General Schedule Locality Pay Areas, 31694-31697 [2018-14542]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
31694
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 83, No. 131
Monday, July 9, 2018
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.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT
5 CFR Part 531
RIN 3206–AN64
General Schedule Locality Pay Areas
Office of Personnel
Management.
ACTION: Proposed rule with request for
comments.
AGENCY:
On behalf of the President’s
Pay Agent, the Office of Personnel
Management is issuing proposed
regulations to establish four 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. 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, 2019, subject to
issuance of final regulations. Locality
pay rates for the four new locality pay
areas would be set by the President after
the new locality pay areas would be
established by regulation.
DATES: We must receive comments on or
before August 8, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by RIN 3206–AN64, by either
of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Email: pay-leave-policy@opm.gov.
Include ‘‘RIN 3206–AN64’’ in the
subject line of the message.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe
Ratcliffe by email at pay-leave-policy@
opm.gov or by telephone at (202) 606–
2838.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Jul 06, 2018
Jkt 244001
(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/paysystems/general-schedule/#url=FederalSalary-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 establish four new
locality pay areas; to establish McKinley
County, NM, as an area of application to
the Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Las Vegas,
NM, locality pay area; and to establish
San Luis Obispo County, CA, as an area
of application to the Los Angeles-Long
Beach, CA, locality pay area. (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/generalschedule/#url=Pay-Agent-Reports.) As
further discussed below, those changes
were tentatively approved, pending
appropriate rulemaking, in recent
annual reports of the President’s Pay
Agent. In addition, the proposed
regulations would link locality pay area
definitions to metropolitan statistical
areas (MSAs) and combined statistical
areas (CSAs) defined in OMB Bulletin
18–03 and would also make minor
clarifying changes to the names of two
locality pay areas, the geographic
boundaries of which would not change.
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 the
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). BLS
uses a method that permits
Occupational Employment Statistics
(OES) data to be used for locality pay.
OES data are available for MSAs and
CSAs throughout the Country and
permit evaluation of salary levels in
many more locations than could be
covered under the prior National
Compensation Survey alone.
The Federal Salary Council has been
monitoring pay comparisons of GS and
non-Federal pay in ‘‘Rest of U.S.’’ MSAs
and CSAs with 2,500 or more GS
employees. Based on its review, the
Federal Salary 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 issue proposed
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
Birmingham-Hoover-Talladega, AL;
Burlington-South Burlington, VT; San
Antonio-New Braunfels-Pearsall, TX;
and Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA–NC. (In
its December 2016 annual report on
locality pay, the Pay Agent announced
its plan to establish Burlington, VT, and
Virginia Beach, VA, as new locality pay
areas. In its December 2017 annual
report on locality pay, the Pay Agent
announced its plan to establish
Birmingham, AL, and San Antonio, TX,
as new locality pay areas.) Locality pay
rates for the four new locality pay areas
would be set by the President at a later
date after they would be established by
regulation.
Criteria for Areas of Application
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. Areas
of application are locations that are
adjacent to the basic locality pay area
E:\FR\FM\09JYP1.SGM
09JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
and meet approved criteria for inclusion
in the locality pay area.
The Pay Agent’s current criteria for
evaluating locations adjacent to a basic
locality pay area for possible inclusion
in the locality pay area as areas of
application are 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 also has criteria for
evaluating Federal facilities that cross
county lines into a separate locality pay
area. To be included in an adjacent
locality pay area, the whole facility
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 higherpaying locality pay area.
New Commuting Patterns Data
In its December 2016
recommendations, the Federal Salary
Council recommended using recently
updated commuting patterns data in the
locality pay program—i.e., commuting
patterns data collected as part of the
American Community Survey from 2009
to 2013. In its December 2017 report, the
Pay Agent agreed that it would consider
using those commuting patterns data.
The Pay Agent believes it would be
appropriate to use the updated
commuting patterns data for evaluating
potential areas of application. Areas of
application included in the locality pay
area definitions in this proposed rule, at
5 CFR 531.603(b), reflect use of the
updated commuting patterns data for
evaluating potential areas of
application.
Using the updated commuting
patterns data and applying current
criteria for evaluating ‘‘Rest of U.S.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Jul 06, 2018
Jkt 244001
locations as potential areas of
application result in the addition of one
location to an existing locality pay
area—McKinley County, NM, would be
included in the Albuquerque-Santa FeLas Vegas, NM, locality pay area.
Regarding the four new locality pay
areas proposed, using the updated
commuting patterns data and applying
current criteria for evaluating ‘‘Rest of
U.S.’’ locations as potential areas of
application result in the addition of one
location to a proposed new locality pay
area—Calhoun County, AL, would be
included in the proposed BirminghamHoover-Talladega, AL, locality pay area.
San Luis Obispo County, CA
In the Federal Salary Council’s
December 2016 recommendations, the
Council made a special
recommendation for San Luis Obispo
County, CA. Because practically all of
San Luis Obispo County’s land
boundary is bordered by the Los
Angeles-Long Beach, CA, and San JoseSan Francisco-Oakland, CA, locality pay
areas, the Council recommended that
the county be treated as have other
‘‘Rest of U.S.’’ locations entirely
bordered by separate locality pay
areas—i.e., added to the separate
locality pay area with which it has the
most commuting. Specifically, the
Council recommended that San Luis
Obispo County be added to the Los
Angeles-Long Beach, CA, locality pay
area.
As explained in its December 2017
report, the Pay Agent views the
situation regarding San Luis Obispo
County as a geographic anomaly. Only
a very small amount of the geographic
boundary of San Luis Obispo County,
CA, in a remote corner of the county, is
not adjacent to the Los Angeles-Long
Beach, CA, or San Jose-San FranciscoOakland, CA, locality pay areas.
Because practically all of San Luis
Obispo County’s land boundary is
bordered by the Los Angeles-Long
Beach, CA, and San Jose-San FranciscoOakland, CA, locality pay areas, the Pay
Agent agrees with the Council that the
county should be treated as ‘‘Rest of
U.S.’’ locations entirely bordered by
separate locality pay areas have been
treated. Accordingly, the Pay Agent
proposes adding San Luis Obispo
County to the Los Angeles-Long Beach,
CA, locality pay area as an area of
application.
Linking Locality Pay Area Boundaries
to OMB-Defined Metropolitan Areas
The Pay Agent has used statistical
areas defined by OMB as a basis for
locality pay area boundaries since
locality pay began in 1994. Such OMB-
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31695
defined statistical areas are called
‘‘metropolitan statistical areas’’ (MSAs)
and ‘‘combined statistical areas’’ (CSAs).
On April 10, 2018, OMB issued a minor
update to the definitions of MSAs and
CSAs in OMB Bulletin 18–03. The
proposed regulations would link the
definitions of locality pay areas to the
most current OMB definitions of MSAs
and CSAs—i.e., those in OMB Bulletin
18–03. The geographic boundaries of
locality pay areas would not change
automatically if OMB issues a new
Bulletin to change the definitions of any
MSAs or CSAs serving as the basis of
the geographic boundaries of locality
pay areas. 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
statistical area definitions.
Changing the Names of Two Locality
Pay Areas for Clarification
The Pay Agent proposes changing the
names of two locality pay areas for
clarification. The State abbreviation
‘‘CT’’ would be removed from the name
of the ‘‘Boston-Worcester-Providence,
MA–RI–NH–CT–ME’’ locality pay area
to clarify that no locations in
Connecticut are included in that locality
pay area, and the State abbreviation
‘‘MA’’ would be added to the name of
the ‘‘Albany-Schenectady, NY’’ locality
pay area to clarify that Berkshire
County, MA, is included in that locality
pay area. These proposed name changes
would not change the geographic
boundaries of the two locality pay areas
affected.
Impact and Implementation
The proposal to establish 4 new
locality pay areas would impact about
62,000 GS employees. Implementing
that proposal would not automatically
change locality pay rates now applicable
in those areas. 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 four 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,
E:\FR\FM\09JYP1.SGM
09JYP1
31696
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules
locality pay area would 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 would
impact about 100 GS employees.
Using the definitions of MSAs and
CSAs in OMB Bulletin 18–03 as the
basis for locality pay area boundaries
would have no effect on the definitions
of locality pay areas or on GS
employees.
The changes proposed for the names
of the Boston-Worcester-Providence,
MA–RI–NH–CT–ME and AlbanySchenectady, NY, locality pay areas
would have no impact on GS employees
because the geographic boundaries of
the two locality pay areas affected
would remain the same.
Executive Order 13563 and Executive
Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget
has reviewed this rule in accordance
with E.O. 13563 and E.O. 12866.
Executive Order 13771
This proposed rule is not subject to
the requirements of E.O. 13771 (82 FR
9339, February 3, 2017) because it is
expected to be related to agency
organization, management, or
personnel.
Due to the narrow scope of this
proposed rule, affecting approximately
63,700 GS employees, OPM does not
anticipate this proposed rule would
substantially impact local economies or
have a large ripple effect in local labor
markets. However, studies do suggest
increasing wages can raise the wages of
other workers when employers need to
compete for personnel. Future locality
pay rulemaking may impact higher
volumes of employees in geographical
areas and could rise to the level of
impacting markets. OPM will address
the implications of such impacts in E.O.
13771 designations for future rules as
needed.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
I certify that these regulations would
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities
because they would apply only to
Federal agencies and employees.
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 531
Government employees, Law
enforcement officers, Wages.
Office of Personnel Management.
Jeff T.H. Pon,
Director.
Accordingly, OPM proposes to amend
5 CFR part 531 as follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Jul 06, 2018
Jkt 244001
PART 531—PAY UNDER THE
GENERAL SCHEDULE
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
2. In § 531.602, the definitions of CSA
and MSA are revised to read as follows:
■
§ 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.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. In § 531.603, paragraph (b) is
revised to read as follows:
§ 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 AlbuquerqueSanta 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 BirminghamHoover-Talladega, AL CSA and also
including Calhoun County, AL;
(7) Boston-Worcester-Providence,
MA-RI-NH-ME—consisting of the
Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RINH-CT CSA, except for Windham
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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, NCSC CSA;
(11) Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI—
consisting of the Chicago-Naperville, ILIN-WI CSA;
(12) Cincinnati-WilmingtonMaysville, OH-KY-IN—consisting of the
Cincinnati-Wilmington-Maysville, OHKY-IN CSA and also including Franklin
County, IN;
(13) Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH—
consisting of the Cleveland-AkronCanton, 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 ColumbusMarion-Zanesville, OH CSA;
(16) Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK—
consisting of the Dallas-Fort Worth, TXOK CSA and also including Delta
County, TX;
(17) Davenport-Moline, IA-IL—
consisting of the Davenport-Moline, IAIL CSA;
(18) Dayton-Springfield-Sidney, OH—
consisting of the Dayton-SpringfieldSidney, OH CSA and also including
Preble County, OH;
(19) Denver-Aurora, CO—consisting
of the Denver-Aurora, CO CSA and also
including Larimer County, CO;
(20) Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, MI—
consisting of the Detroit-Warren-Ann
Arbor, MI CSA;
(21) Harrisburg-Lebanon, PA—
consisting of the Harrisburg-YorkLebanon, PA CSA, except for Adams
County, PA, and York County, PA, and
also including Lancaster County, PA;
(22) 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;
(23) Hawaii—consisting of the State of
Hawaii;
(24) Houston-The Woodlands, TX—
consisting of the Houston-The
Woodlands, TX CSA and also including
San Jacinto County, TX;
(25) Huntsville-Decatur-Albertville,
AL—consisting of the HuntsvilleDecatur-Albertville, AL CSA;
E:\FR\FM\09JYP1.SGM
09JYP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules
(26) Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie,
IN—consisting of the IndianapolisCarmel-Muncie, IN CSA and also
including Grant County, IN;
(27) Kansas City-Overland ParkKansas 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;
(28) Laredo, TX—consisting of the
Laredo, TX MSA;
(29) Las Vegas-Henderson, NV-AZ—
consisting of the Las Vegas-Henderson,
NV-AZ CSA;
(30) 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;
(31) Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Port St.
Lucie, FL—consisting of the Miami-Fort
Lauderdale-Port St. Lucie, FL CSA and
also including Monroe County, FL;
(32) Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha,
WI—consisting of the MilwaukeeRacine-Waukesha, WI CSA;
(33) Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI—
consisting of the Minneapolis-St. Paul,
MN-WI CSA;
(34) New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CTPA—consisting of the New YorkNewark, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA and also
including all of Joint Base McGuire-DixLakehurst;
(35) Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville,
FL—consisting of the Palm BayMelbourne-Titusville, FL MSA;
(36) Philadelphia-Reading-Camden,
PA-NJ-DE-MD—consisting of the
Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJDE-MD CSA, except for Joint Base
McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst;
(37) Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ—
consisting of the Phoenix-MesaScottsdale, AZ MSA;
(38) Pittsburgh-New Castle-Weirton,
PA-OH-WV—consisting of the
Pittsburgh-New Castle-Weirton, PA-OHWV CSA;
(39) Portland-Vancouver-Salem, ORWA—consisting of the PortlandVancouver-Salem, OR-WA CSA;
(40) Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill,
NC—consisting of the Raleigh-DurhamChapel Hill, NC CSA and also including
Cumberland County, NC, Hoke County,
NC, Robeson County, NC, Scotland
County, NC, and Wayne County, NC;
(41) Richmond, VA—consisting of the
Richmond, VA MSA and also including
Cumberland County, VA, King and
Queen County, VA, and Louisa County,
VA;
(42) Sacramento-Roseville, CA-NV—
consisting of the Sacramento-Roseville,
CA CSA and also including Carson City,
NV, and Douglas County, NV;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Jul 06, 2018
Jkt 244001
(43) San Antonio-New BraunfelsPearsall, TX—consisting of the San
Antonio-New Braunfels-Pearsall, TX
CSA;
(44) San Diego-Carlsbad, CA—
consisting of the San Diego-Carlsbad,
CA MSA;
(45) San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland,
CA—consisting of the San Jose-San
Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA and also
including Monterey County, CA;
(46) Seattle-Tacoma, WA—consisting
of the Seattle-Tacoma, WA CSA and
also including Whatcom County, WA;
(47) St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington,
MO-IL—consisting of the St. Louis-St.
Charles-Farmington, MO-IL CSA;
(48) Tucson-Nogales, AZ—consisting
of the Tucson-Nogales, AZ CSA and also
including Cochise County, AZ;
(49) Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC—
consisting of the Virginia BeachNorfolk, VA-NC CSA;
(50) Washington-Baltimore-Arlington,
DC-MD-VA-WV-PA—consisting of the
Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DCMD-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
(51) 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. 2018–14542 Filed 7–6–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325–39–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
RIN 0579–AD44
Lacey Act Implementation Plan: De
Minimis Exception
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act of 2008 amended the Lacey
Act to provide, among other things, that
importers submit a declaration at the
time of importation for certain plants
and plant products. The declaration
requirement of the Lacey Act became
effective on December 15, 2008, and
enforcement of that requirement is being
phased in. We are proposing to establish
an exception to the declaration
requirement for products containing a
minimal amount of plant materials. This
SUMMARY:
Fmt 4702
Ms.
Parul Patel, Senior Agriculturalist,
Permitting and Compliance
Coordination, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River
Road Unit 60, Riverdale, MD 20737–
1231; (301) 851–2351.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Need for the Regulatory Action
[Docket No. APHIS–2013–0055]
Frm 00004
action would relieve the burden on
importers while continuing to ensure
that the declaration requirement fulfills
the purposes of the Lacey Act. We are
also proposing that all Lacey Act
declarations be submitted within 3
business days of importation.
DATES: We will consider all comments
that we receive on or before September
7, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by either of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov/#!docket
Detail;D=APHIS-2013-0055.
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:
Send your comment to Docket No.
APHIS–2013–0055, Regulatory Analysis
and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station
3A–03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118,
Riverdale, MD 20737–1238.
Supporting documents and any
comments we receive on this docket
may be viewed at https://
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=
APHIS-2013-0055 or in our reading
room, which is located in room 1141 of
the USDA South Building, 14th Street
and Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC. Normal reading room
hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except holidays. To be
sure someone is there to help you,
please call (202) 799–7039 before
coming.
I. Executive Summary
7 CFR Part 357
PO 00000
31697
Sfmt 4702
Section 3 of the Lacey Act makes it
unlawful to import certain plants,
including plant products, without an
import declaration. The import
declaration serves as a tool for
combatting the illegal trade in timber
and timber products by ensuring
importers provide required information.
Through the declaration requirement,
the importer maintains accountability
for exercising reasonable care regarding
the content of the shipment before it
arrives in the United States. Information
from the declaration is also used to
monitor implementation of Lacey Act
requirements. The declaration must
contain the scientific name of the plant,
value of the importation, quantity of the
plant, and name of the country from
which the plant was harvested.
However, the Act does not explicitly
address whether the declaration
E:\FR\FM\09JYP1.SGM
09JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31694-31697]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14542]
========================================================================
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. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 31694]]
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
5 CFR Part 531
RIN 3206-AN64
General Schedule Locality Pay Areas
AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.
ACTION: Proposed rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On behalf of the President's Pay Agent, the Office of
Personnel Management is issuing proposed regulations to establish four
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. 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, 2019,
subject to issuance of final regulations. Locality pay rates for the
four new locality pay areas would be set by the President after the new
locality pay areas would be established by regulation.
DATES: We must receive comments on or before August 8, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3206-AN64, by
either of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Email: [email protected]. Include ``RIN 3206-AN64'' in the
subject line of the message.
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,
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 establish four new
locality pay areas; to establish McKinley County, NM, as an area of
application to the Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Las Vegas, NM, locality pay
area; and to establish San Luis Obispo County, CA, as an area of
application to the Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA, locality pay area.
(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.) As further discussed below,
those changes were tentatively approved, pending appropriate
rulemaking, in recent annual reports of the President's Pay Agent. In
addition, the proposed regulations would link locality pay area
definitions to metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) and combined
statistical areas (CSAs) defined in OMB Bulletin 18-03 and would also
make minor clarifying changes to the names of two locality pay areas,
the geographic boundaries of which would not change.
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 the Bureau
of Labor Statistics (BLS). BLS uses a method that permits Occupational
Employment Statistics (OES) data to be used for locality pay. OES data
are available for MSAs and CSAs throughout the Country and permit
evaluation of salary levels in many more locations than could be
covered under the prior National Compensation Survey alone.
The Federal Salary Council has been monitoring pay comparisons of
GS and non-Federal pay in ``Rest of U.S.'' MSAs and CSAs with 2,500 or
more GS employees. Based on its review, the Federal Salary 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 issue proposed 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
Birmingham-Hoover-Talladega, AL; Burlington-South Burlington, VT; San
Antonio-New Braunfels-Pearsall, TX; and Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC.
(In its December 2016 annual report on locality pay, the Pay Agent
announced its plan to establish Burlington, VT, and Virginia Beach, VA,
as new locality pay areas. In its December 2017 annual report on
locality pay, the Pay Agent announced its plan to establish Birmingham,
AL, and San Antonio, TX, as new locality pay areas.) Locality pay rates
for the four new locality pay areas would be set by the President at a
later date after they would be established by regulation.
Criteria for Areas of Application
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. Areas of application are locations that are adjacent to
the basic locality pay area
[[Page 31695]]
and meet approved criteria for inclusion in the locality pay area.
The Pay Agent's current criteria for evaluating locations adjacent
to a basic locality pay area for possible inclusion in the locality pay
area as areas of application are 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 also has criteria for evaluating Federal facilities
that cross county lines into a separate locality pay area. To be
included in an adjacent locality pay area, the whole facility 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.
New Commuting Patterns Data
In its December 2016 recommendations, the Federal Salary Council
recommended using recently updated commuting patterns data in the
locality pay program--i.e., commuting patterns data collected as part
of the American Community Survey from 2009 to 2013. In its December
2017 report, the Pay Agent agreed that it would consider using those
commuting patterns data. The Pay Agent believes it would be appropriate
to use the updated commuting patterns data for evaluating potential
areas of application. Areas of application included in the locality pay
area definitions in this proposed rule, at 5 CFR 531.603(b), reflect
use of the updated commuting patterns data for evaluating potential
areas of application.
Using the updated commuting patterns data and applying current
criteria for evaluating ``Rest of U.S.'' locations as potential areas
of application result in the addition of one location to an existing
locality pay area--McKinley County, NM, would be included in the
Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Las Vegas, NM, locality pay area. Regarding the
four new locality pay areas proposed, using the updated commuting
patterns data and applying current criteria for evaluating ``Rest of
U.S.'' locations as potential areas of application result in the
addition of one location to a proposed new locality pay area--Calhoun
County, AL, would be included in the proposed Birmingham-Hoover-
Talladega, AL, locality pay area.
San Luis Obispo County, CA
In the Federal Salary Council's December 2016 recommendations, the
Council made a special recommendation for San Luis Obispo County, CA.
Because practically all of San Luis Obispo County's land boundary is
bordered by the Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA, and San Jose-San Francisco-
Oakland, CA, locality pay areas, the Council recommended that the
county be treated as have other ``Rest of U.S.'' locations entirely
bordered by separate locality pay areas--i.e., added to the separate
locality pay area with which it has the most commuting. Specifically,
the Council recommended that San Luis Obispo County be added to the Los
Angeles-Long Beach, CA, locality pay area.
As explained in its December 2017 report, the Pay Agent views the
situation regarding San Luis Obispo County as a geographic anomaly.
Only a very small amount of the geographic boundary of San Luis Obispo
County, CA, in a remote corner of the county, is not adjacent to the
Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA, or San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA,
locality pay areas. Because practically all of San Luis Obispo County's
land boundary is bordered by the Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA, and San
Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA, locality pay areas, the Pay Agent
agrees with the Council that the county should be treated as ``Rest of
U.S.'' locations entirely bordered by separate locality pay areas have
been treated. Accordingly, the Pay Agent proposes adding San Luis
Obispo County to the Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA, locality pay area as
an area of application.
Linking Locality Pay Area Boundaries to OMB-Defined Metropolitan Areas
The Pay Agent has used statistical areas defined by OMB as a basis
for locality pay area boundaries since locality pay began in 1994. Such
OMB-defined statistical areas are called ``metropolitan statistical
areas'' (MSAs) and ``combined statistical areas'' (CSAs). On April 10,
2018, OMB issued a minor update to the definitions of MSAs and CSAs in
OMB Bulletin 18-03. The proposed regulations would link the definitions
of locality pay areas to the most current OMB definitions of MSAs and
CSAs--i.e., those in OMB Bulletin 18-03. The geographic boundaries of
locality pay areas would not change automatically if OMB issues a new
Bulletin to change the definitions of any MSAs or CSAs serving as the
basis of the geographic boundaries of locality pay areas. 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 statistical
area definitions.
Changing the Names of Two Locality Pay Areas for Clarification
The Pay Agent proposes changing the names of two locality pay areas
for clarification. The State abbreviation ``CT'' would be removed from
the name of the ``Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT-ME''
locality pay area to clarify that no locations in Connecticut are
included in that locality pay area, and the State abbreviation ``MA''
would be added to the name of the ``Albany-Schenectady, NY'' locality
pay area to clarify that Berkshire County, MA, is included in that
locality pay area. These proposed name changes would not change the
geographic boundaries of the two locality pay areas affected.
Impact and Implementation
The proposal to establish 4 new locality pay areas would impact
about 62,000 GS employees. Implementing that proposal would not
automatically change locality pay rates now applicable in those areas.
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 four 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,
[[Page 31696]]
locality pay area would 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 would impact about 100 GS
employees.
Using the definitions of MSAs and CSAs in OMB Bulletin 18-03 as the
basis for locality pay area boundaries would have no effect on the
definitions of locality pay areas or on GS employees.
The changes proposed for the names of the Boston-Worcester-
Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT-ME and Albany-Schenectady, NY, locality pay
areas would have no impact on GS employees because the geographic
boundaries of the two locality pay areas affected would remain the
same.
Executive Order 13563 and Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has reviewed this rule in
accordance with E.O. 13563 and E.O. 12866.
Executive Order 13771
This proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 13771
(82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) because it is expected to be related to
agency organization, management, or personnel.
Due to the narrow scope of this proposed rule, affecting
approximately 63,700 GS employees, OPM does not anticipate this
proposed rule would substantially impact local economies or have a
large ripple effect in local labor markets. However, studies do suggest
increasing wages can raise the wages of other workers when employers
need to compete for personnel. Future locality pay rulemaking may
impact higher volumes of employees in geographical areas and could rise
to the level of impacting markets. OPM will address the implications of
such impacts in E.O. 13771 designations for future rules as needed.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that these regulations would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they
would apply only to Federal agencies and employees.
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 531
Government employees, Law enforcement officers, Wages.
Office of Personnel Management.
Jeff T.H. Pon,
Director.
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. 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) Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK--consisting of the Dallas-Fort Worth,
TX-OK CSA and also including Delta County, TX;
(17) Davenport-Moline, IA-IL--consisting of the Davenport-Moline,
IA-IL CSA;
(18) Dayton-Springfield-Sidney, OH--consisting of the Dayton-
Springfield-Sidney, OH CSA and also including Preble County, OH;
(19) Denver-Aurora, CO--consisting of the Denver-Aurora, CO CSA and
also including Larimer County, CO;
(20) Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, MI--consisting of the Detroit-
Warren-Ann Arbor, MI CSA;
(21) 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;
(22) 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;
(23) Hawaii--consisting of the State of Hawaii;
(24) Houston-The Woodlands, TX--consisting of the Houston-The
Woodlands, TX CSA and also including San Jacinto County, TX;
(25) Huntsville-Decatur-Albertville, AL--consisting of the
Huntsville-Decatur-Albertville, AL CSA;
[[Page 31697]]
(26) Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN--consisting of the
Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN CSA and also including Grant County, IN;
(27) 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;
(28) Laredo, TX--consisting of the Laredo, TX MSA;
(29) Las Vegas-Henderson, NV-AZ--consisting of the Las Vegas-
Henderson, NV-AZ CSA;
(30) 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;
(31) Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Port St. Lucie, FL--consisting of the
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Port St. Lucie, FL CSA and also including Monroe
County, FL;
(32) Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI--consisting of the Milwaukee-
Racine-Waukesha, WI CSA;
(33) Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI--consisting of the Minneapolis-St.
Paul, MN-WI CSA;
(34) 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;
(35) Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL--consisting of the Palm Bay-
Melbourne-Titusville, FL MSA;
(36) 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;
(37) Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ--consisting of the Phoenix-Mesa-
Scottsdale, AZ MSA;
(38) Pittsburgh-New Castle-Weirton, PA-OH-WV--consisting of the
Pittsburgh-New Castle-Weirton, PA-OH-WV CSA;
(39) Portland-Vancouver-Salem, OR-WA--consisting of the Portland-
Vancouver-Salem, OR-WA CSA;
(40) 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;
(41) Richmond, VA--consisting of the Richmond, VA MSA and also
including Cumberland County, VA, King and Queen County, VA, and Louisa
County, VA;
(42) Sacramento-Roseville, CA-NV--consisting of the Sacramento-
Roseville, CA CSA and also including Carson City, NV, and Douglas
County, NV;
(43) San Antonio-New Braunfels-Pearsall, TX--consisting of the San
Antonio-New Braunfels-Pearsall, TX CSA;
(44) San Diego-Carlsbad, CA--consisting of the San Diego-Carlsbad,
CA MSA;
(45) San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA--consisting of the San
Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA and also including Monterey County,
CA;
(46) Seattle-Tacoma, WA--consisting of the Seattle-Tacoma, WA CSA
and also including Whatcom County, WA;
(47) St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL--consisting of the St.
Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL CSA;
(48) Tucson-Nogales, AZ--consisting of the Tucson-Nogales, AZ CSA
and also including Cochise County, AZ;
(49) Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC--consisting of the Virginia
Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC CSA;
(50) 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
(51) 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. 2018-14542 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-39-P
