General Schedule Locality Pay Areas, 63042-63046 [2018-26519]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
63042
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 235 / Friday, December 7, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) Control Number.
This rule involves a collection of
information subject to the PRA—
Standard Form (SF) 15, Application for
10-Point Veteran Preference, OMB No.
3206–0001. OPM is currently reinstating
this expired collection with changes to
include an expanded population. The
systems of record notice for this
collection is: OPM GOVT–1 (https://
www.opm.gov/informationmanagement/privacy-policy/sorn/opmsorn-govt-1-general-personnelrecords.pdf).
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 211
Government employees, Veterans.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Alexys Stanley,
Regulatory Affairs Analyst.
Accordingly, OPM amends part 211 of
title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, as
follows:
PART 211—VETERAN PREFERENCE
1. The authority citation for part 211
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 1302, 2108, 2108a.
2. In § 211.102, revise paragraph (d)
introductory text to read as follows:
■
§ 211.102
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Preference eligible means a
veteran, disabled veteran, sole survivor
veteran, spouse, widow, widower, or
parent who meets the definition of
‘‘preference eligible’’ in 5 U.S.C. 2108.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2018–26265 Filed 12–6–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325–39–P
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT
5 CFR Part 531
RIN 3206–AN64
General Schedule Locality Pay Areas
Office of Personnel
Management.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
On behalf of the President’s
Pay Agent, the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) is issuing final
regulations to establish six new General
Schedule locality pay areas, make
certain changes to the definitions of
existing locality pay areas, and make
minor clarifying changes to the names of
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Dec 06, 2018
Jkt 247001
two locality pay areas. Those changes in
locality pay area definitions are
applicable on the first day of the first
pay period beginning on or after January
1, 2019. Locality pay rates for the six
new locality pay areas will be set by the
President.
DATES: The regulations are effective
January 5, 2019, and are applicable on
the first day of the first pay period
beginning on or after January 1, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe
Ratcliffe by email at pay-leave-policy@
opm.gov or by telephone at (202) 606–
2838.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
5304 of title 5, United States Code
(U.S.C.), authorizes locality pay for
General Schedule (GS) employees with
duty stations in the United States and
its territories and possessions. Section
5304(f) authorizes the President’s Pay
Agent (the Secretary of Labor, the
Director of the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), and the Director of
the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM)) to determine locality pay areas.
The boundaries of locality pay areas
must be based on appropriate factors,
which may include local labor market
patterns, commuting patterns, and the
practices of other employers. The Pay
Agent must give thorough consideration
to the views and recommendations of
the Federal Salary Council, a body
composed of experts in the fields of
labor relations and pay policy and
representatives of Federal employee
organizations. The President appoints
the members of the Federal Salary
Council, which submits annual
recommendations on the locality pay
program to the Pay Agent. The
establishment or modification of locality
pay area boundaries must conform to
the notice and comment provisions of
the Administrative Procedure Act (5
U.S.C. 553).
On July 9, 2018, OPM published a
proposed rule in the Federal Register on
behalf of the Pay Agent. (See 83 FR
31694.) The proposed rule proposed
linking locality pay area definitions to
metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs)
and combined statistical areas (CSAs)
defined by OMB in OMB Bulletin No.
18–03, and proposed establishing four
new locality pay areas: BirminghamHoover-Talladega, AL; Burlington-South
Burlington, VT; San Antonio-New
Braunfels-Pearsall, TX; and Virginia
Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC. The proposed
rule also proposed adding two ‘‘Rest of
U.S.’’ locations to the geographic
definitions of two existing locality pay
areas and making minor, clarifying
changes to the names of two locality pay
areas. The proposed rule did not
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
propose modifying the standard
commuting and GS employment criteria
used in the locality pay program to
evaluate, as possible areas of
application, locations adjacent to the
metropolitan area comprising the basic
locality pay area. (A basic locality pay
area is an OMB-defined MSA or CSA on
which the definition of a locality pay
area is based, and an area of application
is a location that is not part of a basic
locality pay area but is included in the
locality pay area. Criteria used to
establish areas of application were
explained in the proposed rule.)
The proposed rule provided a 30-day
comment period. Accordingly, the Pay
Agent reviewed comments received
through August 8, 2018. After
considering those comments, the Pay
Agent has decided to implement the
locality pay area definitions in the
proposed rule, with two additional
changes based on recommendations
received from the Federal Salary
Council on July 10, 2018. Those changes
are the establishment of a new Corpus
Christi-Kingsville-Alice, TX, locality
pay area and establishment of a new
Omaha-Council Bluffs-Fremont, NE-IA,
locality pay area.
On July 10, 2018—the day after the
proposed rule was published—the Pay
Agent received the Federal Salary
Council’s recommendations for locality
pay for January 2019, which included a
recommendation to establish a Corpus
Christi-Kingsville-Alice, TX, locality
pay area and an Omaha-Council BluffsFremont, NE-IA, locality pay area. (The
Council’s recommendations for locality
pay for January 2019 are posted at
https://www.opm.gov/policy-dataoversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/
general-schedule/federal-salary-council/
recommedation17.pdf.) Because the
Council based that recommendation on
the same criteria as used for the four
new locality pay areas included in the
proposed rule, we have approved the
Council’s recommendation regarding
the two additional locality pay areas. In
addition, a number of commenters on
the proposed rule supported the
establishment of these two additional
locality pay areas. Accordingly, these
final regulations establish a Corpus
Christi-Kingsville-Alice, TX, locality
pay area and an Omaha-Council BluffsFremont, NE-IA, locality pay area. As
with the four new locality pay areas
included in the proposed rule, locality
pay rates for the two additional new
locality pay areas will be set by the
President at a later date after they are
established by these final regulations.
E:\FR\FM\07DER1.SGM
07DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 235 / Friday, December 7, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Impact and Implementation
Establishing 6 new locality pay areas
will impact about 70,000 GS employees.
Locality pay rates now applicable in
those areas will not change
automatically because locality pay
percentages are established by Executive
order under the President’s authority in
5 U.S.C. 5304 or 5304a, and the
President decides each year whether to
adjust locality pay percentages. When
locality pay percentages are adjusted,
past practice has been to allocate a
percent of the total GS payroll for
locality pay raises and to have the
overall dollar cost for such pay raises be
the same, regardless of the number of
locality pay areas. If a percent of the
total GS payroll is allocated for locality
pay increases, the addition of new areas
results in a somewhat smaller amount to
allocate for locality pay increases in
existing areas. Implementing higher
locality pay rates in the six new locality
pay areas could thus result in relatively
lower pay increases for employees in
existing locality pay areas than they
would otherwise receive.
Establishing McKinley County, NM,
as an area of application to the
Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Las Vegas, NM,
locality pay area will impact about
1,600 GS employees. Establishing San
Luis Obispo County, CA, as an area of
application to the Los Angeles-Long
Beach, CA, locality pay area will impact
about 100 GS employees.
Using the definitions of MSAs and
CSAs in OMB Bulletin No. 18–03 as the
basis for locality pay area boundaries
will impact about 153 GS employees in
the new San Antonio-New BraunfelsPearsall, TX, locality pay area. However,
those GS employees are included in the
impact statement above regarding
establishment of the six new locality
pay areas. No other locality pay areas
are impacted by using MSAs and CSAs
in OMB Bulletin No. 18–03 as the basis
for locality pay area boundaries.
The changes in the names of the
Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RINH-CT-ME and Albany-Schenectady,
NY, locality pay areas will have no
impact on GS employees because the
geographic boundaries of the two
locality pay areas affected will remain
the same.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Comments on the Proposed Rule
OPM received 184 comments on the
proposed rule. Most commenters
supported the proposed changes in the
definitions of locality pay areas.
A number of comments reflected
misunderstanding of the proposed rule’s
definitions of locality pay areas, with
some comments indicating a belief that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Dec 06, 2018
Jkt 247001
certain counties actually included in a
proposed locality pay area were
excluded. As explained in the proposed
rule, locality pay areas consist of (1) the
MSA or CSA comprising the basic
locality pay area and, where criteria
recommended by the Federal Salary
Council and approved by the Pay Agent
are met, (2) areas of application.
Regarding the MSAs and CSAs
comprising basic locality pay areas,
these final regulations define MSA as
the geographic scope of an MSA as
defined in OMB Bulletin No. 18–03 and
define CSA as the geographic scope of
a CSA as defined in OMB Bulletin No.
18–03. (OMB Bulletin No. 18–03 is
posted at https://www.whitehouse.gov/
wp-content/uploads/2018/04/OMBBULLETIN-NO.-18-03-Final.pdf.) Where
a locality pay area defined in these
regulations lists one or more locations
in addition to the MSA or CSA
comprising the basic locality pay area,
those additional locations are areas of
application that meet criteria
recommended by the Federal Salary
Council and approved by the President’s
Pay Agent. OPM plans to post the
definitions of locality pay areas on its
website soon after these final
regulations are issued.
Some commenters objected that
certain locations were to remain in the
‘‘Rest of U.S.’’ locality pay area under
the proposed rule. Some of these
commenters were concerned about
locations in MSAs or CSAs in the ‘‘Rest
of U.S.’’ locality pay area for which the
Federal Salary Council has studied
disparities between non-Federal pay
and Federal pay over several years of
data. For such locations that will remain
in the ‘‘Rest of U.S.’’ locality pay area,
the Council found that the pay
disparities do not significantly exceed
the pay disparity for the ‘‘Rest of U.S.’’
locality pay area over the same period.
Some commenters were concerned
about locations that will remain in the
‘‘Rest of U.S.’’ locality pay area because
those locations do not meet the criteria
for areas of application. Some
commenters were concerned about rural
locations that do not qualify as areas of
application and for which the locality
pay program’s current salary survey
methodology cannot produce reliable
estimates due to data insufficiency with
respect to non-Federal salaries. For
example, some comments expressed
concern about Accomack and
Northampton Counties, VA, not being
included in the proposed Virginia
Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC, locality pay
area. These two counties comprise an
area known as the Eastern Shore of
Virginia and do not meet the Pay
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
63043
Agent’s criteria to be part of the Virginia
Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC, locality pay
area. In some cases, comments
expressed concern regarding possible
recruitment and retention difficulties
the commenters believe agencies may
have in certain locations that will
remain in the ‘‘Rest of U.S.’’ locality pay
area when these final regulations are put
into effect. The Pay Agent has no
evidence that the changes these final
regulations will make in locality pay
area definitions will create recruitment
and retention challenges for Federal
employers. However, should
recruitment and retention challenges
exist in a location, Federal agencies
have considerable administrative
authority to address those challenges
through the use of current pay
flexibilities. Information on these
flexibilities is posted on the OPM
website at https://www.opm.gov/policydata-oversight/pay-leave/pay-and-leaveflexibilities-for-recruitment-andretention.
A number of commenters expressed
their views on pay levels in locality pay
areas. Some commenters suggested
specific locality pay percentages to
apply to new or existing locality pay
areas, and some commenters offered
opinions on the extent to which pay
increases are needed in some locality
pay areas compared to others. Some
commenters expressed concern that
existing locality pay areas’ future pay
levels could be set lower than they
otherwise would, due to establishment
of new locality pay areas. Such
comments as these are outside of the
scope of these final regulations. The
purpose of these final regulations is to
define the boundaries of locality pay
areas. The role of the Pay Agent with
regard to locality pay percentages is to
report annually to the President what
locality pay percentages would go into
effect under the Federal Employees Pay
Comparability Act of 1990 (FEPCA). The
President establishes a base General
Schedule and sets locality pay
percentages each year by Executive
order.
Some commenters expressed the
belief that various indicators of living
costs should be considered in defining
locality pay areas or in setting locality
pay. Living costs are not directly
considered in the locality pay program.
Locality pay is not designed to equalize
living standards for GS employees
across the country. Under 5 U.S.C. 5304,
locality pay rates are based on
comparisons of GS pay and non-Federal
pay at the same work levels in a locality
pay area. Relative living costs may
indirectly affect non-Federal pay levels,
but living costs are just one of many
E:\FR\FM\07DER1.SGM
07DER1
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
63044
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 235 / Friday, December 7, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
factors that affect the supply of and
demand for labor, and therefore labor
costs, in a locality pay area.
Some commenters objected that, as a
consequence of the definitions of
current locality pay areas, adjacent
counties are included in two different
locality pay areas while receiving
different locality payments. These
commenters were concerned that the
adjacent California Counties of
Sacramento and San Joaquin receive
different locality payments, with
Sacramento County receiving
Sacramento-Roseville, CA-NV, locality
pay and San Joaquin County receiving
higher San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland,
CA, locality pay. Sacramento County is
located in the Sacramento-Roseville,
CA, CSA, which is the basis for the
geographic definition of the
Sacramento-Roseville, CA-NV, locality
pay area. San Joaquin County is located
in the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland,
CA, CSA, which is the basis for the
geographic definition of the San JoseSan Francisco-Oakland, CA, locality pay
area. Locality pay percentages are based
on comparisons in each locality pay
area between GS and non-Federal pay
for the entire locality pay area. The
results of such pay comparisons differ
between the Sacramento-Roseville, CANV, and San Jose-San FranciscoOakland, CA, locality pay areas.
Consequently, those two locality pay
areas and the locations comprising them
receive different locality payments.
One commenter suggested a change in
the criteria for evaluating Federal
facilities that cross locality pay area
boundaries. This commenter suggested
that the term ‘‘facility’’ in those criteria
be replaced with the term ‘‘Federal
administrative boundary.’’ The
commenter stated that most GS
employees with duty stations within the
Tahoe National Forest are in the
Sacramento-Roseville, CA-NV, locality
pay area, while Sierra County, CA,
remains in the ‘‘Rest of U.S.’’ locality
pay area. The commenter reported that
the U.S. Forest Service is having
difficulty recruiting and retaining
employees for its duty stations in Sierra
County. The Pay Agent’s criteria for
evaluating Federal facilities that cross
locality pay area boundaries is intended
to cover single Federal facilities rather
than large geographic areas such as
National Forests. As stated above,
Federal agencies have considerable
administrative authority to address
significant recruitment and retention
challenges through the use of current
pay flexibilities.
Some commenters expressed concern
that certain Federal pay systems outside
of the General Schedule would not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Dec 06, 2018
Jkt 247001
benefit from the changes planned for
definitions of GS locality pay areas. The
purpose of these final regulations is to
define locality pay areas for Federal
employees who receive locality pay
under 5 U.S.C. 5304, not to set pay
levels for Federal employees who do not
receive locality pay under 5 U.S.C.
5304.
One commenter suggested that all GS
employees should receive the same
locality pay rates regardless of location.
The purpose of locality pay is to reduce
pay disparities, which vary by locality
pay area. Therefore, it is appropriate
that locality rates differ between
locations.
Expected Impact of the Final Rule
Establishing new locality pay areas
could have the long-term effect of
increasing pay for Federal employees in
affected locations if the President
establishes higher locality pay
percentages for those new pay areas. In
addition, studies do suggest that
increasing wages can raise the wages of
other workers when employers need to
compete for personnel. However, when
locality pay percentages are adjusted,
the practice has been to allocate a
percent of the total GS payroll for
locality pay raises and to have the
overall cost for such pay raises be the
same, regardless of the number of
locality pay areas.
OPM expects this final rule to impact
approximately 71,700 GS employees. Of
the changes this final rule implements,
the most significant change in terms of
employment results from establishment
of the Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC
locality pay area, in which
approximately 30,400 GS employees
would be affected. Considering the
relatively small number of employees
affected, OPM does not anticipate this
rule will substantially impact local
economies or have a large impact in
local labor markets. In addition, OPM
did not receive any comments
expressing concern regarding such
impact.
As future locality pay rulemakings
may impact higher volumes of
employees in geographical areas and
could rise to the level of impacting
markets, OPM will continue to study the
implications of such impacts in E.O.
13771 designations for future rules as
needed.
PO 00000
Regulatory Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’ and Executive
Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation
and Regulatory Review’’
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866
direct agencies to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distribute impacts, and equity).
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the
importance of quantifying both costs
and benefits, of reducing costs, of
harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This final rule has been
designated a ‘‘significant regulatory
action,’’ although not economically
significant, under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly,
the rule has been reviewed by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB).
Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This rule is not an Executive Order
13771 regulatory action because this
rule is related to agency organization,
management, or personnel.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
OPM certifies that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities as
this rule only applies to Federal
agencies and employees.
Federalism
OPM has examined this rule in
accordance with Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, and has determined that
this rule will not have any negative
impact on the rights, roles and
responsibilities of State, local, or tribal
governments.
Civil Justice Reform
This regulation meets the applicable
standard set forth in Executive Order
12988.
Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995
This rule will not result in the
expenditure by state, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more
in any year and it will not significantly
or uniquely affect small governments.
Therefore, no actions were deemed
necessary under the provisions of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995.
Congressional Review Act
This action pertains to agency
management, personnel, and
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\07DER1.SGM
07DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 235 / Friday, December 7, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
organization and does not substantially
affect the rights or obligations of
nonagency parties and, accordingly, is
not a ‘‘rule’’ as that term is used by the
Congressional Review Act (Subtitle E of
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA)). Therefore, the reporting
requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not
apply.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose any new
reporting or record-keeping
requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 531
Government employees, Law
enforcement officers, Wages.
Office of Personnel Management.
Alexys Stanley,
Regulatory Affairs Analyst.
Accordingly, OPM is amending 5 CFR
part 531 as follows:
PART 531—PAY UNDER THE
GENERAL SCHEDULE
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.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
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.
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
*
15:58 Dec 06, 2018
Jkt 247001
(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
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) Corpus Christi-Kingsville-Alice,
TX—consisting of the Corpus ChristiKingsville-Alice, TX CSA;
(17) Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK—
consisting of the Dallas-Fort Worth, TXOK CSA and also including Delta
County, TX;
(18) Davenport-Moline, IA-IL—
consisting of the Davenport-Moline, IAIL CSA;
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
63045
(19) Dayton-Springfield-Sidney, OH—
consisting of the Dayton-SpringfieldSidney, OH CSA and also including
Preble County, OH;
(20) Denver-Aurora, CO—consisting
of the Denver-Aurora, CO CSA and also
including Larimer County, CO;
(21) Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, MI—
consisting of the Detroit-Warren-Ann
Arbor, MI CSA;
(22) Harrisburg-Lebanon, PA—
consisting of the Harrisburg-YorkLebanon, PA CSA, except for Adams
County, PA, and York County, PA, and
also including Lancaster County, PA;
(23) Hartford-West Hartford, CT-MA—
consisting of the Hartford-West
Hartford, CT CSA and also including
Windham County, CT, Franklin County,
MA, Hampden County, MA, and
Hampshire County, MA;
(24) Hawaii—consisting of the State of
Hawaii;
(25) Houston-The Woodlands, TX—
consisting of the Houston-The
Woodlands, TX CSA and also including
San Jacinto County, TX;
(26) Huntsville-Decatur-Albertville,
AL—consisting of the HuntsvilleDecatur-Albertville, AL CSA;
(27) Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie,
IN—consisting of the IndianapolisCarmel-Muncie, IN CSA and also
including Grant County, IN;
(28) 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;
(29) Laredo, TX—consisting of the
Laredo, TX MSA;
(30) Las Vegas-Henderson, NV-AZ—
consisting of the Las Vegas-Henderson,
NV-AZ CSA;
(31) Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA—
consisting of the Los Angeles-Long
Beach, CA CSA and also including Kern
County, CA, San Luis Obispo County,
CA, and Santa Barbara County, CA;
(32) Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Port St.
Lucie, FL—consisting of the Miami-Fort
Lauderdale-Port St. Lucie, FL CSA and
also including Monroe County, FL;
(33) Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha,
WI—consisting of the MilwaukeeRacine-Waukesha, WI CSA;
(34) Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI—
consisting of the Minneapolis-St. Paul,
MN-WI CSA;
(35) 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;
(36) Omaha-Council Bluffs-Fremont,
NE-IA—consisting of the OmahaCouncil Bluffs-Fremont, NE-IA CSA;
E:\FR\FM\07DER1.SGM
07DER1
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
63046
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 235 / Friday, December 7, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
(37) Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville,
FL—consisting of the Palm BayMelbourne-Titusville, FL MSA;
(38) Philadelphia-Reading-Camden,
PA-NJ-DE-MD—consisting of the
Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJDE-MD CSA, except for Joint Base
McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst;
(39) Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ—
consisting of the Phoenix-MesaScottsdale, AZ MSA;
(40) Pittsburgh-New Castle-Weirton,
PA-OH-WV—consisting of the
Pittsburgh-New Castle-Weirton, PA-OHWV CSA;
(41) Portland-Vancouver-Salem, ORWA—consisting of the PortlandVancouver-Salem, OR-WA CSA;
(42) 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;
(43) Richmond, VA—consisting of the
Richmond, VA MSA and also including
Cumberland County, VA, King and
Queen County, VA, and Louisa County,
VA;
(44) Sacramento-Roseville, CA-NV—
consisting of the Sacramento-Roseville,
CA CSA and also including Carson City,
NV, and Douglas County, NV;
(45) San Antonio-New BraunfelsPearsall, TX—consisting of the San
Antonio-New Braunfels-Pearsall, TX
CSA;
(46) San Diego-Carlsbad, CA—
consisting of the San Diego-Carlsbad,
CA MSA;
(47) San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland,
CA—consisting of the San Jose-San
Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA and also
including Monterey County, CA;
(48) Seattle-Tacoma, WA—consisting
of the Seattle-Tacoma, WA CSA and
also including Whatcom County, WA;
(49) St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington,
MO-IL—consisting of the St. Louis-St.
Charles-Farmington, MO-IL CSA;
(50) Tucson-Nogales, AZ—consisting
of the Tucson-Nogales, AZ CSA and also
including Cochise County, AZ;
(51) Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC—
consisting of the Virginia BeachNorfolk, VA-NC CSA;
(52) 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
(53) Rest of U.S.—consisting of those
portions of the United States and its
territories and possessions as listed in 5
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Dec 06, 2018
Jkt 247001
CFR 591.205 not located within another
locality pay area.
[FR Doc. 2018–26519 Filed 12–3–18; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6325–39–P
For
specific questions about this document,
please contact Jason Outlaw at (202)
720–7838 or Jason.outlaw@
wdc.usda.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Regulatory Certifications
Office of the Secretary
Executive Order 12866
7 CFR Part 12
[NRCS–2018–0010]
This rule is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866.
RIN 0578–AA65
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Highly Erodible Land and Wetland
Conservation
Office of the Secretary, USDA.
Interim rule with request for
comments.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) is issuing an
interim rule for the Highly Erodible
Land and Wetland Conservation
Compliance provisions of the Food
Security Act of 1985, as amended. This
rulemaking clarifies how USDA
delineates, determines, and certifies
wetlands located on subject land in a
manner sufficient for making
determinations of ineligibility for
certain USDA program benefits. USDA
is seeking comments from the public
about these clarifications that will be
considered prior to issuing a final rule.
DATES: Effective December 7, 2018.
Comments must be received February 5,
2019.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
submitted, identified by Docket Number
NRCS–2018–0010, using any of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail or hand-delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attention:
National Leader for Wetland and Highly
Erodible Land Conservation, USDA,
Natural Resources Conservation Service,
1400 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20250.
NRCS will post all comments on
https://www.regulations.gov. In general,
personal information provided with
comments will be posted. If your
comment includes your address, phone
number, email, or other personal
identifying information (PII), your
comments, including PII, may be
available to the public. You may ask in
your comment that your PII be withheld
from public view, but this cannot be
guaranteed.
This rule also may be accessed, and
comments submitted, via the internet.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
The Regulatory Flexibility Act is not
applicable to this rule because USDA is
not required by 5 U.S.C. 533 or any
other provisions of law to publish a
notice of proposed rulemaking with
respect to the subject matter of this rule.
Environmental Evaluation
It has been determined through an
environmental assessment that the
issuance of this interim final rule will
not have a significant impact upon the
human environment. Copies of the
environmental assessment may be
obtained by contacting Karen Fullen at
(503) 273–2404 or Karen.fullen@
por.usda.gov.
Executive Order 12372
Executive Order 12372,
‘‘Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs,’’ requires consultation with
State and local officials. The objectives
of the Executive Order are to foster an
intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism, by relying on
State and local processes for State and
local government coordination and
review of proposed Federal Financial
assistance and direct Federal
development. This program is not
subject to Executive Order 12372, which
requires consultation with State and
local officials.
Executive Order 12988
This rule has been reviewed under
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform. This rule will not preempt State
or local laws, regulations, or policies
unless they present an irreconcilable
conflict with this rule. Before any
judicial action may be brought regarding
the provisions of this rule, appeal
provisions of 7 CFR parts 11, 614, and
780 must be exhausted.
Executive Order 13132
This rule has been reviewed under
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism.’’
The policies contained in this rule do
not have any substantial direct effect on
States, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and the States, or
E:\FR\FM\07DER1.SGM
07DER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 235 (Friday, December 7, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63042-63046]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26519]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
5 CFR Part 531
RIN 3206-AN64
General Schedule Locality Pay Areas
AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On behalf of the President's Pay Agent, the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing final regulations to establish
six new General Schedule locality pay areas, make certain changes to
the definitions of existing locality pay areas, and make minor
clarifying changes to the names of two locality pay areas. Those
changes in locality pay area definitions are applicable on the first
day of the first pay period beginning on or after January 1, 2019.
Locality pay rates for the six new locality pay areas will be set by
the President.
DATES: The regulations are effective January 5, 2019, and are
applicable on the first day of the first pay period beginning on or
after January 1, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Ratcliffe by email at [email protected] or by telephone at (202) 606-2838.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 5304 of title 5, United States Code
(U.S.C.), authorizes locality pay for General Schedule (GS) employees
with duty stations in the United States and its territories and
possessions. Section 5304(f) authorizes the President's Pay Agent (the
Secretary of Labor, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)) to
determine locality pay areas. The boundaries of locality pay areas must
be based on appropriate factors, which may include local labor market
patterns, commuting patterns, and the practices of other employers. The
Pay Agent must give thorough consideration to the views and
recommendations of the Federal Salary Council, a body composed of
experts in the fields of labor relations and pay policy and
representatives of Federal employee organizations. The President
appoints the members of the Federal Salary Council, which submits
annual recommendations on the locality pay program to the Pay Agent.
The establishment or modification of locality pay area boundaries must
conform to the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553).
On July 9, 2018, OPM published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register on behalf of the Pay Agent. (See 83 FR 31694.) The proposed
rule proposed linking locality pay area definitions to metropolitan
statistical areas (MSAs) and combined statistical areas (CSAs) defined
by OMB in OMB Bulletin No. 18-03, and proposed establishing four new
locality pay areas: Birmingham-Hoover-Talladega, AL; Burlington-South
Burlington, VT; San Antonio-New Braunfels-Pearsall, TX; and Virginia
Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC. The proposed rule also proposed adding two ``Rest
of U.S.'' locations to the geographic definitions of two existing
locality pay areas and making minor, clarifying changes to the names of
two locality pay areas. The proposed rule did not propose modifying the
standard commuting and GS employment criteria used in the locality pay
program to evaluate, as possible areas of application, locations
adjacent to the metropolitan area comprising the basic locality pay
area. (A basic locality pay area is an OMB-defined MSA or CSA on which
the definition of a locality pay area is based, and an area of
application is a location that is not part of a basic locality pay area
but is included in the locality pay area. Criteria used to establish
areas of application were explained in the proposed rule.)
The proposed rule provided a 30-day comment period. Accordingly,
the Pay Agent reviewed comments received through August 8, 2018. After
considering those comments, the Pay Agent has decided to implement the
locality pay area definitions in the proposed rule, with two additional
changes based on recommendations received from the Federal Salary
Council on July 10, 2018. Those changes are the establishment of a new
Corpus Christi-Kingsville-Alice, TX, locality pay area and
establishment of a new Omaha-Council Bluffs-Fremont, NE-IA, locality
pay area.
On July 10, 2018--the day after the proposed rule was published--
the Pay Agent received the Federal Salary Council's recommendations for
locality pay for January 2019, which included a recommendation to
establish a Corpus Christi-Kingsville-Alice, TX, locality pay area and
an Omaha-Council Bluffs-Fremont, NE-IA, locality pay area. (The
Council's recommendations for locality pay for January 2019 are posted
at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/general-schedule/federal-salary-council/recommedation17.pdf.) Because
the Council based that recommendation on the same criteria as used for
the four new locality pay areas included in the proposed rule, we have
approved the Council's recommendation regarding the two additional
locality pay areas. In addition, a number of commenters on the proposed
rule supported the establishment of these two additional locality pay
areas. Accordingly, these final regulations establish a Corpus Christi-
Kingsville-Alice, TX, locality pay area and an Omaha-Council Bluffs-
Fremont, NE-IA, locality pay area. As with the four new locality pay
areas included in the proposed rule, locality pay rates for the two
additional new locality pay areas will be set by the President at a
later date after they are established by these final regulations.
[[Page 63043]]
Impact and Implementation
Establishing 6 new locality pay areas will impact about 70,000 GS
employees. Locality pay rates now applicable in those areas will not
change automatically because locality pay percentages are established
by Executive order under the President's authority in 5 U.S.C. 5304 or
5304a, and the President decides each year whether to adjust locality
pay percentages. When locality pay percentages are adjusted, past
practice has been to allocate a percent of the total GS payroll for
locality pay raises and to have the overall dollar cost for such pay
raises be the same, regardless of the number of locality pay areas. If
a percent of the total GS payroll is allocated for locality pay
increases, the addition of new areas results in a somewhat smaller
amount to allocate for locality pay increases in existing areas.
Implementing higher locality pay rates in the six new locality pay
areas could thus result in relatively lower pay increases for employees
in existing locality pay areas than they would otherwise receive.
Establishing McKinley County, NM, as an area of application to the
Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Las Vegas, NM, locality pay area will impact about
1,600 GS employees. Establishing San Luis Obispo County, CA, as an area
of application to the Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA, locality pay area
will impact about 100 GS employees.
Using the definitions of MSAs and CSAs in OMB Bulletin No. 18-03 as
the basis for locality pay area boundaries will impact about 153 GS
employees in the new San Antonio-New Braunfels-Pearsall, TX, locality
pay area. However, those GS employees are included in the impact
statement above regarding establishment of the six new locality pay
areas. No other locality pay areas are impacted by using MSAs and CSAs
in OMB Bulletin No. 18-03 as the basis for locality pay area
boundaries.
The changes in the names of the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-
NH-CT-ME and Albany-Schenectady, NY, locality pay areas will have no
impact on GS employees because the geographic boundaries of the two
locality pay areas affected will remain the same.
Comments on the Proposed Rule
OPM received 184 comments on the proposed rule. Most commenters
supported the proposed changes in the definitions of locality pay
areas.
A number of comments reflected misunderstanding of the proposed
rule's definitions of locality pay areas, with some comments indicating
a belief that certain counties actually included in a proposed locality
pay area were excluded. As explained in the proposed rule, locality pay
areas consist of (1) the MSA or CSA comprising the basic locality pay
area and, where criteria recommended by the Federal Salary Council and
approved by the Pay Agent are met, (2) areas of application. Regarding
the MSAs and CSAs comprising basic locality pay areas, these final
regulations define MSA as the geographic scope of an MSA as defined in
OMB Bulletin No. 18-03 and define CSA as the geographic scope of a CSA
as defined in OMB Bulletin No. 18-03. (OMB Bulletin No. 18-03 is posted
at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/OMB-BULLETIN-NO.-18-03-Final.pdf.) Where a locality pay area defined in these
regulations lists one or more locations in addition to the MSA or CSA
comprising the basic locality pay area, those additional locations are
areas of application that meet criteria recommended by the Federal
Salary Council and approved by the President's Pay Agent. OPM plans to
post the definitions of locality pay areas on its website soon after
these final regulations are issued.
Some commenters objected that certain locations were to remain in
the ``Rest of U.S.'' locality pay area under the proposed rule. Some of
these commenters were concerned about locations in MSAs or CSAs in the
``Rest of U.S.'' locality pay area for which the Federal Salary Council
has studied disparities between non-Federal pay and Federal pay over
several years of data. For such locations that will remain in the
``Rest of U.S.'' locality pay area, the Council found that the pay
disparities do not significantly exceed the pay disparity for the
``Rest of U.S.'' locality pay area over the same period. Some
commenters were concerned about locations that will remain in the
``Rest of U.S.'' locality pay area because those locations do not meet
the criteria for areas of application. Some commenters were concerned
about rural locations that do not qualify as areas of application and
for which the locality pay program's current salary survey methodology
cannot produce reliable estimates due to data insufficiency with
respect to non-Federal salaries. For example, some comments expressed
concern about Accomack and Northampton Counties, VA, not being included
in the proposed Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC, locality pay area. These
two counties comprise an area known as the Eastern Shore of Virginia
and do not meet the Pay Agent's criteria to be part of the Virginia
Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC, locality pay area. In some cases, comments
expressed concern regarding possible recruitment and retention
difficulties the commenters believe agencies may have in certain
locations that will remain in the ``Rest of U.S.'' locality pay area
when these final regulations are put into effect. The Pay Agent has no
evidence that the changes these final regulations will make in locality
pay area definitions will create recruitment and retention challenges
for Federal employers. However, should recruitment and retention
challenges exist in a location, Federal agencies have considerable
administrative authority to address those challenges through the use of
current pay flexibilities. Information on these flexibilities is posted
on the OPM website at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-and-leave-flexibilities-for-recruitment-and-retention.
A number of commenters expressed their views on pay levels in
locality pay areas. Some commenters suggested specific locality pay
percentages to apply to new or existing locality pay areas, and some
commenters offered opinions on the extent to which pay increases are
needed in some locality pay areas compared to others. Some commenters
expressed concern that existing locality pay areas' future pay levels
could be set lower than they otherwise would, due to establishment of
new locality pay areas. Such comments as these are outside of the scope
of these final regulations. The purpose of these final regulations is
to define the boundaries of locality pay areas. The role of the Pay
Agent with regard to locality pay percentages is to report annually to
the President what locality pay percentages would go into effect under
the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 (FEPCA). The
President establishes a base General Schedule and sets locality pay
percentages each year by Executive order.
Some commenters expressed the belief that various indicators of
living costs should be considered in defining locality pay areas or in
setting locality pay. Living costs are not directly considered in the
locality pay program. Locality pay is not designed to equalize living
standards for GS employees across the country. Under 5 U.S.C. 5304,
locality pay rates are based on comparisons of GS pay and non-Federal
pay at the same work levels in a locality pay area. Relative living
costs may indirectly affect non-Federal pay levels, but living costs
are just one of many
[[Page 63044]]
factors that affect the supply of and demand for labor, and therefore
labor costs, in a locality pay area.
Some commenters objected that, as a consequence of the definitions
of current locality pay areas, adjacent counties are included in two
different locality pay areas while receiving different locality
payments. These commenters were concerned that the adjacent California
Counties of Sacramento and San Joaquin receive different locality
payments, with Sacramento County receiving Sacramento-Roseville, CA-NV,
locality pay and San Joaquin County receiving higher San Jose-San
Francisco-Oakland, CA, locality pay. Sacramento County is located in
the Sacramento-Roseville, CA, CSA, which is the basis for the
geographic definition of the Sacramento-Roseville, CA-NV, locality pay
area. San Joaquin County is located in the San Jose-San Francisco-
Oakland, CA, CSA, which is the basis for the geographic definition of
the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA, locality pay area. Locality pay
percentages are based on comparisons in each locality pay area between
GS and non-Federal pay for the entire locality pay area. The results of
such pay comparisons differ between the Sacramento-Roseville, CA-NV,
and San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA, locality pay areas.
Consequently, those two locality pay areas and the locations comprising
them receive different locality payments.
One commenter suggested a change in the criteria for evaluating
Federal facilities that cross locality pay area boundaries. This
commenter suggested that the term ``facility'' in those criteria be
replaced with the term ``Federal administrative boundary.'' The
commenter stated that most GS employees with duty stations within the
Tahoe National Forest are in the Sacramento-Roseville, CA-NV, locality
pay area, while Sierra County, CA, remains in the ``Rest of U.S.''
locality pay area. The commenter reported that the U.S. Forest Service
is having difficulty recruiting and retaining employees for its duty
stations in Sierra County. The Pay Agent's criteria for evaluating
Federal facilities that cross locality pay area boundaries is intended
to cover single Federal facilities rather than large geographic areas
such as National Forests. As stated above, Federal agencies have
considerable administrative authority to address significant
recruitment and retention challenges through the use of current pay
flexibilities.
Some commenters expressed concern that certain Federal pay systems
outside of the General Schedule would not benefit from the changes
planned for definitions of GS locality pay areas. The purpose of these
final regulations is to define locality pay areas for Federal employees
who receive locality pay under 5 U.S.C. 5304, not to set pay levels for
Federal employees who do not receive locality pay under 5 U.S.C. 5304.
One commenter suggested that all GS employees should receive the
same locality pay rates regardless of location. The purpose of locality
pay is to reduce pay disparities, which vary by locality pay area.
Therefore, it is appropriate that locality rates differ between
locations.
Expected Impact of the Final Rule
Establishing new locality pay areas could have the long-term effect
of increasing pay for Federal employees in affected locations if the
President establishes higher locality pay percentages for those new pay
areas. In addition, studies do suggest that increasing wages can raise
the wages of other workers when employers need to compete for
personnel. However, when locality pay percentages are adjusted, the
practice has been to allocate a percent of the total GS payroll for
locality pay raises and to have the overall cost for such pay raises be
the same, regardless of the number of locality pay areas.
OPM expects this final rule to impact approximately 71,700 GS
employees. Of the changes this final rule implements, the most
significant change in terms of employment results from establishment of
the Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC locality pay area, in which
approximately 30,400 GS employees would be affected. Considering the
relatively small number of employees affected, OPM does not anticipate
this rule will substantially impact local economies or have a large
impact in local labor markets. In addition, OPM did not receive any
comments expressing concern regarding such impact.
As future locality pay rulemakings may impact higher volumes of
employees in geographical areas and could rise to the level of
impacting markets, OPM will continue to study the implications of such
impacts in E.O. 13771 designations for future rules as needed.
Regulatory Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' and Executive
Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review''
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distribute impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This final rule has been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' although not economically significant, under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs
This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because
this rule is related to agency organization, management, or personnel.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
OPM certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities as this rule only
applies to Federal agencies and employees.
Federalism
OPM has examined this rule in accordance with Executive Order
13132, Federalism, and has determined that this rule will not have any
negative impact on the rights, roles and responsibilities of State,
local, or tribal governments.
Civil Justice Reform
This regulation meets the applicable standard set forth in
Executive Order 12988.
Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995
This rule will not result in the expenditure by state, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary
under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Congressional Review Act
This action pertains to agency management, personnel, and
[[Page 63045]]
organization and does not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of nonagency parties and, accordingly, is not a ``rule'' as
that term is used by the Congressional Review Act (Subtitle E of the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)).
Therefore, the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose any new reporting or record-keeping
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 531
Government employees, Law enforcement officers, Wages.
Office of Personnel Management.
Alexys Stanley,
Regulatory Affairs Analyst.
Accordingly, OPM is amending 5 CFR part 531 as follows:
PART 531--PAY UNDER THE GENERAL SCHEDULE
0
1. The authority citation for part 531 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5115, 5307, and 5338; sec. 4 of Public Law
103-89, 107 Stat. 981; and E.O. 12748, 56 FR 4521, 3 CFR, 1991
Comp., p. 316; Subpart B also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5303(g), 5305,
5333, 5334(a) and (b), and 7701(b)(2); Subpart D also issued under 5
U.S.C. 5335 and 7701(b)(2); Subpart E also issued under 5 U.S.C.
5336; Subpart F also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5304, 5305, and 5941(a),
E.O. 12883, 58 FR 63281, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 682; and E.O. 13106,
63 FR 68151, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 224.
Subpart F--Locality-Based Comparability Payments
0
2. In Sec. 531.602, the definitions of ``CSA'' and ``MSA'' are revised
to read as follows:
Sec. 531.602 Definitions.
* * * * *
CSA means the geographic scope of a Combined Statistical Area, as
defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in OMB Bulletin
No. 18-03.
* * * * *
MSA means the geographic scope of a Metropolitan Statistical Area,
as defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in OMB Bulletin
No. 18-03.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 531.603, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 531.603 Locality pay areas.
* * * * *
(b) The following are locality pay areas for the purposes of this
subpart:
(1) Alaska--consisting of the State of Alaska;
(2) Albany-Schenectady, NY-MA--consisting of the Albany-
Schenectady, NY CSA and also including Berkshire County, MA;
(3) Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Las Vegas, NM--consisting of the
Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Las Vegas, NM CSA and also including McKinley
County, NM;
(4) Atlanta--Athens-Clarke County--Sandy Springs, GA-AL--consisting
of the Atlanta--Athens-Clarke County--Sandy Springs, GA CSA and also
including Chambers County, AL;
(5) Austin-Round Rock, TX--consisting of the Austin-Round Rock, TX
MSA;
(6) Birmingham-Hoover-Talladega, AL--consisting of the Birmingham-
Hoover-Talladega, AL CSA and also including Calhoun County, AL;
(7) Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-ME--consisting of the
Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT CSA, except for Windham
County, CT, and also including Androscoggin County, ME, Cumberland
County, ME, Sagadahoc County, ME, and York County, ME;
(8) Buffalo-Cheektowaga, NY--consisting of the Buffalo-Cheektowaga,
NY CSA;
(9) Burlington-South Burlington, VT--consisting of the Burlington-
South Burlington, VT MSA;
(10) Charlotte-Concord, NC-SC--consisting of the Charlotte-Concord,
NC-SC CSA;
(11) Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI--consisting of the Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI CSA;
(12) Cincinnati-Wilmington-Maysville, OH-KY-IN--consisting of the
Cincinnati-Wilmington-Maysville, OH-KY-IN CSA and also including
Franklin County, IN;
(13) Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH--consisting of the Cleveland-Akron-
Canton, OH CSA and also including Harrison County, OH;
(14) Colorado Springs, CO--consisting of the Colorado Springs, CO
MSA and also including Fremont County, CO, and Pueblo County, CO;
(15) Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, OH--consisting of the Columbus-
Marion-Zanesville, OH CSA;
(16) Corpus Christi-Kingsville-Alice, TX--consisting of the Corpus
Christi-Kingsville-Alice, TX CSA;
(17) Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK--consisting of the Dallas-Fort Worth,
TX-OK CSA and also including Delta County, TX;
(18) Davenport-Moline, IA-IL--consisting of the Davenport-Moline,
IA-IL CSA;
(19) Dayton-Springfield-Sidney, OH--consisting of the Dayton-
Springfield-Sidney, OH CSA and also including Preble County, OH;
(20) Denver-Aurora, CO--consisting of the Denver-Aurora, CO CSA and
also including Larimer County, CO;
(21) Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, MI--consisting of the Detroit-
Warren-Ann Arbor, MI CSA;
(22) Harrisburg-Lebanon, PA--consisting of the Harrisburg-York-
Lebanon, PA CSA, except for Adams County, PA, and York County, PA, and
also including Lancaster County, PA;
(23) Hartford-West Hartford, CT-MA--consisting of the Hartford-West
Hartford, CT CSA and also including Windham County, CT, Franklin
County, MA, Hampden County, MA, and Hampshire County, MA;
(24) Hawaii--consisting of the State of Hawaii;
(25) Houston-The Woodlands, TX--consisting of the Houston-The
Woodlands, TX CSA and also including San Jacinto County, TX;
(26) Huntsville-Decatur-Albertville, AL--consisting of the
Huntsville-Decatur-Albertville, AL CSA;
(27) Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN--consisting of the
Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN CSA and also including Grant County, IN;
(28) Kansas City-Overland Park-Kansas City, MO-KS--consisting of
the Kansas City-Overland Park-Kansas City, MO-KS CSA and also including
Jackson County, KS, Jefferson County, KS, Osage County, KS, Shawnee
County, KS, and Wabaunsee County, KS;
(29) Laredo, TX--consisting of the Laredo, TX MSA;
(30) Las Vegas-Henderson, NV-AZ--consisting of the Las Vegas-
Henderson, NV-AZ CSA;
(31) Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA--consisting of the Los Angeles-Long
Beach, CA CSA and also including Kern County, CA, San Luis Obispo
County, CA, and Santa Barbara County, CA;
(32) Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Port St. Lucie, FL--consisting of the
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Port St. Lucie, FL CSA and also including Monroe
County, FL;
(33) Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI--consisting of the Milwaukee-
Racine-Waukesha, WI CSA;
(34) Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI--consisting of the Minneapolis-St.
Paul, MN-WI CSA;
(35) New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA--consisting of the New York-
Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA and also including all of Joint Base McGuire-
Dix-Lakehurst;
(36) Omaha-Council Bluffs-Fremont, NE-IA--consisting of the Omaha-
Council Bluffs-Fremont, NE-IA CSA;
[[Page 63046]]
(37) Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL--consisting of the Palm Bay-
Melbourne-Titusville, FL MSA;
(38) Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD--consisting of the
Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA, except for Joint Base
McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst;
(39) Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ--consisting of the Phoenix-Mesa-
Scottsdale, AZ MSA;
(40) Pittsburgh-New Castle-Weirton, PA-OH-WV--consisting of the
Pittsburgh-New Castle-Weirton, PA-OH-WV CSA;
(41) Portland-Vancouver-Salem, OR-WA--consisting of the Portland-
Vancouver-Salem, OR-WA CSA;
(42) Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC--consisting of the Raleigh-
Durham-Chapel Hill, NC CSA and also including Cumberland County, NC,
Hoke County, NC, Robeson County, NC, Scotland County, NC, and Wayne
County, NC;
(43) Richmond, VA--consisting of the Richmond, VA MSA and also
including Cumberland County, VA, King and Queen County, VA, and Louisa
County, VA;
(44) Sacramento-Roseville, CA-NV--consisting of the Sacramento-
Roseville, CA CSA and also including Carson City, NV, and Douglas
County, NV;
(45) San Antonio-New Braunfels-Pearsall, TX--consisting of the San
Antonio-New Braunfels-Pearsall, TX CSA;
(46) San Diego-Carlsbad, CA--consisting of the San Diego-Carlsbad,
CA MSA;
(47) San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA--consisting of the San
Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA and also including Monterey County,
CA;
(48) Seattle-Tacoma, WA--consisting of the Seattle-Tacoma, WA CSA
and also including Whatcom County, WA;
(49) St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL--consisting of the St.
Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL CSA;
(50) Tucson-Nogales, AZ--consisting of the Tucson-Nogales, AZ CSA
and also including Cochise County, AZ;
(51) Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC--consisting of the Virginia
Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC CSA;
(52) Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA--consisting of
the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA CSA and also
including Kent County, MD, Adams County, PA, York County, PA, King
George County, VA, and Morgan County, WV; and
(53) Rest of U.S.--consisting of those portions of the United
States and its territories and possessions as listed in 5 CFR 591.205
not located within another locality pay area.
[FR Doc. 2018-26519 Filed 12-3-18; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-39-P
