General Schedule Locality Pay Areas, 41855-41862 [2023-13621]

Agencies

• Office of Personnel Management

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 28, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41855-41862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13621]


========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 123 / Wednesday, June 28, 2023 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 41855]]



OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

5 CFR Part 531

[Docket ID: OPM-2023-0009]
RIN 3206-AO58


General Schedule Locality Pay Areas

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management is proposing regulations on 
behalf of the President's Pay Agent to change the geographic boundaries 
of General Schedule locality pay areas. The proposed changes in 
locality pay area definitions would be applicable on the first day of 
the first applicable pay period beginning on or after January 1, 2024, 
subject to issuance of final regulations. The locations proposed for 
inclusion in a locality pay area separate from the Rest of U.S. 
locality pay area have all met criteria previously recommended by the 
Federal Salary Council and approved by the Pay Agent for nationwide use 
in the locality pay program.

DATES: We must receive comments on or before July 28, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or 
Regulatory Information Number (RIN) and title, by the following method:
     Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and docket 
number or RIN for this document. The general policy for comments and 
other submissions from members of the public is to make these 
submissions available for public viewing at https://www.regulations.gov 
as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers 
or contact information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Ratcliffe by email at [email protected] or by telephone at (202) 936-3081.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed changes in locality pay area 
definitions include linking geographic boundaries of locality pay areas 
to the updated definitions of metropolitan statistical areas and 
combined statistical areas (MSAs and CSAs) in Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) Bulletin No. 20-01; establishing four new locality pay 
areas having pay disparities significantly exceeding that for the Rest 
of U.S. locality pay area over an extended period; and changing the 
criteria by which locations adjacent to an MSA or CSA comprising a 
basic locality pay area can be included in the locality pay area as an 
area of application. (The terms basic locality pay area and area of 
application are defined below.) However, while any location may be 
subject to a change in locality pay area designation in the future 
based on a recommendation by the Federal Salary Council which is 
approved by the Pay Agent, locations that are currently in a locality 
pay area other than the Rest of U.S. locality pay area and would 
otherwise be redesignated as part of a lower-paying locality pay area 
due to application of approved criteria will remain in their current 
locality pay area under this proposal.
    The four new locality pay areas proposed are Fresno-Madera-Hanford, 
CA; Reno-Fernley, NV; Rochester-Batavia-Seneca Falls, NY; and Spokane-
Spokane Valley-Coeur d'Alene, WA-ID. Locality pay rates for these four 
areas would be set by the President after they have been established by 
regulation as new locality pay areas.
    Section 5304 of title 5, United States Code, authorizes locality 
pay for General Schedule (GS) employees with duty stations in the 
United States and its territories and possessions. Section 5304(f) of 
title 5, United States Code, authorizes the President's Pay Agent (the 
Secretary of Labor, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB), and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)) to 
determine locality pay areas. The boundaries of locality pay areas are 
based on appropriate factors, which may include local labor market 
patterns, commuting patterns, and the practices of other employers. The 
Pay Agent considers the views and recommendations of the Federal Salary 
Council, a body composed of experts in the fields of labor relations 
and pay policy and representatives of Federal employee organizations. 
The President appoints the members of the Council, which submits annual 
recommendations to the Pay Agent about the administration of the 
locality pay program, including the geographic boundaries of locality 
pay areas. (The Federal Salary Council's recommendations are posted on 
the OPM website at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/general-schedule/#url=Federal-Salary-Council.) The 
establishment or modification of pay area boundaries conforms to the 
notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 
U.S.C. 553).
    This proposal provides notice and requests comments on proposed 
regulations to implement the Pay Agent's plan to define GS locality pay 
areas geographically based on the updated definitions of metropolitan 
statistical areas and combined statistical areas (MSAs and CSAs) in 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin No. 20-01; to establish 
four new locality pay areas having pay disparities significantly 
exceeding that for the Rest of U.S. locality pay area over an extended 
period; and to change the criteria by which locations adjacent to an 
MSA or CSA comprising a basic locality pay area are included in 
locality pay areas as areas of application. (The terms basic locality 
pay area and area of application are defined below.) As further 
discussed below, those changes were tentatively approved, pending 
appropriate rulemaking, in the December 15, 2022, report of the 
President's Pay Agent. (Annual Pay Agent reports on locality pay are 
posted on the OPM website at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/general-schedule/#url=Pay-Agent-Reports.)

Terms Used in Defining Locality Pay Areas

    As explained in the Federal Salary Council's October 14, 2022, 
report to the Pay Agent, a locality pay area separate from the Rest of 
U.S. locality pay area consists of a basic locality pay area and, where 
criteria recommended by the Council and approved by the Pay Agent are 
met, areas of application. A basic

[[Page 41856]]

locality pay area consists of a main core-based statistical area (CBSA) 
defined by OMB as a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) or combined 
statistical area (CSA). An MSA or CSA cannot be established as a basic 
locality pay area separate from the Rest of U.S. locality pay area 
unless the MSA or CSA has a pay disparity that significantly exceeds 
the overall Rest of U.S. pay disparity over an extended period, with 
such pay disparities calculated using approved Bureau of Labor 
Statistics (BLS) salary data. Areas of application are locations that 
are adjacent to the basic locality pay area and have met approved 
criteria for inclusion in the locality pay area.

Linking Locality Pay Area Boundaries to OMB-Defined Metropolitan Areas

    OMB-defined metropolitan areas are called CBSAs and are currently 
grouped into three categories: micropolitan statistical areas, where 
the largest included urban area has a population of 10,000 to 49,999; 
MSAs, where the largest included urban area has a population of 50,000 
or more; and CSAs, which are composed of two or more adjacent CBSAs 
with an employment interchange measure of at least 15 percent. (The 
employment interchange measure is the sum of the percentage of workers 
living in the smaller entity who work in the larger entity and the 
percentage of employment in the smaller entity that is accounted for by 
workers who reside in the larger entity.) OMB-defined metropolitan 
areas have been the basis of locality pay area boundaries since 
locality pay was first implemented in 1994. OMB periodically updates 
its definitions of CBSAs, and current regulations defining locality pay 
areas link the geographic definitions of locality pay areas to MSAs and 
CSAs as delineated in OMB Bulletin No. 18-03 (available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/OMB-BULLETIN-NO.-18-03-Final.pdf).
    As explained in the Pay Agent's December 2022 annual report, the 
Pay Agent has tentatively approved the use in the locality pay program 
of the MSAs and CSAs delineated in OMB Bulletin No. 20-01 (available at 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Bulletin-20-01.pdf?), pending the issuance of revised locality pay regulations. 
This proposed rule would implement the change by revising the 
definitions of ``CSA'' and ``MSA'' in 5 CFR 531.602 to link the 
geographic definitions of locality pay areas to the March 2020 
definitions of MSAs and CSAs in OMB Bulletin No. 20-01, and by updating 
the locality pay area definitions in 5 CFR 531.603 to reflect use of 
the OMB Bulletin No. 20-01 MSA and CSA definitions. The geographic 
boundaries of locality pay areas would not change automatically should 
OMB issue a new Bulletin to change the definitions of any MSAs or CSAs 
serving as the basis of the geographic boundaries of locality pay 
areas. As under the current regulations, the Pay Agent would instead 
assess what the impact of a future Bulletin would be on locality pay 
areas before deciding whether to use the new CBSA definitions. While 
any location may be subject to a change in locality pay area 
designation in the future based on a recommendation by the Federal 
Salary Council which is approved by the Pay Agent, the proposed rule 
also implements the Pay Agent's plan to retain, in their current 
locality pay area, any locations that would otherwise move to a lower-
paying locality pay area as a result of linking locality pay area 
definitions to the MSAs and CSAs in OMB Bulletin No. 20-01, as 
recommended by the Federal Salary Council. Under this proposed rule, 
any such retained area would no longer be part of the basic locality 
pay area due to use of those MSAs and CSAs and would be treated as an 
area of application.

Establishing Four New Locality Pay Areas

    Locality pay is set by comparing GS and non-Federal pay rates for 
the same levels of work in each locality pay area. Non-Federal salary 
survey data used to set locality pay rates are collected by BLS. 
Historically, the Federal Salary Council and President's Pay Agent have 
not been able to study non-Federal pay and establish separate locality 
pay areas in all the many metropolitan areas with GS employees. 
However, the current salary survey methodology, which was first used in 
2012, provides more location coverage than the previous methodology by 
combining data sources from two previously existing BLS products--i.e., 
the National Compensation Survey (NCS) and the Occupational Employment 
and Wage Statistics (OEWS) program. The measurement process BLS 
provides in doing so is called the NCS/OEWS Model, and the Rest of U.S. 
metropolitan areas it covers are called Rest of U.S. research areas.
    Based on its review of pay disparities using NCS/OEWS data and 
calculated for all Rest of U.S. research areas, the Council has 
recommended new locality pay areas be established for four metropolitan 
areas with pay gaps averaging more than 10 percentage points above that 
for the Rest of U.S. locality pay area over an extended period. The 
President's Pay Agent has agreed to propose regulations that would 
establish the four new locality pay areas by modifying 5 CFR 531.603(b) 
accordingly. The four new locality pay areas proposed are Fresno-
Madera-Hanford, CA; Reno-Fernley, NV; Rochester-Batavia-Seneca Falls, 
NY; and Spokane-Spokane Valley-Coeur d'Alene, WA-ID. Locality pay rates 
for the four new locality pay areas would be set by the President at a 
later date should the locality pay areas be established by final 
regulation.
    Stakeholders should note that Rest of U.S. locations that we have 
not proposed for establishment as new locality pay areas have not met 
the pay disparity criterion by which locality pay areas are 
established. Such locations are either established Rest of U.S. 
research areas that have not met the pay disparity criterion referred 
to above or are locations that have not been established as Rest of 
U.S. research areas. Stakeholders should also note that establishment 
of Rest of U.S. research areas historically has not been on a case-by-
case basis in response to stakeholder requests. When the Council began 
using the NCS/OES (now NCS/OEWS) model in 2012, selection of Rest of 
U.S. research areas was limited to MSAs and CSAs having 2,500 or more 
GS employees. Starting in 2022, the Council has now begun to request 
that BLS deliver NCS/OEWS estimates for areas that had fewer than 2,500 
GS employees, and so far BLS resources have allowed for delivery of 
NCS/OEWS estimates for 10 such CBSAs. Those 10 CBSAs had the highest 
levels of GS employment among areas not previously established as Rest 
of U.S. research areas. Two of those new Rest of U.S. research areas--
Reno, NV, and Rochester, NY--met the pay disparity criterion mentioned 
above and thus are proposed here as new locality pay areas. (Fresno, 
CA, and Spokane, WA, had already been established as Rest of U.S. 
research areas but did not meet the pay disparity criterion prior to 
the Council issuing its October 14, 2022, report.)
    It should also be noted that BLS has said it is not feasible for 
the NCS/OEWS model to produce reliable salary estimates for 
micropolitan statistical areas or rural counties. In addition, the data 
for any additional MSAs and CSAs evaluated as potential new Rest of 
U.S. research areas are subject to BLS validation and testing. Thus, it 
is possible that data from some MSAs or CSAs not yet evaluated as 
potential Rest of U.S. research areas may not pass such validation and 
testing and may not meet

[[Page 41857]]

BLS' standards for delivery to the Pay Agent.
    We support the Council's plans to continue its work with BLS to 
determine whether additional locations can be established as Rest of 
U.S. research areas. The Pay Agent looks forward to hearing of future 
progress on increasing the capacity to monitor pay disparities in more 
areas but also has urged the Council to continue proceeding with 
caution on this work to ensure pay disparity data for any additional 
MSAs or CSAs are as accurate as possible in the context of current 
methodology.

Criteria for Areas of Application

    As mentioned above, locality pay areas consist of (1) the MSA or 
CSA comprising the basic locality pay area, and (2) where criteria 
recommended by the Federal Salary Council and approved by the Pay Agent 
are met, areas of application. Areas of application are locations that 
are adjacent to the basic locality pay area and meet approved criteria 
for inclusion in the locality pay area. Those criteria are explained 
below.
    Since 2005, the criteria by which CBSAs or counties adjacent to a 
basic locality pay area have been evaluated for possible inclusion in 
the locality pay area as areas of application have been as follows: For 
adjacent CSAs and adjacent multi-county MSAs, the criteria are 1,500 or 
more GS employees and an employment interchange rate of at least 7.5 
percent. For adjacent single counties, the criteria are 400 or more GS 
employees and an employment interchange rate of at least 7.5 percent. 
The employment interchange rate is defined as the sum of the percentage 
of employed residents of the area under consideration who work in the 
basic locality pay area and the percentage of the employment in the 
area under consideration that is accounted for by workers who reside in 
the basic locality pay area. (The employment interchange rate is 
calculated by including all workers in assessed locations, not just 
Federal employees.)
    The Pay Agent has tentatively agreed with the Council that the 
following criteria should be used for evaluating CBSAs or counties that 
are adjacent to the basic locality pay area as potential areas of 
application and that the GS employment criteria currently used in 
evaluating such locations should be eliminated:
     For a CBSA (includes single-county CBSAs other than 
single-county micropolitan areas) adjacent to a basic locality pay 
area, an employment interchange rate of at least 7.5 percent with the 
basic locality pay area.
     For a county that is not part of a CBSA or comprises a 
single-county micropolitan area and is adjacent to a basic locality pay 
area, an employment interchange rate of at least 20 percent with the 
basic locality pay area.
     For a county that is adjacent to multiple locality pay 
areas and does not meet the 20 percent employment interchange threshold 
with respect to any single locality pay area, a sum of employment 
interchange rates of at least 20 percent with the adjacent basic 
locality pay areas. Such a county would be added to the locality pay 
area with which it has the greatest degree of employment interchange.
    This proposed rule reflects application of those criteria to all 
locations throughout the country.
    The Pay Agent also has criteria for evaluating Federal facilities 
that cross county lines into a separate locality pay area. Those 
criteria do not change under this proposal and are as follows: To be 
included in an adjacent locality pay area, the whole facility under 
consideration must have at least 500 GS employees, with the majority of 
those employees in the higher-paying locality pay area, or that portion 
of a Federal facility outside of a higher-paying locality pay area must 
have at least 750 GS employees, the duty stations of the majority of 
those employees must be within 10 miles of the separate locality pay 
area, and a significant number of those employees must commute to work 
from the higher-paying locality pay area.
    It has been the practice in the locality pay program in recent 
years to include a location completely bordered by land that is 
included in higher-paying locality pay areas in the adjacent locality 
pay area with which the location has the greatest degree of employment 
interchange. We agree with the Council that this practice should 
continue. Thus, we also agree with the Council that Emporia City, VA--a 
U.S. county equivalent surrounded geographically by Greensville County, 
VA--should be included in the Richmond, VA, locality pay area as an 
area of application. (Greensville County would be included in the 
Richmond, VA, locality pay area as an area of application because it is 
adjacent to the Richmond, VA, basic locality pay area and has a 23.36 
percent rate of employment interchange with the Richmond, VA MSA.)
    This proposal also reflects our tentative agreement with the 
Council that the following locations bordered only by water and higher-
paying locality pay areas should be included in higher-paying locality 
pay areas because we share the Council's view that they are similar to 
locations completely bordered by land that is included in higher-paying 
locality pay areas: Dukes and Nantucket Counties, MA, which would be 
included in the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT-ME-VT locality 
pay area as areas of application; Huron County, MI, which would be 
included in the Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, MI, locality pay area as an 
area of application; and Pacific and San Juan Counties, WA, which would 
be included in the Seattle-Tacoma, WA, locality pay area as areas of 
application.

Situations Involving Locations Previously Retained in a Locality Pay 
Area

    It has been the practice in the locality pay program to retain in 
their current locality pay area locations that would otherwise be 
redesignated as part of a lower-paying locality pay area due to 
application of approved criteria. However, situations involving such 
locations must be monitored over time. As pay levels and locations 
comprising locality pay areas change over time, the situation with 
respect to a retained location can change so that it should no longer 
be retained in a locality pay area but rather should be placed as it 
would be otherwise based on standard criteria. In our view, such is the 
case with respect to Windham County, CT, which we propose be included 
in the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT-ME-VT locality pay 
area. In 2016, the Pay Agent retained Windham County, CT, in the 
Hartford-West Hartford, CT-MA locality pay area, even though under OMB 
Bulletin No. 13-01 (which had just been approved for use in the 
locality pay program) the county had been redesignated from the 
Hartford CSA to the Boston CSA. The Pay Agent took that action because 
otherwise the county would have been redesignated to the Boston 
locality pay area, which then had a lower locality pay percentage than 
the Hartford locality pay area. However, since January 2023, the 
locality pay percentage for the Boston locality pay area has exceeded 
that for the Hartford locality pay area. Considering that, and because 
Windham County is currently part of the OMB-defined CSA the Boston 
basic locality pay area is based on, we are proposing the county be 
redesignated to the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT-ME-VT 
locality pay area.
    Strict application of standard criteria can also be problematic in 
situations where a new locality pay area would be adjacent to an 
existing locality pay area that contains locations that would be

[[Page 41858]]

retained by the Pay Agent as areas of application to avoid 
redesignation to a potentially lower-paying locality pay area. Alpine 
County, CA, exemplifies such a case. Under the criteria by which 
locality pay areas are defined under this proposed rule, a single-
county location that is adjacent to multiple locality pay areas would 
be added to the locality pay area with which it has greatest degree of 
employment interchange provided the sum of the employment interchange 
rates the county has with adjacent locality pay areas would be at least 
20 percent. Alpine County, CA, is adjacent to the Reno-Carson City-
Fernley, NV CSA and the Sacramento-Roseville, CA-NV basic locality pay 
area; the sum of its employment interchange rates is greater than 20 
percent; and it has a higher rate of employment interchange with the 
Reno CSA than with the Sacramento CSA (51.86 percent with Reno and 
41.04 percent with Sacramento). However, because the Pay Agent plans to 
retain the Nevada Counties of Carson City and Douglas (which are part 
of the Reno-Carson City-Fernley, NV, CSA) in the Sacramento-Roseville, 
CA-NV locality pay area as the Federal Salary Council recommended, 
having Alpine County in the Reno locality pay area would make that 
locality pay area discontinuous, with Alpine County no longer being 
adjacent to any other county in the Reno locality pay area while being 
bordered by counties in the Sacramento locality pay area. In addition, 
when Carson City and Douglas County are removed from the Reno CSA for 
purposes of calculating an interchange rate for Alpine County, its 
employment interchange rate with the remaining subset of the Reno CSA 
drops to 9.34 percent. Thus, the Pay Agent proposes including Alpine 
County, CA, in the proposed Sacramento-Roseville, CA-NV locality pay 
area as an area of application.

Note on Caroline County, VA

    In addition to the Rest of U.S. locations the Council listed in its 
October 14, 2022, report as impacted by its recommendations on the 
criteria for areas of application, Caroline County, VA, which is 
currently in the Richmond, VA, locality pay area, would be included in 
the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA locality pay area 
under this proposed rule.
    While Caroline County, VA, is part of the basic Richmond, VA, 
locality pay area as previously defined using OMB Bulletin No. 18-03, 
it is not part of the Richmond, VA, basic locality pay area as defined 
using OMB Bulletin No. 20-01 nor is it part of any other CBSA 
comprising a basic locality pay area under this proposed rule. However, 
this single-county location is adjacent to both the Richmond, VA and 
Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA basic locality pay 
areas.
    Under the criteria by which locality pay areas are defined under 
this proposed rule, a single-county location that is adjacent to 
multiple locality pay areas would be added to the locality pay area 
with which it has greatest degree of employment interchange provided 
the sum of the employment interchange rates the county has with 
adjacent locality pay areas would be at least 20 percent. Caroline 
County, VA, is adjacent to the Richmond, VA, and Washington-Baltimore-
Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA locality pay areas; the sum of its employment 
interchange rates is greater than 20 percent; and it has a higher rate 
of employment interchange with the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-
MD-VA-WV-PA basic locality pay area than with the Richmond, VA, basic 
locality pay area (53.24 percent with Washington-Baltimore and 40.04 
percent with Richmond).

Locations Comprising New Locality Pay Areas

    This proposal would amend 5 CFR 531.603(b) to establish the 
following locations as new locality pay areas.

Fresno-Madera-Hanford, CA

    Fresno County, CA; Kings County, CA; Madera County, CA; Mariposa 
County, CA; and Tulare County, CA.

Reno-Fernley, NV

    Churchill County, NV; Lyon County, NV; Storey County, NV; and 
Washoe County, NV.

Rochester-Batavia-Seneca Falls, NY

    Genesee County, NY; Livingston County, NY; Monroe County, NY; 
Ontario County, NY; Orleans County, NY; Seneca County, NY; Wayne 
County, NY; and Yates County, NY.

Spokane-Spokane Valley-Coeur d'Alene, WA-ID

    Benewah County, ID; Kootenai County, ID; Shoshone County, ID; Ferry 
County, WA; Lincoln County, WA; Pend Oreille County, WA; Spokane 
County, WA; Stevens County, WA.

Locations Added to Existing Locality Pay Areas

    This proposal would amend 5 CFR 531.603(b) to add the following 
locations to existing locality pay areas:

Albany-Schenectady, NY-MA

    Greene County, NY; and Hamilton County, NY.

Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Las Vegas, NM

    Mora County, NM.

Atlanta--Athens-Clarke County--Sandy Springs, GA-AL

    Cherokee County, AL; Cleburne County, AL; Lee County, AL; Randolph 
County, AL; Russell County, AL; Banks County, GA; Chattahoochee County, 
GA; Elbert County, GA; Floyd County, GA; Franklin County, GA; Gilmer 
County, GA; Greene County, GA; Habersham County, GA; Harris County, GA; 
Lumpkin County, GA; Marion County, GA; Muscogee County, GA; Putnam 
County, GA; Rabun County, GA; Stephens County, GA; Stewart County, GA; 
Talbot County, GA; Taliaferro County, GA; and White County, GA.

Austin-Round Rock, TX

    Blanco County, TX; Burnet County, TX; Lee County, TX; and Milam 
County, TX.

Birmingham-Hoover-Talladega, AL

    Clay County, AL; Etowah County, AL; Greene County, AL; Hale County, 
AL; Pickens County, AL; Tuscaloosa County, AL; and Winston County, AL.

Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-ME

    Windham County, CT (redesignated from Hartford-West Hartford CT-MA 
locality pay area); Dukes County, MA; Nantucket County, MA; Carroll 
County, NH; Cheshire County, NH; Grafton County, NH; Sullivan County, 
NH; Orange County, VT; and Windsor County, VT.

Buffalo-Cheektowaga, NY

    Allegany County, NY; and Wyoming County, NY.

Burlington-South Burlington, VT

    Addison County, VT; Lamoille County, VT; and Washington County, VT.

Charlotte-Concord, NC-SC

    Alexander County, NC; Anson County, NC; Burke County, NC; Caldwell 
County, NC; Catawba County, NC; and Chesterfield County, SC.

Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI

    Boone County, IL; Iroquois County, IL; Ogle County, IL; Stephenson 
County, IL; Winnebago County, IL; and Starke County, IN.

[[Page 41859]]

Cincinnati-Wilmington-Maysville, OH-KY-IN

    Ripley County, IN; Switzerland County, IN; Carroll County, KY; 
Fleming County, KY; Lewis County, KY; Owen County, KY; Robertson 
County, KY; Adams County, OH; and Highland County, OH.

Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH

    Ashland County, OH; Columbiana County, OH; Crawford County, OH; 
Holmes County, OH; Mahoning County, OH; Richland County, OH; Trumbull 
County, OH; Wayne County, OH; and Mercer County, PA.

Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, OH

    Coshocton County, OH; Hardin County, OH; Morgan County, OH; Noble 
County, OH; Pike County, OH; and Vinton County, OH.

Corpus Christi-Kingsville-Alice, TX

    Duval County, TX; Live Oak County, TX; and Refugio County, TX.

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK

    Carter County, OK; Love County, OK; Hill County, TX; Jack County, 
TX; Montague County, TX; Rains County, TX; and Van Zandt County, TX.

Davenport-Moline, IA-IL

    Lee County, IL; Whiteside County, IL; Cedar County, IA; Jackson 
County, IA; and Louisa County, IA.

Dayton-Springfield-Sidney, OH

    Allen County, OH; Auglaize County, OH; Mercer County, OH; and Van 
Wert County, OH.

Denver-Aurora, CO

    Lincoln County, CO.

Des Moines-Ames-West Des Moines, IA

    Adair County, IA; Clarke County, IA; Greene County, IA; Hamilton 
County, IA; Lucas County, IA; Mahaska County, IA; Marion County, IA; 
Monroe County, IA; and Poweshiek County, IA.

Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, MI

    Clinton County, MI; Eaton County, MI; Huron County, MI; Ingham 
County, MI; Jackson County, MI; Sanilac County, MI; Shiawassee County, 
MI; and Tuscola County, MI.

Harrisburg-Lebanon, PA

    Juniata County, PA.

Houston-The Woodlands, TX

    Colorado County, TX; Grimes County, TX; Jackson County, TX; and 
Madison County, TX.

Huntsville-Decatur-Albertville, AL

    Colbert County, AL; Lauderdale County, AL; and Lincoln County, TN.

Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN

    Benton County, IN; Blackford County, IN; Carroll County, IN; 
Clinton County, IN; Fayette County, IN; Fountain County, IN; Lawrence 
County, IN; Monroe County, IN; Owen County, IN; Randolph County, IN; 
Rush County, IN; Tippecanoe County, IN; Tipton County, IN; Warren 
County, IN; and Wayne County, IN.

Kansas City-Overland Park-Kansas City, MO-KS

    Anderson County, KS; Carroll County, MO; Daviess County, MO; Gentry 
County, MO; Henry County, MO; and Holt County, MO.

Laredo, TX

    Jim Hogg County, TX; and La Salle County, TX.

Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI

    Fond du Lac County, WI; and Sheboygan County, WI.

Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI

    Blue Earth County, MN; Brown County, MN; Dodge County, MN; Fillmore 
County, MN; Kanabec County, MN; Meeker County, MN; Morrison County, MN; 
Mower County, MN; Nicollet County, MN; Olmsted County, MN; Pine County, 
MN; Steele County, MN; Wabasha County, MN; Waseca County, MN; and Polk 
County, WI.

New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA

    Sullivan County, NY; and Wayne County, PA.

Omaha-Council Bluffs-Fremont, NE-IA

    Fremont County, IA; Shelby County, IA; and Burt County, NE.

Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD

    Sussex County, DE; Somerset County, MD; Wicomico County, MD; 
Worcester County, MD; and Schuylkill County, PA.

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ

    Gila County, AZ.

Pittsburgh-New Castle-Weirton, PA-OH-WV

    Belmont County, OH; Cambria County, PA; Greene County, PA; Somerset 
County, PA; Marshall County, WV; and Ohio County, WV.

Portland-Vancouver-Salem, OR-WA

    Wahkiakum County, WA.

Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC

    Caswell County, NC; Edgecombe County, NC; Halifax County, NC; Moore 
County, NC; Nash County, NC; Northampton County, NC; Warren County, NC; 
and Wilson County, NC.

Richmond, VA

    Brunswick County, VA; Essex County, VA; Greensville County, VA; 
Nottoway County, VA; and Emporia City, VA.

Sacramento-Roseville, CA-NV

    Alpine County, CA; Amador County, CA; Butte County, CA; Colusa 
County, CA; and Sierra County, CA.

San Antonio-New Braunfels-Pearsall, TX

    Gillespie County, TX; Gonzales County, TX; Karnes County, TX; Kerr 
County, TX; and McMullen County, TX.

San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA

    Calaveras County, CA; Merced County, CA; and Stanislaus County, CA.

Seattle-Tacoma, WA

    Grays Harbor County, WA; Pacific County, WA; and San Juan County, 
WA.

St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL

    Fayette County, IL; Greene County, IL; Montgomery County, IL; 
Randolph County, IL; Washington County, IL; Crawford County, MO; 
Gasconade County, MO; Iron County, MO; Madison County, MO; Montgomery 
County, MO; Pike County, MO; Ste. Genevieve County, MO; and Washington 
County, MO.

Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC

    Chowan County, NC; Hertford County, NC; Middlesex County, VA; 
Southampton County, VA; Surry County, VA; and Franklin City, VA.

Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA

    Allegany County, MD; Caroline County, MD; Fulton County, PA; 
Caroline County, VA (redesignated from Richmond, VA locality pay area); 
Madison County, VA; Orange County, VA; Shenandoah County, VA; 
Westmoreland County, VA; Hardy County, WV; and Mineral County, WV.

Expected Impact of the Proposed Rule

    This rule would establish four new locality pay areas based on 
updated pay disparity data and would add many locations to existing 
locality pay areas as a result of using the revised criteria the 
Council has recommended for areas of application. Wage rates for 
employees who receive GS locality pay would increase in these areas 
relative to the

[[Page 41860]]

baseline as a result. However, when locality pay percentages are 
adjusted at the time of an annual pay adjustment, they are scaled to a 
targeted overall salary outlay, regardless of the number or composition 
of locality pay areas. Thus, should this proposal be implemented, the 
larger annual increases locations might receive as a result of being 
redesignated to a higher-paying locality pay area would be offset by 
the annual increases elsewhere being smaller than they would absent 
such redesignation. These changes would result in geographic 
differences in Federal salaries better reflecting the overall 
geographic differences in salary in line with statutory goals. In turn, 
this could affect Federal recruitment and retention across the U.S. OPM 
requests comments on this rule regarding these impacts.
    OPM expects that this rule would most directly impact approximately 
32,900 GS employees. Modifying existing locality pay areas would affect 
approximately 16,700 GS employees, and establishing the four new 
locality pay areas proposed would affect approximately 16,200 GS 
employees. As discussed above, other Federal employees who receive GS 
locality pay would be indirectly impacted at the time of an annual pay 
adjustment. Due to the scope of this proposed rule, OPM does not 
anticipate that it would substantially impact local economies or have a 
large ripple effect in local labor markets. However, OPM is requesting 
comment on this rule regarding the impacts discussed above related to 
future annual pay adjustments.
    OPM is highly interested in any impacts of locality pay adjustments 
due to rulemaking and will continue to study the implications of such 
impacts as needed.

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866, Regulatory Review

    OPM has examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive 
Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563, which direct agencies to assess 
all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if 
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize 
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public, 
health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). This 
rule is not a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 
12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    OPM certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities as this rule only 
applies to Federal agencies and employees.

Federalism

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995

    This rule will not result in the expenditure by state, local, and 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary 
under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose any new reporting or record-keeping 
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 531

    Government employees, Law enforcement officers, Wages.

Office of Personnel Management.
Kayyonne Marston,
Federal Register Liaison.

    Accordingly, OPM proposes to amend 5 CFR part 531 as follows:

PART 531--PAY UNDER THE GENERAL SCHEDULE

0
1. The authority citation for part 531 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  5 U.S.C. 5115, 5307, and 5338; sec. 4 of Public Law 
103-89, 107 Stat. 981; and E.O. 12748, 56 FR 4521, 3 CFR, 1991 
Comp., p. 316; Subpart B also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5303(g), 5305, 
5333, 5334(a) and (b), and 7701(b)(2); Subpart D also issued under 5 
U.S.C. 5335 and 7701(b)(2); Subpart E also issued under 5 U.S.C. 
5336; Subpart F also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5304, 5305, and 5941(a); 
E.O. 12883, 58 FR 63281, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 682; and E.O. 13106, 
63 FR 68151, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 224.

Subpart F--Locality-Based Comparability Payments

0
2. In Sec.  531.602, the definitions of CSA and MSA are revised to read 
as follows:


Sec.  531.602  Definitions.

* * * * *
    CSA means the geographic scope of a Combined Statistical Area, as 
defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in OMB Bulletin 
No. 20-01.
* * * * *
    MSA means the geographic scope of a Metropolitan Statistical Area, 
as defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in OMB Bulletin 
No. 20-01.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec.  531.603, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  531.603  Locality pay areas.

* * * * *
    (b) The following are locality pay areas for the purposes of this 
subpart:
    (1) Alaska--consisting of the State of Alaska;
    (2) Albany-Schenectady, NY-MA--consisting of the Albany-
Schenectady, NY CSA and also including Berkshire County, MA, Greene 
County, NY, and Hamilton County, NY;
    (3) Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Las Vegas, NM--consisting of the 
Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Las Vegas, NM CSA and also including Cibola 
County, NM, and McKinley County, NM;
    (4) Atlanta--Athens-Clarke County--Sandy Springs, GA-AL--consisting 
of the Atlanta--Athens-Clarke County--Sandy Springs, GA-AL CSA and also 
including Cherokee County, AL, Cleburne County, AL, Lee County, AL, 
Randolph County, AL, Russell County, AL, Banks County, GA, 
Chattahoochee County, GA, Elbert County, GA, Franklin County, GA, 
Gilmer County, GA, Gordon County, GA, Greene County, GA, Harris County, 
GA, Lumpkin County, GA, Marion County, GA, Muscogee County, GA, Putnam 
County, GA, Rabun County, GA, Stewart County, GA, Talbot County, GA, 
Taliaferro County, GA, and White County, GA;
    (5) Austin-Round Rock-Georgetown, TX--consisting of the Austin-
Round Rock-Georgetown, TX MSA and also including Blanco County, TX, 
Burnet County, TX, Lee County, TX, and Milam County, TX;
    (6) Birmingham-Hoover-Talladega, AL--consisting of the Birmingham-
Hoover-Talladega, AL CSA and also including Calhoun County, AL, Clay 
County, AL, Coosa County, AL, Etowah County, AL, Greene County, AL, 
Hale County, AL, Pickens County, AL, Tallapoosa County, AL, Tuscaloosa 
County, AL, and Winston County, AL;
    (7) Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT-ME-VT--consisting of 
the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT CSA and also including 
Androscoggin County, ME, Cumberland

[[Page 41861]]

County, ME, Sagadahoc County, ME, York County, ME, Dukes County, MA, 
Nantucket County, MA, Carroll County, NH, Cheshire County, NH, Grafton 
County, NH, Sullivan County, NH, Orange County, VT, and Windsor County, 
VT;
    (8) Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Olean, NY--consisting of the Buffalo-
Cheektowaga-Olean, NY CSA and also including Allegany County, NY, and 
Wyoming County, NY;
    (9) Burlington-South Burlington-Barre, VT--consisting of the 
Burlington-South Burlington-Barre, VT CSA and also including Addison 
County, VT, and Lamoille County, VT;
    (10) Charlotte-Concord, NC-SC--consisting of the Charlotte-Concord, 
NC-SC CSA and also including Alexander County, NC, Burke County, NC, 
Caldwell County, NC, Catawba County, NC, and Chesterfield County, SC;
    (11) Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI--consisting of the Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI CSA and also including Boone County, IL, Iroquois 
County, IL, Ogle County, IL, Stephenson County, IL, Winnebago County, 
IL, and Starke County, IN;
    (12) Cincinnati-Wilmington-Maysville, OH-KY-IN--consisting of the 
Cincinnati-Wilmington-Maysville, OH-KY-IN CSA and also including Ripley 
County, IN, Switzerland County, IN, Carroll County, KY, Fleming County, 
KY, Lewis County, KY, Owen County, KY, Robertson County, KY, Adams 
County, OH, and Highland County, OH;
    (13) Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH-PA--consisting of the Cleveland-
Akron-Canton, OH CSA and also including Ashland County, OH, Columbiana 
County, OH, Crawford County, OH, Harrison County, OH, Holmes County, 
OH, Mahoning County, OH, Richland County, OH, Trumbull County, OH, and 
Mercer County, PA;
    (14) Colorado Springs, CO--consisting of the Colorado Springs, CO 
MSA and also including Fremont County, CO, and Pueblo County, CO;
    (15) Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, OH--consisting of the Columbus-
Marion-Zanesville, OH CSA and also including Coshocton County, OH, 
Hardin County, OH, Morgan County, OH, Noble County, OH, Pike County, 
OH, and Vinton County, OH;
    (16) Corpus Christi-Kingsville-Alice, TX--consisting of the Corpus 
Christi-Kingsville-Alice, TX CSA and also including Brooks County, TX, 
Live Oak County, TX, and Refugio County, TX;
    (17) Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK--consisting of the Dallas-Fort Worth, 
TX-OK CSA and also including Carter County, OK, Love County, OK, Delta 
County, TX, Hill County, TX, Hopkins County, TX, Jack County, TX, 
Montague County, TX, Rains County, TX, Somervell County, TX, and Van 
Zandt County, TX;
    (18) Davenport-Moline, IA-IL--consisting of the Davenport-Moline, 
IA-IL CSA and also including Carroll County, IL, Lee County, IL, 
Whiteside County, IL, Cedar County, IA, Jackson County, IA, and Louisa 
County, IA;
    (19) Dayton-Springfield-Kettering, OH--consisting of the Dayton-
Springfield-Kettering, OH CSA and also including Allen County, OH, 
Auglaize County, OH, Mercer County, OH, Preble County, OH, and Van Wert 
County, OH;
    (20) Denver-Aurora, CO--consisting of the Denver-Aurora, CO CSA and 
also including Larimer County, CO, and Lincoln County, CO;
    (21) Des Moines-Ames-West Des Moines, IA--consisting of the Des 
Moines-Ames-West Des Moines, IA CSA and also including Adair County, 
IA, Clarke County, IA, Greene County, IA, Hamilton County, IA, Lucas 
County, IA, Monroe County, IA, and Poweshiek County, IA;
    (22) Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, MI--consisting of the Detroit-
Warren-Ann Arbor, MI CSA and also including Clinton County, MI, Eaton 
County, MI, Huron County, MI, Ingham County, MI, Jackson County, MI, 
Sanilac County, MI, Shiawassee County, MI, and Tuscola County, MI;
    (23) Fresno-Madera-Hanford, CA--consisting of the Fresno-Madera-
Hanford, CA CSA and also including Mariposa County, CA, and Tulare 
County, CA;
    (24) Harrisburg-Lebanon, PA--consisting of the Harrisburg-York-
Lebanon, PA CSA, except for Adams County, PA, and York County, PA, and 
also including Juniata County, PA, and Lancaster County, PA;
    (25) Hartford-East Hartford, CT-MA--consisting of the Hartford-East 
Hartford, CT CSA and also including Franklin County, MA, Hampden 
County, MA, and Hampshire County, MA;
    (26) Hawaii--consisting of the State of Hawaii;
    (27) Houston-The Woodlands, TX--consisting of the Houston-The 
Woodlands, TX CSA and also including Colorado County, TX, Grimes 
County, TX, Jackson County, TX, Madison County, TX, San Jacinto County, 
TX, and Trinity County, TX;
    (28) Huntsville-Decatur, AL-TN--consisting of the Huntsville-
Decatur, AL CSA and also including Colbert County, AL, DeKalb County, 
AL, Lauderdale County, AL, Marshall County, AL, and Lincoln County, TN;
    (29) Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN--consisting of the 
Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN CSA and also including Benton County, 
IN, Blackford County, IN, Carroll County, IN, Clinton County, IN, 
Fayette County, IN, Fountain County, IN, Grant County, IN, Lawrence 
County, IN, Monroe County, IN, Owen County, IN, Randolph County, IN, 
Rush County, IN, Tippecanoe County, IN, Tipton County, IN, Warren 
County, IN, and Wayne County, IN;
    (30) Kansas City-Overland Park-Kansas City, MO-KS--consisting of 
the Kansas City-Overland Park-Kansas City, MO-KS CSA and also including 
Anderson County, KS, Jackson County, KS, Jefferson County, KS, Osage 
County, KS, Shawnee County, KS, Wabaunsee County, KS, Carroll County, 
MO, Daviess County, MO, Gentry County, MO, Henry County, MO, and Holt 
County, MO;
    (31) Laredo, TX--consisting of the Laredo, TX MSA and also 
including Jim Hogg County, TX, and La Salle County, TX;
    (32) Las Vegas-Henderson, NV-AZ--consisting of the Las Vegas-
Henderson, NV CSA and also including Mohave County, AZ;
    (33) Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA--consisting of the Los Angeles-Long 
Beach, CA CSA and also including Imperial County, CA, Kern County, CA, 
San Luis Obispo County, CA, and Santa Barbara County, CA;
    (34) Miami-Port St. Lucie-Fort Lauderdale, FL--consisting of the 
Miami-Port St. Lucie-Fort Lauderdale, FL CSA and also including 
Okeechobee County, FL;
    (35) Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI--consisting of the Milwaukee-
Racine-Waukesha, WI CSA and also including Fond du Lac County, WI, and 
Sheboygan County, WI;
    (36) Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI--consisting of the Minneapolis-St. 
Paul, MN-WI CSA and also including Blue Earth County, MN, Brown County, 
MN, Dodge County, MN, Fillmore County, MN, Kanabec County, MN, Meeker 
County, MN, Morrison County, MN, Mower County, MN, Nicollet County, MN, 
Olmsted County, MN, Pine County, MN, Sibley County, MN, Wabasha County, 
MN, Waseca County, MN, and Polk County, WI;
    (37) New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA--consisting of the New York-
Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA and also including Warren County, NJ, Sullivan 
County, NY, Carbon County, PA, Lehigh County, PA, Northampton County, 
PA, Wayne County, PA, and all of Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst;
    (38) Omaha-Council Bluffs-Fremont, NE-IA--consisting of the Omaha-
Council Bluffs-Fremont, NE-IA CSA and also including Fremont County, 
IA,

[[Page 41862]]

Shelby County, IA, and Burt County, NE;
    (39) Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL--consisting of the Palm Bay-
Melbourne-Titusville, FL MSA;
    (40) Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD--consisting of the 
Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA, except for Joint Base 
McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, and also including Sussex County, DE, Somerset 
County, MD, Wicomico County, MD, Worcester County, MD, and Schuylkill 
County, PA;
    (41) Phoenix-Mesa, AZ--consisting of the Phoenix-Mesa, AZ CSA;
    (42) Pittsburgh-New Castle-Weirton, PA-OH-WV--consisting of the 
Pittsburgh-New Castle-Weirton, PA-OH-WV CSA and also including Belmont 
County, OH, Cambria County, PA, Greene County, PA, Somerset County, PA, 
Marshall County, WV, and Ohio County, WV;
    (43) Portland-Vancouver-Salem, OR-WA--consisting of the Portland-
Vancouver-Salem, OR-WA CSA and also including Wahkiakum County, WA;
    (44) Raleigh-Durham-Cary, NC--consisting of the Raleigh-Durham-
Cary, NC CSA and also including Caswell County, NC, Cumberland County, 
NC, Edgecombe County, NC, Halifax County, NC, Harnett County, NC, Hoke 
County, NC, Lee County, NC, Moore County, NC, Nash County, NC, 
Northampton County, NC, Robeson County, NC, Scotland County, NC, Warren 
County, NC, Wayne County, NC, and Wilson County, NC;
    (45) Reno-Fernley, NV--consisting of the Reno-Carson City-Fernley, 
NV CSA, except for Carson City, NV, and Douglas County, NV, and also 
including Churchill County, NV;
    (46) Richmond, VA--consisting of the Richmond, VA MSA and also 
including Brunswick County, VA, Cumberland County, VA, Essex County, 
VA, Greensville County, VA, Louisa County, VA, Nottoway County, VA, and 
Emporia City, VA;
    (47) Rochester-Batavia-Seneca Falls, NY--consisting of the 
Rochester-Batavia-Seneca Falls, NY CSA;
    (48) Sacramento-Roseville, CA-NV--consisting of the Sacramento-
Roseville, CA CSA and also including Alpine County, CA, Amador County, 
CA, Butte County, CA, Colusa County, CA, Sierra County, CA, Carson 
City, NV, and Douglas County, NV;
    (49) San Antonio-New Braunfels-Pearsall, TX--consisting of the San 
Antonio-New Braunfels-Pearsall, TX CSA and also including Gillespie 
County, TX, Gonzales County, TX, Karnes County, TX, Kerr County, TX, 
and McMullen County, TX;
    (50) San Diego-Chula Vista-Carlsbad, CA--consisting of the San 
Diego-Chula Vista-Carlsbad, CA MSA;
    (51) San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA--consisting of the San 
Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA and also including Calaveras County, 
CA, and Monterey County, CA;
    (52) Seattle-Tacoma, WA--consisting of the Seattle-Tacoma, WA CSA 
and also including Grays Harbor County, WA, Pacific County, WA, San 
Juan County, WA, and Whatcom County, WA;
    (53) Spokane-Spokane Valley-Coeur d'Alene, WA-ID--consisting of the 
Spokane-Spokane Valley-Coeur d'Alene, WA-ID CSA and also including 
Benewah County, ID, Shoshone County, ID, Ferry County, WA, Lincoln 
County, WA, and Pend Oreille County, WA;
    (54) St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL--consisting of the St. 
Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL CSA and also including Fayette 
County, IL, Greene County, IL, Montgomery County, IL, Randolph County, 
IL, Washington County, IL, Crawford County, MO, Gasconade County, MO, 
Iron County, MO, Madison County, MO, Montgomery County, MO, Pike 
County, MO, Ste. Genevieve County, MO, and Washington County, MO;
    (55) Tucson-Nogales, AZ--consisting of the Tucson-Nogales, AZ CSA 
and also including Cochise County, AZ;
    (56) Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC--consisting of the Virginia 
Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC CSA and also including Chowan County, NC, Hertford 
County, NC, Tyrrell County, NC, Middlesex County, VA, and Surry County, 
VA;
    (57) Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA--consisting of 
the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA CSA and also 
including Allegany County, MD, Caroline County, MD, Dorchester County, 
MD, Kent County, MD, Adams County, PA, Fulton County, PA, York County, 
PA, Caroline County, VA, King George County, VA, Orange County, VA, 
Shenandoah County, VA, Westmoreland County, VA, Hardy County, WV, and 
Mineral County, WV; and
    (58) Rest of U.S.--consisting of those portions of the United 
States and its territories and possessions as listed in 5 CFR 591.205 
not located within another locality pay area.

[FR Doc. 2023-13621 Filed 6-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-39-P