General Schedule Locality Pay Areas
| Published date | 15 October 2020 |
| Record Number | 2020-22320 |
| Section | Rules and Regulations |
| Court | Personnel Management Office |
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains regulatory documents having general
applicability and legal effect, most of which
are keyed to and codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations, which is published under
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents.
Rules and Regulations Federal Register
65187
Vol. 85, No. 200
Thursday, October 15, 2020
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT
5 CFR Part 531
RIN 3206–AO05
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 a new Des
Moines-Ames-West Des Moines, IA,
locality pay area and to include Imperial
County, CA, in the Los Angeles-Long
Beach, CA, locality pay area as an area
of application. Those changes in locality
pay area definitions are applicable on
the first day of the first pay period
beginning on or after January 1, 2021.
Locality pay rates for the new Des
Moines-Ames-West Des Moines, IA,
locality pay area will be set by the
President.
DATES
: The regulations are effective
November 16, 2020. The regulations are
applicable on the first day of the first
pay period beginning on or after January
1, 2021.
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 10, 2020, OPM published a
proposed rule in the Federal Register on
behalf of the Pay Agent. (See 85 FR
41439.) The proposed rule proposed
establishing a new Des Moines-Ames-
West Des Moines, IA, locality pay area
and including Imperial County, CA, in
the Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA,
locality pay area as an area of
application.
The proposed rule provided a 30-day
comment period. Accordingly, the Pay
Agent reviewed comments received
through August 10, 2020. After
considering those comments, the Pay
Agent has decided to implement the
locality pay area definitions in the
proposed rule.
Impact and Implementation
Establishing a new Des Moines-Ames-
West Des Moines, IA, locality pay area
will impact about 3,100 GS employees.
Locality pay rates now applicable in
that area 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 a new locality pay area
results in a somewhat smaller amount to
allocate for locality pay increases in
existing areas. Implementing higher
locality pay rates in the new Des
Moines-Ames-West Des Moines, IA,
locality pay area could thus result in
relatively lower pay increases for
employees in existing locality pay areas
than they would otherwise receive.
Including Imperial County, CA, in the
Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA, locality
pay area as an area of application will
impact about 1,860 GS employees.
Comments on the Proposed Rule
OPM received 28 comments on the
proposed rule. Most of those comments
supported the proposed changes in the
definitions of locality pay areas.
Some commenters who opposed the
creation of the Des Moines-Ames-West
Des Moines, IA, locality pay area
commented that 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.
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, and as explained
in the proposed rule the Des Moines-
Ames-West Des Moines, IA, locality pay
area is being established based on such
pay comparisons. While relative living
costs may indirectly affect non-Federal
pay levels, living costs are just one of
many factors that affect the supply of
and demand for labor, and therefore
labor costs, in a locality pay area.
Some commenters suggested that
Imperial County, CA, be established as
an area of application to the San Diego-
Carlsbad, CA, locality pay area rather
than the Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA,
locality pay area. One commenter
suggested that, in addition to
considering overall employment
interchange rates, the Pay Agent should
consider how much of the employment
interchange is between Imperial County
and outlying portions of the basic
locality pay area as opposed to its core.
As explained in the proposed rule, we
agree with the Federal Salary Council
that when a location is to be established
as an area of application and is adjacent
to two locality pay areas, the location
should be included in the locality pay
area with which it has the higher
employment interchange rate. Imperial
County has a greater rate of employment
interchange with the Los Angeles-Long
Beach, CA, basic locality pay area than
with the San Diego-Carlsbad, CA, basic
locality pay area. Individuals concerned
about the criteria by which locality pay
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:57 Oct 14, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15OCR1.SGM 15OCR1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
65188
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 200 / Thursday, October 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
areas are defined may provide testimony
to the Federal Salary Council.
Some commenters objected that
certain locations were to remain in the
‘‘Rest of U.S.’’ (RUS) locality pay area
under the proposed rule. Locations that
will remain in the RUS locality pay area
do not meet approved criteria for being
established as a new locality pay area or
an area of application. Some
commenters expressed concern about
possible recruitment and retention
difficulties the commenters believe
agencies may have in such locations.
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 http://www.opm.gov/policy-
data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-and-leave-
flexibilities-for-recruitment-and-
retention.
One commenter appeared to believe
that two counties in the Washington-
Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-
PA, Combined Statistical Area defined
in OMB Bulletin No. 18-03 would not be
included in the Washington-Baltimore-
Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA, locality
pay area, which is not the case. As
explained in the proposed rule, locality
pay areas consist of (1) the metropolitan
statistical area (MSA) or combined
statistical area (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.
One commenter appeared to believe
that a Des Moines-Ames-West Des
Moines, IA, locality pay area had
already been established prior to
publication of the proposed rule. That is
not the case.
One commenter suggested that each
GS employee’s total basic pay remain
the same but be redistributed to provide
more for the base GS pay rate and less
for the locality payment. Such a change
would require a change in law and is
outside the scope of these regulations.
Regulatory Impact Analysis
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). A regulatory impact analysis
must be prepared for major rules with
economically significant effects of $100
million or more in any 1 year. This rule
has been designated as a ‘‘not significant
regulatory action,’’ under Executive
Order 12866, and it is not
‘‘economically significant’’ as measured
by the $100 million threshold.
Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This rule is not an Executive Order
13771 regulatory action because this
rule is not subject to 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.
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
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 § 531.603, paragraph (b) is
revised to read as follows:
§ 531.603 Locality pay areas.
* * * * *
(b) The following are locality pay
areas for the purposes of this subpart:
(1) Alaska—consisting of the State of
Alaska;
(2) Albany-Schenectady, NY-MA—
consisting of the Albany-Schenectady,
NY CSA and also including Berkshire
County, MA;
(3) Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Las Vegas,
NM—consisting of the Albuquerque-
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:57 Oct 14, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15OCR1.SGM 15OCR1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
65189
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 200 / Thursday, October 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
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) Des Moines-Ames-West Des
Moines, IA—consisting of the Des
Moines-Ames-West Des Moines, IA
CSA;
(22) Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, MI—
consisting of the Detroit-Warren-Ann
Arbor, MI CSA;
(23) 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;
(24) 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;
(25) Hawaii—consisting of the State of
Hawaii;
(26) Houston-The Woodlands, TX—
consisting of the Houston-The
Woodlands, TX CSA and also including
San Jacinto County, TX;
(27) Huntsville-Decatur-Albertville,
AL—consisting of the Huntsville-
Decatur-Albertville, AL CSA;
(28) Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie,
IN—consisting of the Indianapolis-
Carmel-Muncie, IN CSA and also
including Grant County, IN;
(29) 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;
(30) Laredo, TX—consisting of the
Laredo, TX MSA;
(31) Las Vegas-Henderson, NV-AZ—
consisting of the Las Vegas-Henderson,
NV-AZ CSA;
(32) 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;
(33) Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Port St.
Lucie, FL—consisting of the Miami-Fort
Lauderdale-Port St. Lucie, FL CSA and
also including Monroe County, FL;
(34) Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha,
WI—consisting of the Milwaukee-
Racine-Waukesha, WI CSA;
(35) Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI—
consisting of the Minneapolis-St. Paul,
MN-WI CSA;
(36) 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;
(37) Omaha-Council Bluffs-Fremont,
NE-IA—consisting of the Omaha-
Council Bluffs-Fremont, NE-IA CSA;
(38) Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville,
FL—consisting of the Palm Bay-
Melbourne-Titusville, FL MSA;
(39) 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;
(40) Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ—
consisting of the Phoenix-Mesa-
Scottsdale, AZ MSA;
(41) Pittsburgh-New Castle-Weirton,
PA-OH-WV—consisting of the
Pittsburgh-New Castle-Weirton, PA-OH-
WV CSA;
(42) Portland-Vancouver-Salem, OR-
WA—consisting of the Portland-
Vancouver-Salem, OR-WA CSA;
(43) 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;
(44) Richmond, VA—consisting of the
Richmond, VA MSA and also including
Cumberland County, VA, King and
Queen County, VA, and Louisa County,
VA;
(45) Sacramento-Roseville, CA-NV—
consisting of the Sacramento-Roseville,
CA CSA and also including Carson City,
NV, and Douglas County, NV;
(46) San Antonio-New Braunfels-
Pearsall, TX—consisting of the San
Antonio-New Braunfels-Pearsall, TX
CSA;
(47) San Diego-Carlsbad, CA—
consisting of the San Diego-Carlsbad,
CA MSA;
(48) San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland,
CA—consisting of the San Jose-San
Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA and also
including Monterey County, CA;
(49) Seattle-Tacoma, WA—consisting
of the Seattle-Tacoma, WA CSA and
also including Whatcom County, WA;
(50) St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington,
MO-IL—consisting of the St. Louis-St.
Charles-Farmington, MO-IL CSA;
(51) Tucson-Nogales, AZ—consisting
of the Tucson-Nogales, AZ CSA and also
including Cochise County, AZ;
(52) Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC—
consisting of the Virginia Beach-
Norfolk, VA-NC CSA;
(53) 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
(54) 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. 2020–22320 Filed 10–14–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325–39–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:57 Oct 14, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\15OCR1.SGM 15OCR1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
