Location Pay Update as of 01/02/2021
This is a link to OPM’s Locality Pay Table for 2021. Imperial County, CA has been added to Los Angeles-Long Beach.
Location Pay Update as of 12/24/2020
Recently, at the end of December 2020, two articles were posted from the “Government Executive” website that left Agents feeling like they would not be receiving an increase in their Locality Pay in 2021. This was inaccurate reporting and did not have complete information. Below you can find OPM’s federal register that was posted on this website on October 15, 2020 showing that Imperial County would be added to the Los Angeles County Locality Pay Area. The rule is final.
Location Pay Update as of 10/15/2020
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 Start Printed Page 65188areas 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.
Location Pay Update as of 7/14/2020
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/07/10/2020-14255/general-schedule-locality-pay-areas
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.
Location Pay Update as of 2/15/2020
Local 2554 has obtained location pay for Imperial County. Below you can keep up to date with where the process is at currently.
UPDATE:
The President’s Pay Agent has tentatively approved the Federal Salary Council’s recommendation to add Imperial County to the Los Angeles locality pay area, but that change requires a regulatory process.
The regulatory process requires publication of proposed regulations (in the Federal Register), a public comment period and publication of final regulations that take any comments received into consideration.
The Pay Agent determines the timing for the regulatory process to begin and will ask the Office of Personnel Management to draft proposed regulations at the time the Pay Agent decides is appropriate.
When the change is to be implemented, the Pay Agent will specify the effective date in the final regulations. The change would be prospective, not retroactive and to date effective dates for changes in locality pay area definitions have been the January after the regulatory process is complete.
In late December of 2019, The Presidents Pay Agent approved Imperial County to be established as an area of application to the Los Angeles locality pay area. The Presidents Pay Agent will direct OPM to start the regulatory process. Once OPM institutes a new rule, locality pay will be implemented.
Local 2554 is recommendation 4 in the proposal.
Minutes of the Federal Salary Council 4/10/2018 meeting
Imperial County, CA
Mr. Mike Matzke, President, AFGE National Border Patrol Council Local 2554, spoke on behalf of Federal employees in Imperial County, CA. Mr. Matzke’s testimony accompanied a detailed, written proposal to include that county in the Los Angeles locality pay area as an area of application. That written proposal is Council Document FSC 18-01-06.
Mr. Matzke began by thanking the Council for supporting Imperial County in the past and for its continued support. (Along with making other changes to criteria for areas of application, the previous Council recommended new criteria for single-county locations adjacent to multiple locality pay areas. See the Council’s December 2016 recommendations posted at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/general-schedule/federal-salary-council/recommendation16.pdf, specifically the section on pages 7-8 entitled “Evaluating Single-County Locations Adjacent to Multiple Locality Pay Areas.” Under those criteria, which were not approved by the Pay Agent, Imperial County would have qualified for inclusion in the Los Angeles locality pay area based on (1) the sum of its employment interchange rates with the Los Angeles and San Diego locality pay areas being greater than 7.5 percent and (2) having a higher employment interchange rate with the Los Angeles locality pay area than with the San Diego locality pay area.)
Mr. Matzke said Imperial County is the only county in southern California that does not receive locality pay above that for the “Rest of U.S.” He pointed out that the Pay Agent had tentatively agreed with the Federal Salary Council that San Luis Obispo County, CA, should receive Los Angeles locality pay because San Luis Obispo County is almost completely surrounded by higher paying locality pay areas. He said Imperial County is also essentially a completely surrounded county in California, but whereas San Luis Obispo has the Pacific Ocean to its west, “Imperial County has something worse to its east: a State with a lower cost of living. ” He added, “Because of that, the two largest Federal agencies in Imperial County are hemorrhaging agents and there is no end in sight. If you are a Federal employee in Imperial County, you can get a job in a higher locality pay area like San Diego or Los Angeles, or move to a lower cost of living county like Yuma or La Paz, Arizona. There is absolutely no reason to stay in Imperial County, CA, and it shows in our attrition rate.” Mr. Matzke noted that these disparities were occupation-specific, primarily involving Federal law enforcement positions; in so noting, he quipped that “where I work, you’re either a farmer or you’re law enforcement.”
Continuing, Mr. Matzke said, “If you also consider the high levels of pollution, unemployment, and heat in the summer time this exacerbates our problems. We are currently down 338 agents in the El Centro Sector and we are down 80 officers on the Customs side. Recently the Calexico Station offered a $12,500 bonus to fill 59 openings, but only 12 were filled. El Centro Sector currently has one station in Riverside County, and that station has roughly half the attrition rate as the stations in Imperial County. While we don’t believe that by making us part of the Los Angeles locality pay area this Council will solve all our problems, we are asking to be added to the Los Angeles locality pay area in the hopes that it will cut our future attrition rates in half and encourage more Federal employees to stay in Imperial County. Thank you for your time and commitment to the pay equity of Federal employees.”
Chairman Sanders thanked Mr. Matzke and said he would take a closer look back at the previous Council’s recommendation regarding single-county locations adjacent to multiple locality pay areas and that he was interested in understanding the idea of summing employment interchange rates.
Mr. Cox commented, “I think we have made recommendations along those lines in the past but have not been successful with the President’s Pay Agent in that regard. But staffing is difficult in the area.”
Mr. Matzke said the key takeaway is that Imperial County is losing personnel to areas that have higher locality pay or lower living costs. He thanked the Council again for hearing his testimony.
Hearing no further comments regarding the testimony on Imperial County, Chairman Sanders invited the next speaker to begin.