 1 hour in year 1 to deliver training to Lease Contracting Officers and Lease Project Managers. Therefore, GSA estimates the total estimated cost for this part of the rule to be $79 (= 1 × $79.29 GS-15 step 5 rate × 1 hour).

GSA estimates it will take 650 GSA Lease Contracting Officers and Lease Project Managers on average, with a GS-12 step 5 with an average hourly rate of $66.68/hour, 1 hour each in year 1 to receive training. Therefore, GSA estimates the total estimated cost for this part of the rule to be $43,345 (= 650 × $66.68 GS-12 step 5 rate × 1 hour).

GSA estimates it will take 650 GSA Lease Contracting Officers and Lease Project Managers on average, with a GS-12 step 5 with an average hourly rate of $66.68/hour, 0.5 hours each in years 3, 5, 7, and 9 to receive training. Therefore, GSA estimates the total annual estimated cost for this part of the rule to be $21,672 (= 650 × $66.68 GS-12 step 5 rate × 0.5 hours).

GSA estimates it will take 500 Lease Contracting Officers and Lease Project Managers from delegated leasing agencies  ⁽⁶⁾ on average, with a GS-12 step 5 with an average hourly rate of $66.68/hour, 1 hour each in year 1 to receive GSA training. Therefore, GSA estimates the total estimated cost for this part of the rule to be $33,342 (= 500 × $66.68 GS-12 step 5 rate × 1 hour).

GSA estimates it will take 500 Lease Contracting Officers and Lease Project Managers from delegated leasing agencies on average, with a GS-12 step 5 with an average hourly rate of $66.68/hour, 0.5 hours each in years 3, 5, 7, and 9 to receive GSA training. Therefore, GSA estimates the total annual estimated cost for this part of the rule to be $16,671 (= 500 × $66.68 GS-12 step 5 rate × 0.5 hours).

GSA estimates it will take 9 employees from delegated leasing agencies on average, with a GS-13 step 5 with an average hourly rate of $79.29/hour, 1 hour each in year 1 to update delegated leasing agency training for Lease Contracting Officers and Lease Project Managers. Therefore, GSA estimates the total estimated cost for this part of the rule to be $714 (= 9 × $79.29 GS-13 step 5 rate × 1 hour).

GSA estimates it will take 9 employees from delegated leasing agencies on average, with a GS-13 step 5 with an average hourly rate of $79.29/hour, 1 hour each in year 1 to deliver training to Lease Contracting Officers and Lease Project Managers. Therefore, GSA estimates the total estimated cost for this part of the rule to be $714 (= 9 × $79.29 GS-13 step 5 rate × 1 hour).

GSA estimates it will take 500 Lease Contracting Officers and Lease Project Managers from delegated leasing agencies on average, with a GS-12 step 5 with an average hourly rate of $66.68/hour, 1 hour each in year 1 to receive delegated leasing agency training. Therefore, GSA estimates the total estimated cost for this part of the rule to be $33,342 (= 500 × $66.68 GS-12 step 5 rate × 1 hour).

GSA estimates it will take 500 Lease Contracting Officers and Lease Project Managers from delegated leasing agencies on average, with a GS-12 step 5 with an average hourly rate of $66.68/hour, 0.5 hours each in years 3, 5, 7, and 9 to receive delegated leasing agency training. Therefore, GSA estimates the total estimated cost for this part of the rule to be $16,671 (= 500 × $66.68 GS-12 step 5 rate × 0.5 hours).

Total Government Costs

GSA estimates the total estimated Government costs to be $743,118 for years 1 through 10. A breakdown of total estimated Government costs by year is provided in the table below. ⁽⁷⁾

[Link]

2. Public Costs

Public costs associated with this rule include small entities of community organizations in areas GSA is considering for Federally owned new construction. GSA assumes, for each location decision, the agency will engage with one small entity, which, on average, will have two employees. Those employees would receive, review, and share GSA location decision information. GSA estimates the average hourly rate of $93.70 for the small entity employees as the private sector pay equivalent of a GS-14 step 5. GSA estimates it will engage with 1 small entity on average with 2 small entity employees on average, with a GS-14 step 5 with an average hourly rate of $93.70/hour, 4 hours each in years 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 to receive, review and share GSA location decision information. Therefore, GSA estimates the total annual estimated cost for this part of the rule to be $750 (= 2 × $93.70 GS-14 step 5 rate × 4 hours).

Total Public Costs

GSA estimates the total estimated public costs to be $3,748 for years 1 through 10. A breakdown of total estimated public costs by year is provided in the table below. ⁽⁸⁾

[Link]

3. Overall Total Additional Costs

The overall total additional undiscounted cost of this rule is estimated to be $746,866 over a 10-year period. GSA did not identify any cost savings based on the impact of the rule. A breakdown of overall total additional costs by year is provided in the table below. ⁽⁹⁾

[Link]

The following is a summary of the estimated costs calculated for a 10-year time horizon at a 3- and 7-percent discount rate:

[Link]

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the changes to the FMR do not impose recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or the collection of information from offerors, contractors, or members of the public that require the approval of OMB under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

VII. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

This final rule is also exempt from congressional review prescribed under 5 U.S.C. 801 since it relates solely to agency management and personnel.

VIII. Severability

GSA is adding a new provision on severability at 41 CFR 102-83.150, which states that all provisions included in part 102-83 are separate and severable from one another.

Regulations concerning location policy do a number of things-from identifying and elaborating upon the factors that are advantageous to the Government when planning for location decisions, to outlining the consultation and engagement requirements with local officials and the communities potentially impacted by Federal location decisions, to explaining the role of agencies when planning for such decisions.

Accordingly, if any particular term or provision in part 102-83, or the application thereof to any agency or circumstance, is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining terms or provisions, or the application of such term or provision to agencies or circumstances other than those to which it is invalid or unenforceable, will not be affected thereby, and each term and provision of this rule will be valid and enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law. For example, if any location factor is determined to be invalid, the other factors would remain in full force and effect.

Further, any cross-references that appear throughout part 102-83 are duplicative and are intended only to make the regulations more user-friendly. Invalidation of a particular provision that is cross-referenced elsewhere will not materially alter the provision that contains the cross-reference.

In summary, removal of any particular provision from part 102-83 would not render the entire regulatory scheme unworkable. Thus, GSA considers each of the provisions in part 102-83 to be separate and severable from one another. In the event of a stay or invalidation of any particular provision, it is GSA's intention that the remaining provisions will continue in effect.

⁽¹⁾  The CEJST tool is available at https://screeningtool.geoplatform.gov/en/.

⁽²⁾  General Schedule ( opm.gov ).

⁽³⁾  OMB Memo M-08-13, dated March 11, 2008.

⁽⁴⁾  OMB Circular-76.

⁽⁵⁾  Computing Hourly Rates of Pay Using the 2,087-Hour Divisor ( opm.gov ).

⁽⁶⁾  The GSA Office of Leasing provided this number as an averaged total across delegated leasing agencies by surveying their internal database.

⁽⁷⁾  Costs are rounded to the nearest thousand.

⁽⁸⁾  Costs are rounded to the nearest thousand.

⁽⁹⁾  Costs are rounded to the nearest thousand.