[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 220 (Thursday, November 16, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78631-78636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25153]



 ========================================================================
 Rules and Regulations
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
 having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
 to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
 under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
 
 The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2023 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 78631]]



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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management is issuing final 
regulations on behalf of the President's Pay Agent to change the 
geographic boundaries of General Schedule locality pay areas. The 
changes in locality pay area definitions under these final regulations 
will be applicable on the first day of the first applicable pay period 
beginning on or after January 1, 2024. The locations that will be 
included in a locality pay area separate from the Rest of U.S. locality 
pay area under these final regulations 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: The regulations are effective on December 18, 2023. The 
regulations are applicable for pay purposes on the first day of the 
first applicable pay period beginning on or after January 1, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Ratcliffe by email at [email protected] or by telephone at (202) 606-2858.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Summary of Final Rule

    The changes these final regulations make 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, respectively) 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. 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 these final regulations.
    The four new locality pay areas established by the final 
regulations 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 will be set by the 
President.

Background

    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. Paragraph (f) of 
5 U.S.C. 5304 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 
(``the 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 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).
    On June 28, 2023, OPM published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register on behalf of the Pay Agent to propose the changes summarized 
above. (See 88 FR 41855.) The proposed rule provided a 30-day comment 
period. Accordingly, the Pay Agent reviewed comments received through 
July 28, 2023. After considering those comments, the Pay Agent has 
decided to implement the locality pay area definitions identified in 
the proposed rule, except that the Washington State Counties of Clallam 
and Jefferson are added as areas of application to the Seattle-Tacoma, 
WA, locality pay area.

Comments on the Proposed Rule

    OPM received 405 comments on the proposed rule. Most commenters 
supported the proposed changes in the geographic definitions of 
locality pay areas.
    A number of comments reflected misunderstanding of the proposed 
rule's geographic definitions of locality pay areas, with some comments 
indicating a mistaken belief that certain counties actually included in 
a proposed locality pay area were excluded and that a correction would 
therefore be needed prior to publication of a final rule. 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 Council and approved by the Pay Agent are met, (2) areas of 
application. These comments all expressed concern about locations 
which, while not listed as individual counties in paragraph (b) of 
Sec.  531.603, were all included in the MSA or CSA listed for the 
locality pay area and therefore did not need to be listed as individual 
counties. OPM plans to post the definitions of locality pay areas at 
the county level on its website after these final regulations are 
issued.
    Many commenters expressed the belief that various indicators of 
living costs are or should be considered in defining locality pay areas 
or in setting locality pay rates. Under 5 U.S.C. 5304, locality pay 
rates are based on comparisons of GS pay and non-Federal

[[Page 78632]]

pay at the same work levels in a locality pay area rather than on any 
consideration of local living costs. Relative living costs may 
indirectly affect non-Federal pay levels, but living costs are just one 
of many factors that affect the supply of and demand for labor, and 
therefore labor costs, in a locality pay area. A comparison of living 
costs between geographic areas is not permitted under the locality pay 
law, but even if it were, it would not be a reliable indicator of local 
labor costs.
    Many commenters proposed that a change in locality pay designation 
be made for locations that have not met the standard criteria for such 
designation that the proposed rule explained. As noted in the Pay 
Agent's December 2022 annual report (available at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/general-schedule/pay-agent-reports/2021report.pdf), the P ay Agent agrees with the Council that 
locality pay areas should continue to be defined by consistently 
applying standard criteria to all locations throughout the country. 
However, the Pay Agent also agrees with the Council that stakeholder 
input regarding the criteria used to define and establish locality pay 
areas can be helpful to the Council as it continues to consider what 
criteria are best to apply consistently for all locations throughout 
the country for purposes of establishing locality pay area boundaries. 
Stakeholders concerned about the criteria used in the locality pay 
program may submit input to the Council.
    In some cases, commenters arguing for exceptions to the use of 
standard criteria cited possible recruitment and retention difficulties 
they said they believed agencies would have in certain locations that 
would 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, and it has been the case since the very first 
locality pay areas were established for January 1994 that many counties 
with Federal employees are in the Rest of U.S. locality pay area while 
being adjacent to a separate locality pay area. 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 https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-and-leave-flexibilities-for-recruitment-and-retention/.
    A number of commenters expressed concern that various rural 
locations have not been established as separate locality pay areas. In 
some cases, comments expressing such concerns reflected a mistaken 
belief that such locations have not been established as separate 
locality pay areas based solely on the relatively small numbers of GS 
employees they often have. The proposed rule does mention that when the 
Council began using the current salary survey methodology in 2012, 
selection of Rest of U.S. research areas was limited to MSAs and CSAs 
having 2,500 or more GS employees. However, the proposed rule also 
explains that the Council has begun requesting that the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics (BLS) deliver non-Federal salary estimates for areas that 
had fewer than 2,500 GS employees, that so far BLS resources have 
allowed for delivery of NCS/OEWS estimates for 10 such statistical 
areas, and that those 10 areas had the highest levels of GS employment 
among areas not previously established as Rest of U.S. research areas. 
Also, the Council has indicated that it plans to continue its work with 
BLS to establish more Rest of U.S. research areas where feasible in 
MSAs and CSAs with fewer than 2,500 GS employees. Thus, the proposed 
rule does not imply that locations are excluded from consideration 
based on their GS employment alone. Rather, rural locations that have 
not been recommended for a change in their locality pay area 
designation do not meet the criteria that the proposed rule explained.
    Regarding the criteria by which four new locality pay areas will be 
established under these final regulations, some commenters expressed 
concern regarding the BLS conclusion that it is not feasible for the 
BLS salary survey methodology to produce reliable salary estimates for 
micropolitan statistical areas or rural counties. One commenter 
characterized that conclusion as unacceptable and opined that all 
locations throughout the country should have pay disparities calculated 
regardless of that BLS conclusion. In response to these concerns, the 
Pay Agent notes that a pay disparity calculated for purposes of 
locality pay must have sufficient occupational and work level coverage 
for non-Federal positions that are comparable to GS positions in the 
same locality pay area, and micropolitan statistical areas and rural 
counties do not have enough non-Federal salary data to calculate 
reliable pay disparities in the same way as with MSAs and CSAs because 
of the relatively small populations and labor markets typical of such 
locations.
    Some commenters disagreed it is appropriate to use March 2020 OMB-
defined metropolitan areas to define locality pay areas as proposed. 
Some of those commenters made living-cost comparisons between Rest of 
U.S. locations and portions of March 2020 OMB metropolitan areas that 
comprise basic locality pay areas. Other commenters suggested that 
locality pay area boundaries should be defined based not on March 2020 
OMB-defined metropolitan areas but rather on the boundaries of sets of 
duty stations comprising entire states, national parks, the regional 
definitions agencies may use for their workforces, or other data or 
information the commenters regarded as relevant with respect to 
locations of concern to them. Under the final regulations, the 
boundaries of locality pay areas will reflect the use of OMB-defined 
metropolitan areas described in the proposed rule.
    Prior to implementation of locality pay, the Council recommended, 
and the Pay Agent approved, the use of OMB-defined metropolitan areas 
as the basis for locality pay area boundaries, and OMB-defined 
metropolitan areas have been the basis for locality pay area boundaries 
since locality pay was implemented in 1994. (A detailed history of the 
use of OMB-defined metropolitan areas in the locality pay program can 
be found in the Council's January 2014 recommendations available at 
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/general-schedule/federal-salary-council/recommendation13.pdf.) The Pay 
Agent continues to believe it is appropriate to use OMB-defined 
metropolitan areas as the basis for locality pay area boundaries and 
has no evidence that it is appropriate to split an OMB-defined 
metropolitan area into separate locality pay areas. Since OMB-defined 
metropolitan areas will continue to serve as the basis for locality pay 
area boundaries, the Pay Agent believes it makes sense to update the 
metropolitan areas used in the locality pay program to the March 2020 
OMB-defined metropolitan areas, since the definitions of those 
metropolitan areas reflect more recent information on population 
distribution and commuting patterns. (Regarding the definitions of 
metropolitan areas in OMB Bulletin No. 23-01, which was issued on July 
21, 2023, the Council can consider whether to recommend their use for 
purposes of defining locality pay areas for 2025.) Departing from the 
practice of defining basic locality pay areas based on OMB-

[[Page 78633]]

defined metropolitan areas as in the proposed rule would be a 
significant change, and the implications would have to be carefully 
considered. Individuals interested in recommending alternatives for 
defining locality pay areas using standard criteria nationwide may 
provide input to the Council.
    Some commenters suggested that all portions of California should be 
covered by a higher locality pay percentage than for the Rest of U.S. 
locality pay area, with one commenter noting that the entire states of 
Alaska and Hawaii each comprise a single locality pay area and 
suggesting the same thing could be done for the state of California. 
These final regulations will provide the same locality pay area 
designations within California as the proposed rule proposed. The 
establishment of Alaska and Hawaii as locality pay areas was part of 
the Nonforeign Areas Retirement Equity Assurance Act of 2009 (NAREAA) 
(as contained in subtitle B of title XIX of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Pub. L. 111-84, October 28, 
2009), which does not cover locations in California or other portions 
of the contiguous United States. As explained more fully in 76 FR 
32859, the Pay Agent established the states of Alaska and Hawaii as 
locality pay areas effective July 7, 2011. That change was consistent 
with the sense of the Congress statement in NAREAA that the two states 
each would be covered by a single separate locality pay area.
    Some comments were outside of the scope of these regulations. For 
example, some commenters suggested specific pay levels they claimed 
should be implemented for one or more locality pay areas. Other 
commenters expressed concern that employees covered by certain Federal 
pay systems outside of the General Schedule, such as the Federal Wage 
System, would not benefit from the changes planned for the geographic 
definitions of GS locality pay areas. Some commenters offered views on 
changes they think should be made to the General Schedule that would 
require changes in law, such as eliminating the statutory pay 
limitation that limits locality pay rates to the rate for level IV of 
the Executive Schedule (5 U.S.C. 5304 (g)(1)).
    The purpose of these regulations is to define the boundaries of 
locality pay areas established for the General Schedule pay system and 
other pay systems that receive locality pay under 5 U.S.C. 5304, not to 
determine locality pay percentages, adjust location coverage for pay 
systems that do not receive locality pay under 5 U.S.C. 5304, or 
consider ideas for reforms to the General Schedule that would require 
changes in law.
    One commenter suggested the final regulations include Clallam and 
Jefferson Counties, WA, in the Seattle locality pay area as areas of 
application (https://www.regulations.gov/comment/OPM-2023-0009-0226). 
The Council recommended in its February 4, 2023 report (https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/general-schedule/federal-salary-council/recommendation22.pdf) that the 
Washington State Counties of Clallam and Jefferson be included in the 
Seattle-Tacoma, WA, locality pay area as areas of application. Because 
the Pay Agent was still considering the Council's recommendation 
regarding Clallam and Jefferson Counties for locality pay in January 
2024 when OPM published the proposed rule, these counties were not 
included as proposed areas of application.
    The commenter recommended the two counties be included in the 
Seattle locality pay area because the Council recommended in its 
February 4, 2023, annual report that the Pay Agent do so. In addition, 
review of the report of the Council Working Group read into the record 
at the Council's public meeting held on October 28, 2022, has provided 
additional context for the Council's February 2023 recommendation and 
provides further justification to support the commenter's 
recommendation. With respect to isolation as a Rest of U.S. location, 
Jefferson County is analogous to an island location such as San Juan 
County, WA, which the proposed rule and final regulations both include 
in the Seattle locality pay area as an area of application. Jefferson 
County is located on the Olympic Peninsula within western Washington 
State and is divided by the Olympic Mountains into an eastern portion 
and a western portion with no access by road between those two portions 
without crossing into either Clallam County, WA, or Grays Harbor 
County, WA. The western portion is bordered by the Pacific Ocean 
coastline, and the eastern portion is bordered by the marine waters of 
the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Puget Sound. Jefferson County's 
small GS workforce consists mostly of Department of Navy positions 
located at Naval Magazine Indian Island, across the Puget Sound from 
Seattle.
    With Jefferson County included in the Seattle locality pay area, 
Clallam County, WA, would be completely bordered by water and a higher-
paying locality pay area, so the Council recommended also including 
Clallam County in the Seattle locality pay area as an area of 
application.
    Based on the Pay Agent's review of the Council's analysis of those 
two counties for locality pay in January 2024, the Pay Agent agrees 
with the Council's reasoning on those two counties. Accordingly, the 
Pay Agent agrees with the commenter and finds it prudent not to delay 
treating the counties the same as other similarly situated locations. 
Jefferson County and Clallam County, WA, are therefore being included 
in the Seattle, WA locality pay area in this final rule.
    One commenter suggested that all GS employees should receive the 
same locality pay rates regardless of location after adjusting all GS 
pay rates nationwide so that they equal the GS pay rates now applicable 
in the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA, locality pay area, which 
currently has the highest locality pay percentage. Such an approach 
would not be permissible under current law. The ultimate goal of 
locality pay is to reduce pay disparities to the same extent in each 
locality pay area (5 U.S.C. 5304). Therefore, it is appropriate that 
locality rates differ between locations.

Expected Impact of This Rule

    This rule establishes four new locality pay areas based on updated 
pay disparity data and adds many locations to existing locality pay 
areas as a result of using the revised criteria the Pay Agent has 
approved for areas of application. Wage rates for employees who receive 
GS locality pay will increase in these areas relative to the 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, the larger annual increases locations will receive as a 
result of being redesignated to a higher-paying locality pay area will 
be offset by the annual increases elsewhere being smaller than they 
would absent such redesignation. These changes will result in 
geographic differences in Federal salaries better reflecting the 
overall geographic differences in salary in line with statutory goals. 
In the proposed rule, OPM noted that this could affect Federal 
recruitment and retention across the U.S. and requested comments on 
this issue. However, OPM received no comments on the proposed rule 
establishing that recruitment and retention will be negatively impacted 
as a result of implementing these final regulations.
    OPM expects that this rule will most directly impact approximately 
33,300 GS employees. Modifying existing

[[Page 78634]]

locality pay areas will affect approximately 17,100 GS employees, and 
establishing the four new locality pay areas will affect approximately 
16,200 GS employees. As discussed above, other Federal employees who 
receive GS locality pay will be indirectly impacted at the time of an 
annual pay adjustment. Due to the scope of this rule, OPM does not 
anticipate that it will substantially impact local economies or have a 
large ripple effect in local labor markets.
    OPM is highly interested in any impacts of locality pay adjustments 
resulting from this rulemaking and will continue to study the 
implications of such impacts as needed.

Regulatory Review

    Executive Orders 13563, 12866, and 14094 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 the provisions of 
Executive Order 14094 and, therefore, was not reviewed by OMB.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Director of OPM certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
because this rule will affect only Federal agencies and employees.

Federalism

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform 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

    Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996 (known as the Congressional Review Act or CRA) (5 U.S.C. 
801 et seq.) requires most final rules to be submitted to Congress 
before taking effect. OPM will submit to Congress and the Comptroller 
General of the United States a report regarding the issuance of this 
rule before its effective date. The Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget has 
determined that this rule is not a major rule as defined by the CRA (5 
U.S.C. 804).

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose or affect any 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 amends 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 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;

[[Page 78635]]

    (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, 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,

[[Page 78636]]

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---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 Clallam County, WA, Grays Harbor County, WA, 
Jefferson 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. 2023-25153 Filed 11-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-39-P