[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 235 (Friday, December 7, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63042-63046]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26519]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

5 CFR Part 531

RIN 3206-AN64


General Schedule Locality Pay Areas

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On behalf of the President's Pay Agent, the Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing final regulations to establish 
six new General Schedule locality pay areas, make certain changes to 
the definitions of existing locality pay areas, and make minor 
clarifying changes to the names of two locality pay areas. Those 
changes in locality pay area definitions are applicable on the first 
day of the first pay period beginning on or after January 1, 2019. 
Locality pay rates for the six new locality pay areas will be set by 
the President.

DATES: The regulations are effective January 5, 2019, and are 
applicable on the first day of the first pay period beginning on or 
after January 1, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Ratcliffe by email at [email protected] or by telephone at (202) 606-2838.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 5304 of title 5, United States Code 
(U.S.C.), authorizes locality pay for General Schedule (GS) employees 
with duty stations in the United States and its territories and 
possessions. Section 5304(f) authorizes the President's Pay Agent (the 
Secretary of Labor, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB), and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)) to 
determine locality pay areas. The boundaries of locality pay areas must 
be based on appropriate factors, which may include local labor market 
patterns, commuting patterns, and the practices of other employers. The 
Pay Agent must give thorough consideration to the views and 
recommendations of the Federal Salary Council, a body composed of 
experts in the fields of labor relations and pay policy and 
representatives of Federal employee organizations. The President 
appoints the members of the Federal Salary Council, which submits 
annual recommendations on the locality pay program to the Pay Agent. 
The establishment or modification of locality pay area boundaries must 
conform to the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative 
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553).
    On July 9, 2018, OPM published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register on behalf of the Pay Agent. (See 83 FR 31694.) The proposed 
rule proposed linking locality pay area definitions to metropolitan 
statistical areas (MSAs) and combined statistical areas (CSAs) defined 
by OMB in OMB Bulletin No. 18-03, and proposed establishing four new 
locality pay areas: Birmingham-Hoover-Talladega, AL; Burlington-South 
Burlington, VT; San Antonio-New Braunfels-Pearsall, TX; and Virginia 
Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC. The proposed rule also proposed adding two ``Rest 
of U.S.'' locations to the geographic definitions of two existing 
locality pay areas and making minor, clarifying changes to the names of 
two locality pay areas. The proposed rule did not propose modifying the 
standard commuting and GS employment criteria used in the locality pay 
program to evaluate, as possible areas of application, locations 
adjacent to the metropolitan area comprising the basic locality pay 
area. (A basic locality pay area is an OMB-defined MSA or CSA on which 
the definition of a locality pay area is based, and an area of 
application is a location that is not part of a basic locality pay area 
but is included in the locality pay area. Criteria used to establish 
areas of application were explained in the proposed rule.)
    The proposed rule provided a 30-day comment period. Accordingly, 
the Pay Agent reviewed comments received through August 8, 2018. After 
considering those comments, the Pay Agent has decided to implement the 
locality pay area definitions in the proposed rule, with two additional 
changes based on recommendations received from the Federal Salary 
Council on July 10, 2018. Those changes are the establishment of a new 
Corpus Christi-Kingsville-Alice, TX, locality pay area and 
establishment of a new Omaha-Council Bluffs-Fremont, NE-IA, locality 
pay area.
    On July 10, 2018--the day after the proposed rule was published--
the Pay Agent received the Federal Salary Council's recommendations for 
locality pay for January 2019, which included a recommendation to 
establish a Corpus Christi-Kingsville-Alice, TX, locality pay area and 
an Omaha-Council Bluffs-Fremont, NE-IA, locality pay area. (The 
Council's recommendations for locality pay for January 2019 are posted 
at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/general-schedule/federal-salary-council/recommedation17.pdf.) Because 
the Council based that recommendation on the same criteria as used for 
the four new locality pay areas included in the proposed rule, we have 
approved the Council's recommendation regarding the two additional 
locality pay areas. In addition, a number of commenters on the proposed 
rule supported the establishment of these two additional locality pay 
areas. Accordingly, these final regulations establish a Corpus Christi-
Kingsville-Alice, TX, locality pay area and an Omaha-Council Bluffs-
Fremont, NE-IA, locality pay area. As with the four new locality pay 
areas included in the proposed rule, locality pay rates for the two 
additional new locality pay areas will be set by the President at a 
later date after they are established by these final regulations.

[[Page 63043]]

Impact and Implementation

    Establishing 6 new locality pay areas will impact about 70,000 GS 
employees. Locality pay rates now applicable in those areas will not 
change automatically because locality pay percentages are established 
by Executive order under the President's authority in 5 U.S.C. 5304 or 
5304a, and the President decides each year whether to adjust locality 
pay percentages. When locality pay percentages are adjusted, past 
practice has been to allocate a percent of the total GS payroll for 
locality pay raises and to have the overall dollar cost for such pay 
raises be the same, regardless of the number of locality pay areas. If 
a percent of the total GS payroll is allocated for locality pay 
increases, the addition of new areas results in a somewhat smaller 
amount to allocate for locality pay increases in existing areas. 
Implementing higher locality pay rates in the six new locality pay 
areas could thus result in relatively lower pay increases for employees 
in existing locality pay areas than they would otherwise receive.
    Establishing McKinley County, NM, as an area of application to the 
Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Las Vegas, NM, locality pay area will impact about 
1,600 GS employees. Establishing San Luis Obispo County, CA, as an area 
of application to the Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA, locality pay area 
will impact about 100 GS employees.
    Using the definitions of MSAs and CSAs in OMB Bulletin No. 18-03 as 
the basis for locality pay area boundaries will impact about 153 GS 
employees in the new San Antonio-New Braunfels-Pearsall, TX, locality 
pay area. However, those GS employees are included in the impact 
statement above regarding establishment of the six new locality pay 
areas. No other locality pay areas are impacted by using MSAs and CSAs 
in OMB Bulletin No. 18-03 as the basis for locality pay area 
boundaries.
    The changes in the names of the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-
NH-CT-ME and Albany-Schenectady, NY, locality pay areas will have no 
impact on GS employees because the geographic boundaries of the two 
locality pay areas affected will remain the same.

Comments on the Proposed Rule

    OPM received 184 comments on the proposed rule. Most commenters 
supported the proposed changes in the definitions of locality pay 
areas.
    A number of comments reflected misunderstanding of the proposed 
rule's definitions of locality pay areas, with some comments indicating 
a belief that certain counties actually included in a proposed locality 
pay area were excluded. As explained in the proposed rule, locality pay 
areas consist of (1) the MSA or CSA comprising the basic locality pay 
area and, where criteria recommended by the Federal Salary Council and 
approved by the Pay Agent are met, (2) areas of application. Regarding 
the MSAs and CSAs comprising basic locality pay areas, these final 
regulations define MSA as the geographic scope of an MSA as defined in 
OMB Bulletin No. 18-03 and define CSA as the geographic scope of a CSA 
as defined in OMB Bulletin No. 18-03. (OMB Bulletin No. 18-03 is posted 
at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/OMB-BULLETIN-NO.-18-03-Final.pdf.) Where a locality pay area defined in these 
regulations lists one or more locations in addition to the MSA or CSA 
comprising the basic locality pay area, those additional locations are 
areas of application that meet criteria recommended by the Federal 
Salary Council and approved by the President's Pay Agent. OPM plans to 
post the definitions of locality pay areas on its website soon after 
these final regulations are issued.
    Some commenters objected that certain locations were to remain in 
the ``Rest of U.S.'' locality pay area under the proposed rule. Some of 
these commenters were concerned about locations in MSAs or CSAs in the 
``Rest of U.S.'' locality pay area for which the Federal Salary Council 
has studied disparities between non-Federal pay and Federal pay over 
several years of data. For such locations that will remain in the 
``Rest of U.S.'' locality pay area, the Council found that the pay 
disparities do not significantly exceed the pay disparity for the 
``Rest of U.S.'' locality pay area over the same period. Some 
commenters were concerned about locations that will remain in the 
``Rest of U.S.'' locality pay area because those locations do not meet 
the criteria for areas of application. Some commenters were concerned 
about rural locations that do not qualify as areas of application and 
for which the locality pay program's current salary survey methodology 
cannot produce reliable estimates due to data insufficiency with 
respect to non-Federal salaries. For example, some comments expressed 
concern about Accomack and Northampton Counties, VA, not being included 
in the proposed Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC, locality pay area. These 
two counties comprise an area known as the Eastern Shore of Virginia 
and do not meet the Pay Agent's criteria to be part of the Virginia 
Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC, locality pay area. In some cases, comments 
expressed concern regarding possible recruitment and retention 
difficulties the commenters believe agencies may have in certain 
locations that will remain in the ``Rest of U.S.'' locality pay area 
when these final regulations are put into effect. The Pay Agent has no 
evidence that the changes these final regulations will make in locality 
pay area definitions will create recruitment and retention challenges 
for Federal employers. However, should recruitment and retention 
challenges exist in a location, Federal agencies have considerable 
administrative authority to address those challenges through the use of 
current pay flexibilities. Information on these flexibilities is posted 
on the OPM website at http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-and-leave-flexibilities-for-recruitment-and-retention.
    A number of commenters expressed their views on pay levels in 
locality pay areas. Some commenters suggested specific locality pay 
percentages to apply to new or existing locality pay areas, and some 
commenters offered opinions on the extent to which pay increases are 
needed in some locality pay areas compared to others. Some commenters 
expressed concern that existing locality pay areas' future pay levels 
could be set lower than they otherwise would, due to establishment of 
new locality pay areas. Such comments as these are outside of the scope 
of these final regulations. The purpose of these final regulations is 
to define the boundaries of locality pay areas. The role of the Pay 
Agent with regard to locality pay percentages is to report annually to 
the President what locality pay percentages would go into effect under 
the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 (FEPCA). The 
President establishes a base General Schedule and sets locality pay 
percentages each year by Executive order.
    Some commenters expressed the belief that various indicators of 
living costs should be considered in defining locality pay areas or in 
setting locality pay. Living costs are not directly considered in the 
locality pay program. Locality pay is not designed to equalize living 
standards for GS employees across the country. Under 5 U.S.C. 5304, 
locality pay rates are based on comparisons of GS pay and non-Federal 
pay at the same work levels in a locality pay area. Relative living 
costs may indirectly affect non-Federal pay levels, but living costs 
are just one of many

[[Page 63044]]

factors that affect the supply of and demand for labor, and therefore 
labor costs, in a locality pay area.
    Some commenters objected that, as a consequence of the definitions 
of current locality pay areas, adjacent counties are included in two 
different locality pay areas while receiving different locality 
payments. These commenters were concerned that the adjacent California 
Counties of Sacramento and San Joaquin receive different locality 
payments, with Sacramento County receiving Sacramento-Roseville, CA-NV, 
locality pay and San Joaquin County receiving higher San Jose-San 
Francisco-Oakland, CA, locality pay. Sacramento County is located in 
the Sacramento-Roseville, CA, CSA, which is the basis for the 
geographic definition of the Sacramento-Roseville, CA-NV, locality pay 
area. San Joaquin County is located in the San Jose-San Francisco-
Oakland, CA, CSA, which is the basis for the geographic definition of 
the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA, locality pay area. Locality pay 
percentages are based on comparisons in each locality pay area between 
GS and non-Federal pay for the entire locality pay area. The results of 
such pay comparisons differ between the Sacramento-Roseville, CA-NV, 
and San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA, locality pay areas. 
Consequently, those two locality pay areas and the locations comprising 
them receive different locality payments.
    One commenter suggested a change in the criteria for evaluating 
Federal facilities that cross locality pay area boundaries. This 
commenter suggested that the term ``facility'' in those criteria be 
replaced with the term ``Federal administrative boundary.'' The 
commenter stated that most GS employees with duty stations within the 
Tahoe National Forest are in the Sacramento-Roseville, CA-NV, locality 
pay area, while Sierra County, CA, remains in the ``Rest of U.S.'' 
locality pay area. The commenter reported that the U.S. Forest Service 
is having difficulty recruiting and retaining employees for its duty 
stations in Sierra County. The Pay Agent's criteria for evaluating 
Federal facilities that cross locality pay area boundaries is intended 
to cover single Federal facilities rather than large geographic areas 
such as National Forests. As stated above, Federal agencies have 
considerable administrative authority to address significant 
recruitment and retention challenges through the use of current pay 
flexibilities.
    Some commenters expressed concern that certain Federal pay systems 
outside of the General Schedule would not benefit from the changes 
planned for definitions of GS locality pay areas. The purpose of these 
final regulations is to define locality pay areas for Federal employees 
who receive locality pay under 5 U.S.C. 5304, not to set pay levels for 
Federal employees who do not receive locality pay under 5 U.S.C. 5304.
    One commenter suggested that all GS employees should receive the 
same locality pay rates regardless of location. The purpose of locality 
pay is to reduce pay disparities, which vary by locality pay area. 
Therefore, it is appropriate that locality rates differ between 
locations.

Expected Impact of the Final Rule

    Establishing new locality pay areas could have the long-term effect 
of increasing pay for Federal employees in affected locations if the 
President establishes higher locality pay percentages for those new pay 
areas. In addition, studies do suggest that increasing wages can raise 
the wages of other workers when employers need to compete for 
personnel. However, when locality pay percentages are adjusted, the 
practice has been to allocate a percent of the total GS payroll for 
locality pay raises and to have the overall cost for such pay raises be 
the same, regardless of the number of locality pay areas.
    OPM expects this final rule to impact approximately 71,700 GS 
employees. Of the changes this final rule implements, the most 
significant change in terms of employment results from establishment of 
the Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC locality pay area, in which 
approximately 30,400 GS employees would be affected. Considering the 
relatively small number of employees affected, OPM does not anticipate 
this rule will substantially impact local economies or have a large 
impact in local labor markets. In addition, OPM did not receive any 
comments expressing concern regarding such impact.
    As future locality pay rulemakings may impact higher volumes of 
employees in geographical areas and could rise to the level of 
impacting markets, OPM will continue to study the implications of such 
impacts in E.O. 13771 designations for future rules as needed.

Regulatory Procedures

Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' and Executive 
Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review''

    Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct 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, distribute impacts, and equity). Executive 
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and 
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting 
flexibility. This final rule has been designated a ``significant 
regulatory action,'' although not economically significant, under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been 
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs

    This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because 
this rule is related to agency organization, management, or personnel.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    OPM certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities as this rule only 
applies to Federal agencies and employees.

Federalism

    OPM has examined this rule in accordance with Executive Order 
13132, Federalism, and has determined that this rule will not have any 
negative impact on the rights, roles and responsibilities of State, 
local, or tribal governments.

Civil Justice Reform

    This regulation meets the applicable standard set forth in 
Executive Order 12988.

Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995

    This rule will not result in the expenditure by state, local, and 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary 
under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

Congressional Review Act

    This action pertains to agency management, personnel, and

[[Page 63045]]

organization and does not substantially affect the rights or 
obligations of nonagency parties and, accordingly, is not a ``rule'' as 
that term is used by the Congressional Review Act (Subtitle E of the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)). 
Therefore, the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose any new reporting or record-keeping 
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 531

    Government employees, Law enforcement officers, Wages.

    Office of Personnel Management.
Alexys Stanley,
Regulatory Affairs Analyst.

    Accordingly, OPM is amending 5 CFR part 531 as follows:

PART 531--PAY UNDER THE GENERAL SCHEDULE

0
1. The authority citation for part 531 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  5 U.S.C. 5115, 5307, and 5338; sec. 4 of Public Law 
103-89, 107 Stat. 981; and E.O. 12748, 56 FR 4521, 3 CFR, 1991 
Comp., p. 316; Subpart B also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5303(g), 5305, 
5333, 5334(a) and (b), and 7701(b)(2); Subpart D also issued under 5 
U.S.C. 5335 and 7701(b)(2); Subpart E also issued under 5 U.S.C. 
5336; Subpart F also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5304, 5305, and 5941(a), 
E.O. 12883, 58 FR 63281, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 682; and E.O. 13106, 
63 FR 68151, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 224.

Subpart F--Locality-Based Comparability Payments

0
2. In Sec.  531.602, the definitions of ``CSA'' and ``MSA'' are revised 
to read as follows:


Sec.  531.602   Definitions.

* * * * *
    CSA means the geographic scope of a Combined Statistical Area, as 
defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in OMB Bulletin 
No. 18-03.
* * * * *
    MSA means the geographic scope of a Metropolitan Statistical Area, 
as defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in OMB Bulletin 
No. 18-03.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  531.603, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  531.603  Locality pay areas.

* * * * *
    (b) The following are locality pay areas for the purposes of this 
subpart:
    (1) Alaska--consisting of the State of Alaska;
    (2) Albany-Schenectady, NY-MA--consisting of the Albany-
Schenectady, NY CSA and also including Berkshire County, MA;
    (3) Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Las Vegas, NM--consisting of the 
Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Las Vegas, NM CSA and also including McKinley 
County, NM;
    (4) Atlanta--Athens-Clarke County--Sandy Springs, GA-AL--consisting 
of the Atlanta--Athens-Clarke County--Sandy Springs, GA CSA and also 
including Chambers County, AL;
    (5) Austin-Round Rock, TX--consisting of the Austin-Round Rock, TX 
MSA;
    (6) Birmingham-Hoover-Talladega, AL--consisting of the Birmingham-
Hoover-Talladega, AL CSA and also including Calhoun County, AL;
    (7) Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-ME--consisting of the 
Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT CSA, except for Windham 
County, CT, and also including Androscoggin County, ME, Cumberland 
County, ME, Sagadahoc County, ME, and York County, ME;
    (8) Buffalo-Cheektowaga, NY--consisting of the Buffalo-Cheektowaga, 
NY CSA;
    (9) Burlington-South Burlington, VT--consisting of the Burlington-
South Burlington, VT MSA;
    (10) Charlotte-Concord, NC-SC--consisting of the Charlotte-Concord, 
NC-SC CSA;
    (11) Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI--consisting of the Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI CSA;
    (12) Cincinnati-Wilmington-Maysville, OH-KY-IN--consisting of the 
Cincinnati-Wilmington-Maysville, OH-KY-IN CSA and also including 
Franklin County, IN;
    (13) Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH--consisting of the Cleveland-Akron-
Canton, OH CSA and also including Harrison County, OH;
    (14) Colorado Springs, CO--consisting of the Colorado Springs, CO 
MSA and also including Fremont County, CO, and Pueblo County, CO;
    (15) Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, OH--consisting of the Columbus-
Marion-Zanesville, OH CSA;
    (16) Corpus Christi-Kingsville-Alice, TX--consisting of the Corpus 
Christi-Kingsville-Alice, TX CSA;
    (17) Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK--consisting of the Dallas-Fort Worth, 
TX-OK CSA and also including Delta County, TX;
    (18) Davenport-Moline, IA-IL--consisting of the Davenport-Moline, 
IA-IL CSA;
    (19) Dayton-Springfield-Sidney, OH--consisting of the Dayton-
Springfield-Sidney, OH CSA and also including Preble County, OH;
    (20) Denver-Aurora, CO--consisting of the Denver-Aurora, CO CSA and 
also including Larimer County, CO;
    (21) Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, MI--consisting of the Detroit-
Warren-Ann Arbor, MI CSA;
    (22) Harrisburg-Lebanon, PA--consisting of the Harrisburg-York-
Lebanon, PA CSA, except for Adams County, PA, and York County, PA, and 
also including Lancaster County, PA;
    (23) Hartford-West Hartford, CT-MA--consisting of the Hartford-West 
Hartford, CT CSA and also including Windham County, CT, Franklin 
County, MA, Hampden County, MA, and Hampshire County, MA;
    (24) Hawaii--consisting of the State of Hawaii;
    (25) Houston-The Woodlands, TX--consisting of the Houston-The 
Woodlands, TX CSA and also including San Jacinto County, TX;
    (26) Huntsville-Decatur-Albertville, AL--consisting of the 
Huntsville-Decatur-Albertville, AL CSA;
    (27) Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN--consisting of the 
Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN CSA and also including Grant County, IN;
    (28) Kansas City-Overland Park-Kansas City, MO-KS--consisting of 
the Kansas City-Overland Park-Kansas City, MO-KS CSA and also including 
Jackson County, KS, Jefferson County, KS, Osage County, KS, Shawnee 
County, KS, and Wabaunsee County, KS;
    (29) Laredo, TX--consisting of the Laredo, TX MSA;
    (30) Las Vegas-Henderson, NV-AZ--consisting of the Las Vegas-
Henderson, NV-AZ CSA;
    (31) Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA--consisting of the Los Angeles-Long 
Beach, CA CSA and also including Kern County, CA, San Luis Obispo 
County, CA, and Santa Barbara County, CA;
    (32) Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Port St. Lucie, FL--consisting of the 
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Port St. Lucie, FL CSA and also including Monroe 
County, FL;
    (33) Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI--consisting of the Milwaukee-
Racine-Waukesha, WI CSA;
    (34) Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI--consisting of the Minneapolis-St. 
Paul, MN-WI CSA;
    (35) New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA--consisting of the New York-
Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA and also including all of Joint Base McGuire-
Dix-Lakehurst;
    (36) Omaha-Council Bluffs-Fremont, NE-IA--consisting of the Omaha-
Council Bluffs-Fremont, NE-IA CSA;

[[Page 63046]]

    (37) Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL--consisting of the Palm Bay-
Melbourne-Titusville, FL MSA;
    (38) Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD--consisting of the 
Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA, except for Joint Base 
McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst;
    (39) Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ--consisting of the Phoenix-Mesa-
Scottsdale, AZ MSA;
    (40) Pittsburgh-New Castle-Weirton, PA-OH-WV--consisting of the 
Pittsburgh-New Castle-Weirton, PA-OH-WV CSA;
    (41) Portland-Vancouver-Salem, OR-WA--consisting of the Portland-
Vancouver-Salem, OR-WA CSA;
    (42) Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC--consisting of the Raleigh-
Durham-Chapel Hill, NC CSA and also including Cumberland County, NC, 
Hoke County, NC, Robeson County, NC, Scotland County, NC, and Wayne 
County, NC;
    (43) Richmond, VA--consisting of the Richmond, VA MSA and also 
including Cumberland County, VA, King and Queen County, VA, and Louisa 
County, VA;
    (44) Sacramento-Roseville, CA-NV--consisting of the Sacramento-
Roseville, CA CSA and also including Carson City, NV, and Douglas 
County, NV;
    (45) San Antonio-New Braunfels-Pearsall, TX--consisting of the San 
Antonio-New Braunfels-Pearsall, TX CSA;
    (46) San Diego-Carlsbad, CA--consisting of the San Diego-Carlsbad, 
CA MSA;
    (47) San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA--consisting of the San 
Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA and also including Monterey County, 
CA;
    (48) Seattle-Tacoma, WA--consisting of the Seattle-Tacoma, WA CSA 
and also including Whatcom County, WA;
    (49) St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL--consisting of the St. 
Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL CSA;
    (50) Tucson-Nogales, AZ--consisting of the Tucson-Nogales, AZ CSA 
and also including Cochise County, AZ;
    (51) Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC--consisting of the Virginia 
Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC CSA;
    (52) Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA--consisting of 
the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA CSA and also 
including Kent County, MD, Adams County, PA, York County, PA, King 
George County, VA, and Morgan County, WV; and
    (53) Rest of U.S.--consisting of those portions of the United 
States and its territories and possessions as listed in 5 CFR 591.205 
not located within another locality pay area.

[FR Doc. 2018-26519 Filed 12-3-18; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 6325-39-P