[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 28, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41855-41862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13621]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 123 / Wednesday, June 28, 2023 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 41855]]
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
5 CFR Part 531
[Docket ID: OPM-2023-0009]
RIN 3206-AO58
General Schedule Locality Pay Areas
AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management is proposing regulations on
behalf of the President's Pay Agent to change the geographic boundaries
of General Schedule locality pay areas. The proposed changes in
locality pay area definitions would be applicable on the first day of
the first applicable pay period beginning on or after January 1, 2024,
subject to issuance of final regulations. The locations proposed for
inclusion in a locality pay area separate from the Rest of U.S.
locality pay area have all met criteria previously recommended by the
Federal Salary Council and approved by the Pay Agent for nationwide use
in the locality pay program.
DATES: We must receive comments on or before July 28, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or
Regulatory Information Number (RIN) and title, by the following method:
Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
All submissions received must include the agency name and docket
number or RIN for this document. The general policy for comments and
other submissions from members of the public is to make these
submissions available for public viewing at https://www.regulations.gov
as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers
or contact information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Ratcliffe by email at [email protected] or by telephone at (202) 936-3081.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed changes in locality pay area
definitions include linking geographic boundaries of locality pay areas
to the updated definitions of metropolitan statistical areas and
combined statistical areas (MSAs and CSAs) in Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) Bulletin No. 20-01; establishing four new locality pay
areas having pay disparities significantly exceeding that for the Rest
of U.S. locality pay area over an extended period; and changing the
criteria by which locations adjacent to an MSA or CSA comprising a
basic locality pay area can be included in the locality pay area as an
area of application. (The terms basic locality pay area and area of
application are defined below.) However, while any location may be
subject to a change in locality pay area designation in the future
based on a recommendation by the Federal Salary Council which is
approved by the Pay Agent, locations that are currently in a locality
pay area other than the Rest of U.S. locality pay area and would
otherwise be redesignated as part of a lower-paying locality pay area
due to application of approved criteria will remain in their current
locality pay area under this proposal.
The four new locality pay areas proposed are Fresno-Madera-Hanford,
CA; Reno-Fernley, NV; Rochester-Batavia-Seneca Falls, NY; and Spokane-
Spokane Valley-Coeur d'Alene, WA-ID. Locality pay rates for these four
areas would be set by the President after they have been established by
regulation as new locality pay areas.
Section 5304 of title 5, United States Code, authorizes locality
pay for General Schedule (GS) employees with duty stations in the
United States and its territories and possessions. Section 5304(f) of
title 5, United States Code, 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 are
based on appropriate factors, which may include local labor market
patterns, commuting patterns, and the practices of other employers. The
Pay Agent considers 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 Council, which submits annual
recommendations to the Pay Agent about the administration of the
locality pay program, including the geographic boundaries of locality
pay areas. (The Federal Salary Council's recommendations are posted on
the OPM website at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/general-schedule/#url=Federal-Salary-Council.) The
establishment or modification of pay area boundaries conforms to the
notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5
U.S.C. 553).
This proposal provides notice and requests comments on proposed
regulations to implement the Pay Agent's plan to define GS locality pay
areas geographically based on the updated definitions of metropolitan
statistical areas and combined statistical areas (MSAs and CSAs) in
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin No. 20-01; to establish
four new locality pay areas having pay disparities significantly
exceeding that for the Rest of U.S. locality pay area over an extended
period; and to change the criteria by which locations adjacent to an
MSA or CSA comprising a basic locality pay area are included in
locality pay areas as areas of application. (The terms basic locality
pay area and area of application are defined below.) As further
discussed below, those changes were tentatively approved, pending
appropriate rulemaking, in the December 15, 2022, report of the
President's Pay Agent. (Annual Pay Agent reports on locality pay are
posted on the OPM website at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/general-schedule/#url=Pay-Agent-Reports.)
Terms Used in Defining Locality Pay Areas
As explained in the Federal Salary Council's October 14, 2022,
report to the Pay Agent, a locality pay area separate from the Rest of
U.S. locality pay area consists of a basic locality pay area and, where
criteria recommended by the Council and approved by the Pay Agent are
met, areas of application. A basic
[[Page 41856]]
locality pay area consists of a main core-based statistical area (CBSA)
defined by OMB as a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) or combined
statistical area (CSA). An MSA or CSA cannot be established as a basic
locality pay area separate from the Rest of U.S. locality pay area
unless the MSA or CSA has a pay disparity that significantly exceeds
the overall Rest of U.S. pay disparity over an extended period, with
such pay disparities calculated using approved Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) salary data. Areas of application are locations that
are adjacent to the basic locality pay area and have met approved
criteria for inclusion in the locality pay area.
Linking Locality Pay Area Boundaries to OMB-Defined Metropolitan Areas
OMB-defined metropolitan areas are called CBSAs and are currently
grouped into three categories: micropolitan statistical areas, where
the largest included urban area has a population of 10,000 to 49,999;
MSAs, where the largest included urban area has a population of 50,000
or more; and CSAs, which are composed of two or more adjacent CBSAs
with an employment interchange measure of at least 15 percent. (The
employment interchange measure is the sum of the percentage of workers
living in the smaller entity who work in the larger entity and the
percentage of employment in the smaller entity that is accounted for by
workers who reside in the larger entity.) OMB-defined metropolitan
areas have been the basis of locality pay area boundaries since
locality pay was first implemented in 1994. OMB periodically updates
its definitions of CBSAs, and current regulations defining locality pay
areas link the geographic definitions of locality pay areas to MSAs and
CSAs as delineated in OMB Bulletin No. 18-03 (available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/OMB-BULLETIN-NO.-18-03-Final.pdf).
As explained in the Pay Agent's December 2022 annual report, the
Pay Agent has tentatively approved the use in the locality pay program
of the MSAs and CSAs delineated in OMB Bulletin No. 20-01 (available at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Bulletin-20-01.pdf?), pending the issuance of revised locality pay regulations.
This proposed rule would implement the change by revising the
definitions of ``CSA'' and ``MSA'' in 5 CFR 531.602 to link the
geographic definitions of locality pay areas to the March 2020
definitions of MSAs and CSAs in OMB Bulletin No. 20-01, and by updating
the locality pay area definitions in 5 CFR 531.603 to reflect use of
the OMB Bulletin No. 20-01 MSA and CSA definitions. The geographic
boundaries of locality pay areas would not change automatically should
OMB issue a new Bulletin to change the definitions of any MSAs or CSAs
serving as the basis of the geographic boundaries of locality pay
areas. As under the current regulations, the Pay Agent would instead
assess what the impact of a future Bulletin would be on locality pay
areas before deciding whether to use the new CBSA definitions. While
any location may be subject to a change in locality pay area
designation in the future based on a recommendation by the Federal
Salary Council which is approved by the Pay Agent, the proposed rule
also implements the Pay Agent's plan to retain, in their current
locality pay area, any locations that would otherwise move to a lower-
paying locality pay area as a result of linking locality pay area
definitions to the MSAs and CSAs in OMB Bulletin No. 20-01, as
recommended by the Federal Salary Council. Under this proposed rule,
any such retained area would no longer be part of the basic locality
pay area due to use of those MSAs and CSAs and would be treated as an
area of application.
Establishing Four New Locality Pay Areas
Locality pay is set by comparing GS and non-Federal pay rates for
the same levels of work in each locality pay area. Non-Federal salary
survey data used to set locality pay rates are collected by BLS.
Historically, the Federal Salary Council and President's Pay Agent have
not been able to study non-Federal pay and establish separate locality
pay areas in all the many metropolitan areas with GS employees.
However, the current salary survey methodology, which was first used in
2012, provides more location coverage than the previous methodology by
combining data sources from two previously existing BLS products--i.e.,
the National Compensation Survey (NCS) and the Occupational Employment
and Wage Statistics (OEWS) program. The measurement process BLS
provides in doing so is called the NCS/OEWS Model, and the Rest of U.S.
metropolitan areas it covers are called Rest of U.S. research areas.
Based on its review of pay disparities using NCS/OEWS data and
calculated for all Rest of U.S. research areas, the Council has
recommended new locality pay areas be established for four metropolitan
areas with pay gaps averaging more than 10 percentage points above that
for the Rest of U.S. locality pay area over an extended period. The
President's Pay Agent has agreed to propose regulations that would
establish the four new locality pay areas by modifying 5 CFR 531.603(b)
accordingly. The four new locality pay areas proposed are Fresno-
Madera-Hanford, CA; Reno-Fernley, NV; Rochester-Batavia-Seneca Falls,
NY; and Spokane-Spokane Valley-Coeur d'Alene, WA-ID. Locality pay rates
for the four new locality pay areas would be set by the President at a
later date should the locality pay areas be established by final
regulation.
Stakeholders should note that Rest of U.S. locations that we have
not proposed for establishment as new locality pay areas have not met
the pay disparity criterion by which locality pay areas are
established. Such locations are either established Rest of U.S.
research areas that have not met the pay disparity criterion referred
to above or are locations that have not been established as Rest of
U.S. research areas. Stakeholders should also note that establishment
of Rest of U.S. research areas historically has not been on a case-by-
case basis in response to stakeholder requests. When the Council began
using the NCS/OES (now NCS/OEWS) model in 2012, selection of Rest of
U.S. research areas was limited to MSAs and CSAs having 2,500 or more
GS employees. Starting in 2022, the Council has now begun to request
that BLS deliver NCS/OEWS estimates for areas that had fewer than 2,500
GS employees, and so far BLS resources have allowed for delivery of
NCS/OEWS estimates for 10 such CBSAs. Those 10 CBSAs had the highest
levels of GS employment among areas not previously established as Rest
of U.S. research areas. Two of those new Rest of U.S. research areas--
Reno, NV, and Rochester, NY--met the pay disparity criterion mentioned
above and thus are proposed here as new locality pay areas. (Fresno,
CA, and Spokane, WA, had already been established as Rest of U.S.
research areas but did not meet the pay disparity criterion prior to
the Council issuing its October 14, 2022, report.)
It should also be noted that BLS has said it is not feasible for
the NCS/OEWS model to produce reliable salary estimates for
micropolitan statistical areas or rural counties. In addition, the data
for any additional MSAs and CSAs evaluated as potential new Rest of
U.S. research areas are subject to BLS validation and testing. Thus, it
is possible that data from some MSAs or CSAs not yet evaluated as
potential Rest of U.S. research areas may not pass such validation and
testing and may not meet
[[Page 41857]]
BLS' standards for delivery to the Pay Agent.
We support the Council's plans to continue its work with BLS to
determine whether additional locations can be established as Rest of
U.S. research areas. The Pay Agent looks forward to hearing of future
progress on increasing the capacity to monitor pay disparities in more
areas but also has urged the Council to continue proceeding with
caution on this work to ensure pay disparity data for any additional
MSAs or CSAs are as accurate as possible in the context of current
methodology.
Criteria for Areas of Application
As mentioned above, locality pay areas consist of (1) the MSA or
CSA comprising the basic locality pay area, and (2) where criteria
recommended by the Federal Salary Council and approved by the Pay Agent
are met, areas of application. Areas of application are locations that
are adjacent to the basic locality pay area and meet approved criteria
for inclusion in the locality pay area. Those criteria are explained
below.
Since 2005, the criteria by which CBSAs or counties adjacent to a
basic locality pay area have been evaluated for possible inclusion in
the locality pay area as areas of application have been as follows: For
adjacent CSAs and adjacent multi-county MSAs, the criteria are 1,500 or
more GS employees and an employment interchange rate of at least 7.5
percent. For adjacent single counties, the criteria are 400 or more GS
employees and an employment interchange rate of at least 7.5 percent.
The employment interchange rate is defined as the sum of the percentage
of employed residents of the area under consideration who work in the
basic locality pay area and the percentage of the employment in the
area under consideration that is accounted for by workers who reside in
the basic locality pay area. (The employment interchange rate is
calculated by including all workers in assessed locations, not just
Federal employees.)
The Pay Agent has tentatively agreed with the Council that the
following criteria should be used for evaluating CBSAs or counties that
are adjacent to the basic locality pay area as potential areas of
application and that the GS employment criteria currently used in
evaluating such locations should be eliminated:
For a CBSA (includes single-county CBSAs other than
single-county micropolitan areas) adjacent to a basic locality pay
area, an employment interchange rate of at least 7.5 percent with the
basic locality pay area.
For a county that is not part of a CBSA or comprises a
single-county micropolitan area and is adjacent to a basic locality pay
area, an employment interchange rate of at least 20 percent with the
basic locality pay area.
For a county that is adjacent to multiple locality pay
areas and does not meet the 20 percent employment interchange threshold
with respect to any single locality pay area, a sum of employment
interchange rates of at least 20 percent with the adjacent basic
locality pay areas. Such a county would be added to the locality pay
area with which it has the greatest degree of employment interchange.
This proposed rule reflects application of those criteria to all
locations throughout the country.
The Pay Agent also has criteria for evaluating Federal facilities
that cross county lines into a separate locality pay area. Those
criteria do not change under this proposal and are as follows: To be
included in an adjacent locality pay area, the whole facility under
consideration must have at least 500 GS employees, with the majority of
those employees in the higher-paying locality pay area, or that portion
of a Federal facility outside of a higher-paying locality pay area must
have at least 750 GS employees, the duty stations of the majority of
those employees must be within 10 miles of the separate locality pay
area, and a significant number of those employees must commute to work
from the higher-paying locality pay area.
It has been the practice in the locality pay program in recent
years to include a location completely bordered by land that is
included in higher-paying locality pay areas in the adjacent locality
pay area with which the location has the greatest degree of employment
interchange. We agree with the Council that this practice should
continue. Thus, we also agree with the Council that Emporia City, VA--a
U.S. county equivalent surrounded geographically by Greensville County,
VA--should be included in the Richmond, VA, locality pay area as an
area of application. (Greensville County would be included in the
Richmond, VA, locality pay area as an area of application because it is
adjacent to the Richmond, VA, basic locality pay area and has a 23.36
percent rate of employment interchange with the Richmond, VA MSA.)
This proposal also reflects our tentative agreement with the
Council that the following locations bordered only by water and higher-
paying locality pay areas should be included in higher-paying locality
pay areas because we share the Council's view that they are similar to
locations completely bordered by land that is included in higher-paying
locality pay areas: Dukes and Nantucket Counties, MA, which would be
included in the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT-ME-VT locality
pay area as areas of application; Huron County, MI, which would be
included in the Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, MI, locality pay area as an
area of application; and Pacific and San Juan Counties, WA, which would
be included in the Seattle-Tacoma, WA, locality pay area as areas of
application.
Situations Involving Locations Previously Retained in a Locality Pay
Area
It has been the practice in the locality pay program to retain in
their current locality pay area locations that would otherwise be
redesignated as part of a lower-paying locality pay area due to
application of approved criteria. However, situations involving such
locations must be monitored over time. As pay levels and locations
comprising locality pay areas change over time, the situation with
respect to a retained location can change so that it should no longer
be retained in a locality pay area but rather should be placed as it
would be otherwise based on standard criteria. In our view, such is the
case with respect to Windham County, CT, which we propose be included
in the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT-ME-VT locality pay
area. In 2016, the Pay Agent retained Windham County, CT, in the
Hartford-West Hartford, CT-MA locality pay area, even though under OMB
Bulletin No. 13-01 (which had just been approved for use in the
locality pay program) the county had been redesignated from the
Hartford CSA to the Boston CSA. The Pay Agent took that action because
otherwise the county would have been redesignated to the Boston
locality pay area, which then had a lower locality pay percentage than
the Hartford locality pay area. However, since January 2023, the
locality pay percentage for the Boston locality pay area has exceeded
that for the Hartford locality pay area. Considering that, and because
Windham County is currently part of the OMB-defined CSA the Boston
basic locality pay area is based on, we are proposing the county be
redesignated to the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT-ME-VT
locality pay area.
Strict application of standard criteria can also be problematic in
situations where a new locality pay area would be adjacent to an
existing locality pay area that contains locations that would be
[[Page 41858]]
retained by the Pay Agent as areas of application to avoid
redesignation to a potentially lower-paying locality pay area. Alpine
County, CA, exemplifies such a case. Under the criteria by which
locality pay areas are defined under this proposed rule, a single-
county location that is adjacent to multiple locality pay areas would
be added to the locality pay area with which it has greatest degree of
employment interchange provided the sum of the employment interchange
rates the county has with adjacent locality pay areas would be at least
20 percent. Alpine County, CA, is adjacent to the Reno-Carson City-
Fernley, NV CSA and the Sacramento-Roseville, CA-NV basic locality pay
area; the sum of its employment interchange rates is greater than 20
percent; and it has a higher rate of employment interchange with the
Reno CSA than with the Sacramento CSA (51.86 percent with Reno and
41.04 percent with Sacramento). However, because the Pay Agent plans to
retain the Nevada Counties of Carson City and Douglas (which are part
of the Reno-Carson City-Fernley, NV, CSA) in the Sacramento-Roseville,
CA-NV locality pay area as the Federal Salary Council recommended,
having Alpine County in the Reno locality pay area would make that
locality pay area discontinuous, with Alpine County no longer being
adjacent to any other county in the Reno locality pay area while being
bordered by counties in the Sacramento locality pay area. In addition,
when Carson City and Douglas County are removed from the Reno CSA for
purposes of calculating an interchange rate for Alpine County, its
employment interchange rate with the remaining subset of the Reno CSA
drops to 9.34 percent. Thus, the Pay Agent proposes including Alpine
County, CA, in the proposed Sacramento-Roseville, CA-NV locality pay
area as an area of application.
Note on Caroline County, VA
In addition to the Rest of U.S. locations the Council listed in its
October 14, 2022, report as impacted by its recommendations on the
criteria for areas of application, Caroline County, VA, which is
currently in the Richmond, VA, locality pay area, would be included in
the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA locality pay area
under this proposed rule.
While Caroline County, VA, is part of the basic Richmond, VA,
locality pay area as previously defined using OMB Bulletin No. 18-03,
it is not part of the Richmond, VA, basic locality pay area as defined
using OMB Bulletin No. 20-01 nor is it part of any other CBSA
comprising a basic locality pay area under this proposed rule. However,
this single-county location is adjacent to both the Richmond, VA and
Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA basic locality pay
areas.
Under the criteria by which locality pay areas are defined under
this proposed rule, a single-county location that is adjacent to
multiple locality pay areas would be added to the locality pay area
with which it has greatest degree of employment interchange provided
the sum of the employment interchange rates the county has with
adjacent locality pay areas would be at least 20 percent. Caroline
County, VA, is adjacent to the Richmond, VA, and Washington-Baltimore-
Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA locality pay areas; the sum of its employment
interchange rates is greater than 20 percent; and it has a higher rate
of employment interchange with the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-
MD-VA-WV-PA basic locality pay area than with the Richmond, VA, basic
locality pay area (53.24 percent with Washington-Baltimore and 40.04
percent with Richmond).
Locations Comprising New Locality Pay Areas
This proposal would amend 5 CFR 531.603(b) to establish the
following locations as new locality pay areas.
Fresno-Madera-Hanford, CA
Fresno County, CA; Kings County, CA; Madera County, CA; Mariposa
County, CA; and Tulare County, CA.
Reno-Fernley, NV
Churchill County, NV; Lyon County, NV; Storey County, NV; and
Washoe County, NV.
Rochester-Batavia-Seneca Falls, NY
Genesee County, NY; Livingston County, NY; Monroe County, NY;
Ontario County, NY; Orleans County, NY; Seneca County, NY; Wayne
County, NY; and Yates County, NY.
Spokane-Spokane Valley-Coeur d'Alene, WA-ID
Benewah County, ID; Kootenai County, ID; Shoshone County, ID; Ferry
County, WA; Lincoln County, WA; Pend Oreille County, WA; Spokane
County, WA; Stevens County, WA.
Locations Added to Existing Locality Pay Areas
This proposal would amend 5 CFR 531.603(b) to add the following
locations to existing locality pay areas:
Albany-Schenectady, NY-MA
Greene County, NY; and Hamilton County, NY.
Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Las Vegas, NM
Mora County, NM.
Atlanta--Athens-Clarke County--Sandy Springs, GA-AL
Cherokee County, AL; Cleburne County, AL; Lee County, AL; Randolph
County, AL; Russell County, AL; Banks County, GA; Chattahoochee County,
GA; Elbert County, GA; Floyd County, GA; Franklin County, GA; Gilmer
County, GA; Greene County, GA; Habersham County, GA; Harris County, GA;
Lumpkin County, GA; Marion County, GA; Muscogee County, GA; Putnam
County, GA; Rabun County, GA; Stephens County, GA; Stewart County, GA;
Talbot County, GA; Taliaferro County, GA; and White County, GA.
Austin-Round Rock, TX
Blanco County, TX; Burnet County, TX; Lee County, TX; and Milam
County, TX.
Birmingham-Hoover-Talladega, AL
Clay County, AL; Etowah County, AL; Greene County, AL; Hale County,
AL; Pickens County, AL; Tuscaloosa County, AL; and Winston County, AL.
Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-ME
Windham County, CT (redesignated from Hartford-West Hartford CT-MA
locality pay area); Dukes County, MA; Nantucket County, MA; Carroll
County, NH; Cheshire County, NH; Grafton County, NH; Sullivan County,
NH; Orange County, VT; and Windsor County, VT.
Buffalo-Cheektowaga, NY
Allegany County, NY; and Wyoming County, NY.
Burlington-South Burlington, VT
Addison County, VT; Lamoille County, VT; and Washington County, VT.
Charlotte-Concord, NC-SC
Alexander County, NC; Anson County, NC; Burke County, NC; Caldwell
County, NC; Catawba County, NC; and Chesterfield County, SC.
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI
Boone County, IL; Iroquois County, IL; Ogle County, IL; Stephenson
County, IL; Winnebago County, IL; and Starke County, IN.
[[Page 41859]]
Cincinnati-Wilmington-Maysville, OH-KY-IN
Ripley County, IN; Switzerland County, IN; Carroll County, KY;
Fleming County, KY; Lewis County, KY; Owen County, KY; Robertson
County, KY; Adams County, OH; and Highland County, OH.
Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH
Ashland County, OH; Columbiana County, OH; Crawford County, OH;
Holmes County, OH; Mahoning County, OH; Richland County, OH; Trumbull
County, OH; Wayne County, OH; and Mercer County, PA.
Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, OH
Coshocton County, OH; Hardin County, OH; Morgan County, OH; Noble
County, OH; Pike County, OH; and Vinton County, OH.
Corpus Christi-Kingsville-Alice, TX
Duval County, TX; Live Oak County, TX; and Refugio County, TX.
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK
Carter County, OK; Love County, OK; Hill County, TX; Jack County,
TX; Montague County, TX; Rains County, TX; and Van Zandt County, TX.
Davenport-Moline, IA-IL
Lee County, IL; Whiteside County, IL; Cedar County, IA; Jackson
County, IA; and Louisa County, IA.
Dayton-Springfield-Sidney, OH
Allen County, OH; Auglaize County, OH; Mercer County, OH; and Van
Wert County, OH.
Denver-Aurora, CO
Lincoln County, CO.
Des Moines-Ames-West Des Moines, IA
Adair County, IA; Clarke County, IA; Greene County, IA; Hamilton
County, IA; Lucas County, IA; Mahaska County, IA; Marion County, IA;
Monroe County, IA; and Poweshiek County, IA.
Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, MI
Clinton County, MI; Eaton County, MI; Huron County, MI; Ingham
County, MI; Jackson County, MI; Sanilac County, MI; Shiawassee County,
MI; and Tuscola County, MI.
Harrisburg-Lebanon, PA
Juniata County, PA.
Houston-The Woodlands, TX
Colorado County, TX; Grimes County, TX; Jackson County, TX; and
Madison County, TX.
Huntsville-Decatur-Albertville, AL
Colbert County, AL; Lauderdale County, AL; and Lincoln County, TN.
Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN
Benton County, IN; Blackford County, IN; Carroll County, IN;
Clinton County, IN; Fayette County, IN; Fountain County, IN; Lawrence
County, IN; Monroe County, IN; Owen County, IN; Randolph County, IN;
Rush County, IN; Tippecanoe County, IN; Tipton County, IN; Warren
County, IN; and Wayne County, IN.
Kansas City-Overland Park-Kansas City, MO-KS
Anderson County, KS; Carroll County, MO; Daviess County, MO; Gentry
County, MO; Henry County, MO; and Holt County, MO.
Laredo, TX
Jim Hogg County, TX; and La Salle County, TX.
Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI
Fond du Lac County, WI; and Sheboygan County, WI.
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI
Blue Earth County, MN; Brown County, MN; Dodge County, MN; Fillmore
County, MN; Kanabec County, MN; Meeker County, MN; Morrison County, MN;
Mower County, MN; Nicollet County, MN; Olmsted County, MN; Pine County,
MN; Steele County, MN; Wabasha County, MN; Waseca County, MN; and Polk
County, WI.
New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA
Sullivan County, NY; and Wayne County, PA.
Omaha-Council Bluffs-Fremont, NE-IA
Fremont County, IA; Shelby County, IA; and Burt County, NE.
Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD
Sussex County, DE; Somerset County, MD; Wicomico County, MD;
Worcester County, MD; and Schuylkill County, PA.
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ
Gila County, AZ.
Pittsburgh-New Castle-Weirton, PA-OH-WV
Belmont County, OH; Cambria County, PA; Greene County, PA; Somerset
County, PA; Marshall County, WV; and Ohio County, WV.
Portland-Vancouver-Salem, OR-WA
Wahkiakum County, WA.
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC
Caswell County, NC; Edgecombe County, NC; Halifax County, NC; Moore
County, NC; Nash County, NC; Northampton County, NC; Warren County, NC;
and Wilson County, NC.
Richmond, VA
Brunswick County, VA; Essex County, VA; Greensville County, VA;
Nottoway County, VA; and Emporia City, VA.
Sacramento-Roseville, CA-NV
Alpine County, CA; Amador County, CA; Butte County, CA; Colusa
County, CA; and Sierra County, CA.
San Antonio-New Braunfels-Pearsall, TX
Gillespie County, TX; Gonzales County, TX; Karnes County, TX; Kerr
County, TX; and McMullen County, TX.
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA
Calaveras County, CA; Merced County, CA; and Stanislaus County, CA.
Seattle-Tacoma, WA
Grays Harbor County, WA; Pacific County, WA; and San Juan County,
WA.
St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL
Fayette County, IL; Greene County, IL; Montgomery County, IL;
Randolph County, IL; Washington County, IL; Crawford County, MO;
Gasconade County, MO; Iron County, MO; Madison County, MO; Montgomery
County, MO; Pike County, MO; Ste. Genevieve County, MO; and Washington
County, MO.
Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC
Chowan County, NC; Hertford County, NC; Middlesex County, VA;
Southampton County, VA; Surry County, VA; and Franklin City, VA.
Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA
Allegany County, MD; Caroline County, MD; Fulton County, PA;
Caroline County, VA (redesignated from Richmond, VA locality pay area);
Madison County, VA; Orange County, VA; Shenandoah County, VA;
Westmoreland County, VA; Hardy County, WV; and Mineral County, WV.
Expected Impact of the Proposed Rule
This rule would establish four new locality pay areas based on
updated pay disparity data and would add many locations to existing
locality pay areas as a result of using the revised criteria the
Council has recommended for areas of application. Wage rates for
employees who receive GS locality pay would increase in these areas
relative to the
[[Page 41860]]
baseline as a result. However, when locality pay percentages are
adjusted at the time of an annual pay adjustment, they are scaled to a
targeted overall salary outlay, regardless of the number or composition
of locality pay areas. Thus, should this proposal be implemented, the
larger annual increases locations might receive as a result of being
redesignated to a higher-paying locality pay area would be offset by
the annual increases elsewhere being smaller than they would absent
such redesignation. These changes would result in geographic
differences in Federal salaries better reflecting the overall
geographic differences in salary in line with statutory goals. In turn,
this could affect Federal recruitment and retention across the U.S. OPM
requests comments on this rule regarding these impacts.
OPM expects that this rule would most directly impact approximately
32,900 GS employees. Modifying existing locality pay areas would affect
approximately 16,700 GS employees, and establishing the four new
locality pay areas proposed would affect approximately 16,200 GS
employees. As discussed above, other Federal employees who receive GS
locality pay would be indirectly impacted at the time of an annual pay
adjustment. Due to the scope of this proposed rule, OPM does not
anticipate that it would substantially impact local economies or have a
large ripple effect in local labor markets. However, OPM is requesting
comment on this rule regarding the impacts discussed above related to
future annual pay adjustments.
OPM is highly interested in any impacts of locality pay adjustments
due to rulemaking and will continue to study the implications of such
impacts as needed.
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866, Regulatory Review
OPM has examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive
Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563, which 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, distributive impacts, and equity). This
rule is not a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866.
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.
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.
Kayyonne Marston,
Federal Register Liaison.
Accordingly, OPM proposes to amend 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. 20-01.
* * * * *
MSA means the geographic scope of a Metropolitan Statistical Area,
as defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in OMB Bulletin
No. 20-01.
* * * * *
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, Greene
County, NY, and Hamilton County, NY;
(3) Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Las Vegas, NM--consisting of the
Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Las Vegas, NM CSA and also including Cibola
County, NM, and McKinley County, NM;
(4) Atlanta--Athens-Clarke County--Sandy Springs, GA-AL--consisting
of the Atlanta--Athens-Clarke County--Sandy Springs, GA-AL CSA and also
including Cherokee County, AL, Cleburne County, AL, Lee County, AL,
Randolph County, AL, Russell County, AL, Banks County, GA,
Chattahoochee County, GA, Elbert County, GA, Franklin County, GA,
Gilmer County, GA, Gordon County, GA, Greene County, GA, Harris County,
GA, Lumpkin County, GA, Marion County, GA, Muscogee County, GA, Putnam
County, GA, Rabun County, GA, Stewart County, GA, Talbot County, GA,
Taliaferro County, GA, and White County, GA;
(5) Austin-Round Rock-Georgetown, TX--consisting of the Austin-
Round Rock-Georgetown, TX MSA and also including Blanco County, TX,
Burnet County, TX, Lee County, TX, and Milam County, TX;
(6) Birmingham-Hoover-Talladega, AL--consisting of the Birmingham-
Hoover-Talladega, AL CSA and also including Calhoun County, AL, Clay
County, AL, Coosa County, AL, Etowah County, AL, Greene County, AL,
Hale County, AL, Pickens County, AL, Tallapoosa County, AL, Tuscaloosa
County, AL, and Winston County, AL;
(7) Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT-ME-VT--consisting of
the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT CSA and also including
Androscoggin County, ME, Cumberland
[[Page 41861]]
County, ME, Sagadahoc County, ME, York County, ME, Dukes County, MA,
Nantucket County, MA, Carroll County, NH, Cheshire County, NH, Grafton
County, NH, Sullivan County, NH, Orange County, VT, and Windsor County,
VT;
(8) Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Olean, NY--consisting of the Buffalo-
Cheektowaga-Olean, NY CSA and also including Allegany County, NY, and
Wyoming County, NY;
(9) Burlington-South Burlington-Barre, VT--consisting of the
Burlington-South Burlington-Barre, VT CSA and also including Addison
County, VT, and Lamoille County, VT;
(10) Charlotte-Concord, NC-SC--consisting of the Charlotte-Concord,
NC-SC CSA and also including Alexander County, NC, Burke County, NC,
Caldwell County, NC, Catawba County, NC, and Chesterfield County, SC;
(11) Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI--consisting of the Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI CSA and also including Boone County, IL, Iroquois
County, IL, Ogle County, IL, Stephenson County, IL, Winnebago County,
IL, and Starke County, IN;
(12) Cincinnati-Wilmington-Maysville, OH-KY-IN--consisting of the
Cincinnati-Wilmington-Maysville, OH-KY-IN CSA and also including Ripley
County, IN, Switzerland County, IN, Carroll County, KY, Fleming County,
KY, Lewis County, KY, Owen County, KY, Robertson County, KY, Adams
County, OH, and Highland County, OH;
(13) Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH-PA--consisting of the Cleveland-
Akron-Canton, OH CSA and also including Ashland County, OH, Columbiana
County, OH, Crawford County, OH, Harrison County, OH, Holmes County,
OH, Mahoning County, OH, Richland County, OH, Trumbull County, OH, and
Mercer County, PA;
(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 and also including Coshocton County, OH,
Hardin County, OH, Morgan County, OH, Noble County, OH, Pike County,
OH, and Vinton County, OH;
(16) Corpus Christi-Kingsville-Alice, TX--consisting of the Corpus
Christi-Kingsville-Alice, TX CSA and also including Brooks County, TX,
Live Oak County, TX, and Refugio County, TX;
(17) Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK--consisting of the Dallas-Fort Worth,
TX-OK CSA and also including Carter County, OK, Love County, OK, Delta
County, TX, Hill County, TX, Hopkins County, TX, Jack County, TX,
Montague County, TX, Rains County, TX, Somervell County, TX, and Van
Zandt County, TX;
(18) Davenport-Moline, IA-IL--consisting of the Davenport-Moline,
IA-IL CSA and also including Carroll County, IL, Lee County, IL,
Whiteside County, IL, Cedar County, IA, Jackson County, IA, and Louisa
County, IA;
(19) Dayton-Springfield-Kettering, OH--consisting of the Dayton-
Springfield-Kettering, OH CSA and also including Allen County, OH,
Auglaize County, OH, Mercer County, OH, Preble County, OH, and Van Wert
County, OH;
(20) Denver-Aurora, CO--consisting of the Denver-Aurora, CO CSA and
also including Larimer County, CO, and Lincoln County, CO;
(21) Des Moines-Ames-West Des Moines, IA--consisting of the Des
Moines-Ames-West Des Moines, IA CSA and also including Adair County,
IA, Clarke County, IA, Greene County, IA, Hamilton County, IA, Lucas
County, IA, Monroe County, IA, and Poweshiek County, IA;
(22) Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, MI--consisting of the Detroit-
Warren-Ann Arbor, MI CSA and also including Clinton County, MI, Eaton
County, MI, Huron County, MI, Ingham County, MI, Jackson County, MI,
Sanilac County, MI, Shiawassee County, MI, and Tuscola County, MI;
(23) Fresno-Madera-Hanford, CA--consisting of the Fresno-Madera-
Hanford, CA CSA and also including Mariposa County, CA, and Tulare
County, CA;
(24) Harrisburg-Lebanon, PA--consisting of the Harrisburg-York-
Lebanon, PA CSA, except for Adams County, PA, and York County, PA, and
also including Juniata County, PA, and Lancaster County, PA;
(25) Hartford-East Hartford, CT-MA--consisting of the Hartford-East
Hartford, CT CSA and also including Franklin County, MA, Hampden
County, MA, and Hampshire County, MA;
(26) Hawaii--consisting of the State of Hawaii;
(27) Houston-The Woodlands, TX--consisting of the Houston-The
Woodlands, TX CSA and also including Colorado County, TX, Grimes
County, TX, Jackson County, TX, Madison County, TX, San Jacinto County,
TX, and Trinity County, TX;
(28) Huntsville-Decatur, AL-TN--consisting of the Huntsville-
Decatur, AL CSA and also including Colbert County, AL, DeKalb County,
AL, Lauderdale County, AL, Marshall County, AL, and Lincoln County, TN;
(29) Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN--consisting of the
Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN CSA and also including Benton County,
IN, Blackford County, IN, Carroll County, IN, Clinton County, IN,
Fayette County, IN, Fountain County, IN, Grant County, IN, Lawrence
County, IN, Monroe County, IN, Owen County, IN, Randolph County, IN,
Rush County, IN, Tippecanoe County, IN, Tipton County, IN, Warren
County, IN, and Wayne County, IN;
(30) Kansas City-Overland Park-Kansas City, MO-KS--consisting of
the Kansas City-Overland Park-Kansas City, MO-KS CSA and also including
Anderson County, KS, Jackson County, KS, Jefferson County, KS, Osage
County, KS, Shawnee County, KS, Wabaunsee County, KS, Carroll County,
MO, Daviess County, MO, Gentry County, MO, Henry County, MO, and Holt
County, MO;
(31) Laredo, TX--consisting of the Laredo, TX MSA and also
including Jim Hogg County, TX, and La Salle County, TX;
(32) Las Vegas-Henderson, NV-AZ--consisting of the Las Vegas-
Henderson, NV CSA and also including Mohave County, AZ;
(33) Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA--consisting of the Los Angeles-Long
Beach, CA CSA and also including Imperial County, CA, Kern County, CA,
San Luis Obispo County, CA, and Santa Barbara County, CA;
(34) Miami-Port St. Lucie-Fort Lauderdale, FL--consisting of the
Miami-Port St. Lucie-Fort Lauderdale, FL CSA and also including
Okeechobee County, FL;
(35) Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI--consisting of the Milwaukee-
Racine-Waukesha, WI CSA and also including Fond du Lac County, WI, and
Sheboygan County, WI;
(36) Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI--consisting of the Minneapolis-St.
Paul, MN-WI CSA and also including Blue Earth County, MN, Brown County,
MN, Dodge County, MN, Fillmore County, MN, Kanabec County, MN, Meeker
County, MN, Morrison County, MN, Mower County, MN, Nicollet County, MN,
Olmsted County, MN, Pine County, MN, Sibley County, MN, Wabasha County,
MN, Waseca County, MN, and Polk County, WI;
(37) New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA--consisting of the New York-
Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA and also including Warren County, NJ, Sullivan
County, NY, Carbon County, PA, Lehigh County, PA, Northampton County,
PA, Wayne County, PA, and all of Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst;
(38) Omaha-Council Bluffs-Fremont, NE-IA--consisting of the Omaha-
Council Bluffs-Fremont, NE-IA CSA and also including Fremont County,
IA,
[[Page 41862]]
Shelby County, IA, and Burt County, NE;
(39) Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL--consisting of the Palm Bay-
Melbourne-Titusville, FL MSA;
(40) 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, and also including Sussex County, DE, Somerset
County, MD, Wicomico County, MD, Worcester County, MD, and Schuylkill
County, PA;
(41) Phoenix-Mesa, AZ--consisting of the Phoenix-Mesa, AZ CSA;
(42) Pittsburgh-New Castle-Weirton, PA-OH-WV--consisting of the
Pittsburgh-New Castle-Weirton, PA-OH-WV CSA and also including Belmont
County, OH, Cambria County, PA, Greene County, PA, Somerset County, PA,
Marshall County, WV, and Ohio County, WV;
(43) Portland-Vancouver-Salem, OR-WA--consisting of the Portland-
Vancouver-Salem, OR-WA CSA and also including Wahkiakum County, WA;
(44) Raleigh-Durham-Cary, NC--consisting of the Raleigh-Durham-
Cary, NC CSA and also including Caswell County, NC, Cumberland County,
NC, Edgecombe County, NC, Halifax County, NC, Harnett County, NC, Hoke
County, NC, Lee County, NC, Moore County, NC, Nash County, NC,
Northampton County, NC, Robeson County, NC, Scotland County, NC, Warren
County, NC, Wayne County, NC, and Wilson County, NC;
(45) Reno-Fernley, NV--consisting of the Reno-Carson City-Fernley,
NV CSA, except for Carson City, NV, and Douglas County, NV, and also
including Churchill County, NV;
(46) Richmond, VA--consisting of the Richmond, VA MSA and also
including Brunswick County, VA, Cumberland County, VA, Essex County,
VA, Greensville County, VA, Louisa County, VA, Nottoway County, VA, and
Emporia City, VA;
(47) Rochester-Batavia-Seneca Falls, NY--consisting of the
Rochester-Batavia-Seneca Falls, NY CSA;
(48) Sacramento-Roseville, CA-NV--consisting of the Sacramento-
Roseville, CA CSA and also including Alpine County, CA, Amador County,
CA, Butte County, CA, Colusa County, CA, Sierra County, CA, Carson
City, NV, and Douglas County, NV;
(49) San Antonio-New Braunfels-Pearsall, TX--consisting of the San
Antonio-New Braunfels-Pearsall, TX CSA and also including Gillespie
County, TX, Gonzales County, TX, Karnes County, TX, Kerr County, TX,
and McMullen County, TX;
(50) San Diego-Chula Vista-Carlsbad, CA--consisting of the San
Diego-Chula Vista-Carlsbad, CA MSA;
(51) San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA--consisting of the San
Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA and also including Calaveras County,
CA, and Monterey County, CA;
(52) Seattle-Tacoma, WA--consisting of the Seattle-Tacoma, WA CSA
and also including Grays Harbor County, WA, Pacific County, WA, San
Juan County, WA, and Whatcom County, WA;
(53) Spokane-Spokane Valley-Coeur d'Alene, WA-ID--consisting of the
Spokane-Spokane Valley-Coeur d'Alene, WA-ID CSA and also including
Benewah County, ID, Shoshone County, ID, Ferry County, WA, Lincoln
County, WA, and Pend Oreille County, WA;
(54) St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL--consisting of the St.
Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL CSA and also including Fayette
County, IL, Greene County, IL, Montgomery County, IL, Randolph County,
IL, Washington County, IL, Crawford County, MO, Gasconade County, MO,
Iron County, MO, Madison County, MO, Montgomery County, MO, Pike
County, MO, Ste. Genevieve County, MO, and Washington County, MO;
(55) Tucson-Nogales, AZ--consisting of the Tucson-Nogales, AZ CSA
and also including Cochise County, AZ;
(56) Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC--consisting of the Virginia
Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC CSA and also including Chowan County, NC, Hertford
County, NC, Tyrrell County, NC, Middlesex County, VA, and Surry County,
VA;
(57) Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA--consisting of
the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA CSA and also
including Allegany County, MD, Caroline County, MD, Dorchester County,
MD, Kent County, MD, Adams County, PA, Fulton County, PA, York County,
PA, Caroline County, VA, King George County, VA, Orange County, VA,
Shenandoah County, VA, Westmoreland County, VA, Hardy County, WV, and
Mineral County, WV; and
(58) 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. 2023-13621 Filed 6-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-39-P