[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 133 (Friday, July 10, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41439-41442]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14255]
========================================================================
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. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 41439]]
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
5 CFR Part 531
RIN 3206-AO05
General Schedule Locality Pay Areas
AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On behalf of the President's Pay Agent, the Office of
Personnel Management is issuing proposed regulations to establish a new
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. 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, 2021, subject to issuance of final
regulations. Locality pay rates for the new Des Moines, IA, locality
pay area would be set by the President after the new locality pay area
would be established by regulation.
DATES: We must receive comments on or before August 10, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or
Regulatory Information Number (RIN) and title, by the following method:
Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://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 http://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) 606-2838.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 5304 of title 5, United States Code,
authorizes locality pay for General Schedule (GS) employees with duty
stations in the United States and its territories and possessions.
Section 5304(f) of title 5, United States Code, authorizes the
President's Pay Agent (the Secretary of Labor, the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Director of the Office
of Personnel Management (OPM)) to determine locality pay areas. The
boundaries of locality pay areas are based on appropriate factors,
which may include local labor market patterns, commuting patterns, and
the practices of other employers. The Pay Agent considers the views and
recommendations of the Federal Salary Council, a body composed of
experts in the fields of labor relations and pay policy and
representatives of Federal employee organizations. The President
appoints the members of the Council, which submits annual
recommendations to the Pay Agent about the administration of the
locality pay program, including the geographic boundaries of locality
pay areas. (The Federal Salary Council's recommendations are posted on
the OPM website athttps://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/general-schedule/#url=Federal-Salary-Council.) The
establishment or modification of pay area boundaries conforms to the
notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5
U.S.C. 553).
This proposal provides notice and requests comments on proposed
regulations to implement the Pay Agent's plan to establish a new 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. (Annual Pay Agent reports on locality pay are posted on
the OPM website athttps://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/general-schedule/#url=Pay-Agent-Reports.) As further
discussed below, those changes were tentatively approved, pending
appropriate rulemaking, in the December 19, 2019, report of the
President's Pay Agent.
Establishing a New Des Moines, IA, Locality Pay Area
Locality pay is set by comparing GS and non-Federal pay rates for
the same levels of work in each locality pay area. Non-Federal salary
survey data used to set locality pay rates are collected by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics (BLS). BLS uses a method that permits Occupational
Employment Statistics (OES) data to be used for locality pay. OES data
are available for metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) and combined
statistical areas (CSAs) throughout the Country and permit evaluation
of salary levels in many more locations than could be covered under the
prior National Compensation Survey alone.
The Federal Salary Council has been monitoring comparisons of GS
and non-Federal pay in the ``Rest of U.S.'' MSAs and CSAs with 2,500 or
more GS employees. Based on its review, the Federal Salary Council has
recommended new locality pay areas be established for MSAs and CSAs
with pay gaps averaging more than 10 percentage points above that for
the ``Rest of U.S.'' locality pay area over an extended period, has
identified the Des Moines-Ames-West Des Moines, IA CSA as such a
metropolitan area, and has recommended that the Pay Agent establish
that CSA as a new locality pay area. The President's Pay Agent has
agreed to issue proposed regulations that would make that change by
modifying 5 CFR 531.603(b) accordingly. Locality pay rates for the new
locality pay area would be set by the President at a later date after
it would be established by regulation.
Criteria for Areas of Application
Locality pay areas consist of (1) the MSA or CSA comprising the
basic locality pay area and, where criteria recommended by the Federal
Salary Council and approved by the Pay Agent are met, (2) areas of
application. Areas of application are locations that are adjacent to
the basic locality pay area and meet approved criteria for inclusion in
the locality pay area. Those criteria are explained below.
The Pay Agent's current criteria for evaluating locations adjacent
to a basic locality pay area for possible inclusion in the locality pay
area as areas of application are as follows: For adjacent CSAs and
adjacent multi-county MSAs the criteria are 1,500 or more GS
[[Page 41440]]
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.) No locations adjacent to the Des Moines-Ames-West
Des Moines, IA CSA meet these criteria.
The Pay Agent also has criteria for evaluating Federal facilities
that cross county lines into a separate locality pay area. To be
included in an adjacent locality pay area, the whole facility must have
at least 500 GS employees, with the majority of those employees in the
higher-paying locality pay area, or that portion of a Federal facility
outside of a higher-paying locality pay area must have at least 750 GS
employees, the duty stations of the majority of those employees must be
within 10 miles of the separate locality pay area, and a significant
number of those employees must commute to work from the higher-paying
locality pay area.
Imperial County, CA
In the Federal Salary Council meetings on April 10, 2018, and
November 13, 2018, the Council heard testimony regarding Imperial
County, CA, currently considered a ``Rest of U.S.'' location that is
adjacent to both the Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA, and San Diego-
Carlsbad, CA, basic locality pay areas and has approximately 1,860 GS
employees receiving a ``Rest of U.S.'' locality pay adjustment.
Imperial County is unusual in that it is adjacent to two current
locality pay areas and also shares a long border with Mexico.
The applicable criteria for Imperial County are those applied for
locations evaluated as single counties. To meet those criteria,
Imperial County would need 400 or more GS employees and an employment
interchange rate of 7.5 percent or more with the Los Angeles or San
Diego basic locality pay areas. With approximately 1,860 GS employees,
Imperial County meets the GS employment criterion, but it does not meet
the requisite employment interchange rate for either the Los Angeles
basic locality pay area (4.67 percent) or the San Diego basic locality
pay area (3.03 percent). However, while both of those employment
interchange rates are below 7.5 percent, the sum of the two employment
interchange rates is 7.70 percent. We agree with the Council that the
situation with respect to Imperial County is comparable to a single-
county location that would otherwise qualify as an area of application
by virtue of being adjacent to only one basic locality pay area with an
employment interchange rate of 7.5 percent or more. We also agree 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. Accordingly, we propose that Imperial County, CA, be
established as an area of application to the Los Angeles locality pay
area.
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 not designated as a ``significant regulatory
action,'' under Executive Order 12866, and it is not ``economically
significant'' as measured by the $100 million threshold. Establishing a
new locality pay area could have the long-term effect of increasing pay
for Federal employees in affected locations if the President
establishes higher locality pay percentages for the new locality pay
area, and establishing Imperial County, CA, as an area of application
will increase applicable locality pay rates for that county. In
addition, studies 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. Also, the increase in pay rates
resulting from the addition of Imperial County, CA, to the Los Angeles
locality pay area would affect a relatively small number of Federal
employees. Thus, the changes in locality pay areas under this final
rule are not expected to result in economic effects reaching the $100
million threshold.
Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs
This proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, is expected to impose
no more than de minimis costs and thus be neither an E.O. 13771
regulatory action nor an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action.
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
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.
[[Page 41441]]
Office of Personnel Management.
Alexys Stanley,
Regulatory Affairs Analyst.
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. 531.603, 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) 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;
[[Page 41442]]
(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. 2020-14255 Filed 7-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-39-P