[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