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

78631 

Vol. 88, No. 220 

Thursday, November 16, 2023 

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: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel 

Management is issuing final regulations 

on behalf of the President’s Pay Agent 

to change the geographic boundaries of 

General Schedule locality pay areas. 

The changes in locality pay area 

definitions under these final regulations 

will be applicable on the first day of the 

first applicable pay period beginning on 

or after January 1, 2024. The locations 

that will be included in a locality pay 

area separate from the Rest of U.S. 

locality pay area under these final 

regulations 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: The regulations are effective on 

December 18, 2023. The regulations are 

applicable for pay purposes on the first 

day of the first applicable pay period 

beginning on or after January 1, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe 

Ratcliffe by email at pay-leave-policy@

opm.gov or by telephone at (202) 606– 

2858. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Summary of Final Rule 

The changes these final regulations 

make 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, respectively) 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. 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 these 

final regulations. 

The four new locality pay areas 

established by the final regulations are 

Fresno-Madera-Hanford, CA; RenoFernley, NV; Rochester-Batavia-Seneca 

Falls, NY; and Spokane-Spokane ValleyCoeur d’Alene, WA-ID. Locality pay 

rates for these four areas will be set by 

the President. 

Background 

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. 

Paragraph (f) of 5 U.S.C. 5304 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 (‘‘the 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 Council’s recommendations 

are posted on the OPM website at 

https://www.opm.gov/policy-dataoversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/ 

general-schedule/#url=Federal-SalaryCouncil.) 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). 

On June 28, 2023, OPM published a 

proposed rule in the Federal Register on 

behalf of the Pay Agent to propose the 

changes summarized above. (See 88 FR 

41855.) The proposed rule provided a 

30-day comment period. Accordingly, 

the Pay Agent reviewed comments 

received through July 28, 2023. After 

considering those comments, the Pay 

Agent has decided to implement the 

locality pay area definitions identified 

in the proposed rule, except that the 

Washington State Counties of Clallam 

and Jefferson are added as areas of 

application to the Seattle-Tacoma, WA, 

locality pay area. 

Comments on the Proposed Rule 

OPM received 405 comments on the 

proposed rule. Most commenters 

supported the proposed changes in the 

geographic definitions of locality pay 

areas. 

A number of comments reflected 

misunderstanding of the proposed rule’s 

geographic definitions of locality pay 

areas, with some comments indicating a 

mistaken belief that certain counties 

actually included in a proposed locality 

pay area were excluded and that a 

correction would therefore be needed 

prior to publication of a final rule. As 

explained in the proposed rule, locality 

pay areas consist of (1) the MSA or CSA 

comprising the basic locality pay area 

and, where criteria recommended by the 

Council and approved by the Pay Agent 

are met, (2) areas of application. These 

comments all expressed concern about 

locations which, while not listed as 

individual counties in paragraph (b) of 

§ 531.603, were all included in the MSA 

or CSA listed for the locality pay area 

and therefore did not need to be listed 

as individual counties. OPM plans to 

post the definitions of locality pay areas 

at the county level on its website after 

these final regulations are issued. 

Many commenters expressed the 

belief that various indicators of living 

costs are or should be considered in 

defining locality pay areas or in setting 

locality pay rates. Under 5 U.S.C. 5304, 

locality pay rates are based on 

comparisons of GS pay and non-Federal 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
78632 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

pay at the same work levels in a locality 

pay area rather than on any 

consideration of local living costs. 

Relative living costs may indirectly 

affect non-Federal pay levels, but 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. A comparison of living 

costs between geographic areas is not 

permitted under the locality pay law, 

but even if it were, it would not be a 

reliable indicator of local labor costs. 

Many commenters proposed that a 

change in locality pay designation be 

made for locations that have not met the 

standard criteria for such designation 

that the proposed rule explained. As 

noted in the Pay Agent’s December 2022 

annual report (available at https://

www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/ 

pay-leave/pay-systems/generalschedule/pay-agent-reports/

2021report.pdf), the P ay Agent agrees 

with the Council that locality pay areas 

should continue to be defined by 

consistently applying standard criteria 

to all locations throughout the country. 

However, the Pay Agent also agrees with 

the Council that stakeholder input 

regarding the criteria used to define and 

establish locality pay areas can be 

helpful to the Council as it continues to 

consider what criteria are best to apply 

consistently for all locations throughout 

the country for purposes of establishing 

locality pay area boundaries. 

Stakeholders concerned about the 

criteria used in the locality pay program 

may submit input to the Council. 

In some cases, commenters arguing 

for exceptions to the use of standard 

criteria cited possible recruitment and 

retention difficulties they said they 

believed agencies would have in certain 

locations that would remain in the Rest 

of U.S. locality pay area when these 

final regulations are put into effect. The 

Pay Agent has no evidence that the 

changes these final regulations will 

make in locality pay area definitions 

will create recruitment and retention 

challenges for Federal employers, and it 

has been the case since the very first 

locality pay areas were established for 

January 1994 that many counties with 

Federal employees are in the Rest of 

U.S. locality pay area while being 

adjacent to a separate locality pay area. 

However, should recruitment and 

retention challenges exist in a location, 

Federal agencies have considerable 

administrative authority to address 

those challenges through the use of 

current pay flexibilities. Information on 

these flexibilities is posted on the OPM 

website at https://www.opm.gov/policydata-oversight/pay-leave/pay-and-leaveflexibilities-for-recruitment-andretention/. 

A number of commenters expressed 

concern that various rural locations 

have not been established as separate 

locality pay areas. In some cases, 

comments expressing such concerns 

reflected a mistaken belief that such 

locations have not been established as 

separate locality pay areas based solely 

on the relatively small numbers of GS 

employees they often have. The 

proposed rule does mention that when 

the Council began using the current 

salary survey methodology in 2012, 

selection of Rest of U.S. research areas 

was limited to MSAs and CSAs having 

2,500 or more GS employees. However, 

the proposed rule also explains that the 

Council has begun requesting that the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) deliver 

non-Federal salary estimates for areas 

that had fewer than 2,500 GS 

employees, that so far BLS resources 

have allowed for delivery of NCS/OEWS 

estimates for 10 such statistical areas, 

and that those 10 areas had the highest 

levels of GS employment among areas 

not previously established as Rest of 

U.S. research areas. Also, the Council 

has indicated that it plans to continue 

its work with BLS to establish more Rest 

of U.S. research areas where feasible in 

MSAs and CSAs with fewer than 2,500 

GS employees. Thus, the proposed rule 

does not imply that locations are 

excluded from consideration based on 

their GS employment alone. Rather, 

rural locations that have not been 

recommended for a change in their 

locality pay area designation do not 

meet the criteria that the proposed rule 

explained. 

Regarding the criteria by which four 

new locality pay areas will be 

established under these final 

regulations, some commenters 

expressed concern regarding the BLS 

conclusion that it is not feasible for the 

BLS salary survey methodology to 

produce reliable salary estimates for 

micropolitan statistical areas or rural 

counties. One commenter characterized 

that conclusion as unacceptable and 

opined that all locations throughout the 

country should have pay disparities 

calculated regardless of that BLS 

conclusion. In response to these 

concerns, the Pay Agent notes that a pay 

disparity calculated for purposes of 

locality pay must have sufficient 

occupational and work level coverage 

for non-Federal positions that are 

comparable to GS positions in the same 

locality pay area, and micropolitan 

statistical areas and rural counties do 

not have enough non-Federal salary data 

to calculate reliable pay disparities in 

the same way as with MSAs and CSAs 

because of the relatively small 

populations and labor markets typical of 

such locations. 

Some commenters disagreed it is 

appropriate to use March 2020 OMBdefined metropolitan areas to define 

locality pay areas as proposed. Some of 

those commenters made living-cost 

comparisons between Rest of U.S. 

locations and portions of March 2020 

OMB metropolitan areas that comprise 

basic locality pay areas. Other 

commenters suggested that locality pay 

area boundaries should be defined 

based not on March 2020 OMB-defined 

metropolitan areas but rather on the 

boundaries of sets of duty stations 

comprising entire states, national parks, 

the regional definitions agencies may 

use for their workforces, or other data or 

information the commenters regarded as 

relevant with respect to locations of 

concern to them. Under the final 

regulations, the boundaries of locality 

pay areas will reflect the use of OMBdefined metropolitan areas described in 

the proposed rule. 

Prior to implementation of locality 

pay, the Council recommended, and the 

Pay Agent approved, the use of OMBdefined metropolitan areas as the basis 

for locality pay area boundaries, and 

OMB-defined metropolitan areas have 

been the basis for locality pay area 

boundaries since locality pay was 

implemented in 1994. (A detailed 

history of the use of OMB-defined 

metropolitan areas in the locality pay 

program can be found in the Council’s 

January 2014 recommendations 

available at https://www.opm.gov/ 

policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/paysystems/general-schedule/federalsalary-council/recommendation13.pdf.) 

The Pay Agent continues to believe it is 

appropriate to use OMB-defined 

metropolitan areas as the basis for 

locality pay area boundaries and has no 

evidence that it is appropriate to split an 

OMB-defined metropolitan area into 

separate locality pay areas. Since OMBdefined metropolitan areas will 

continue to serve as the basis for locality 

pay area boundaries, the Pay Agent 

believes it makes sense to update the 

metropolitan areas used in the locality 

pay program to the March 2020 OMBdefined metropolitan areas, since the 

definitions of those metropolitan areas 

reflect more recent information on 

population distribution and commuting 

patterns. (Regarding the definitions of 

metropolitan areas in OMB Bulletin No. 

23–01, which was issued on July 21, 

2023, the Council can consider whether 

to recommend their use for purposes of 

defining locality pay areas for 2025.) 

Departing from the practice of defining 

basic locality pay areas based on OMBVerDate Sep<11>2014 15:57 Nov 15, 2023 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM 16NOR1

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 78633 

defined metropolitan areas as in the 

proposed rule would be a significant 

change, and the implications would 

have to be carefully considered. 

Individuals interested in recommending 

alternatives for defining locality pay 

areas using standard criteria nationwide 

may provide input to the Council. 

Some commenters suggested that all 

portions of California should be covered 

by a higher locality pay percentage than 

for the Rest of U.S. locality pay area, 

with one commenter noting that the 

entire states of Alaska and Hawaii each 

comprise a single locality pay area and 

suggesting the same thing could be done 

for the state of California. These final 

regulations will provide the same 

locality pay area designations within 

California as the proposed rule 

proposed. The establishment of Alaska 

and Hawaii as locality pay areas was 

part of the Nonforeign Areas Retirement 

Equity Assurance Act of 2009 

(NAREAA) (as contained in subtitle B of 

title XIX of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 

(Pub. L. 111–84, October 28, 2009), 

which does not cover locations in 

California or other portions of the 

contiguous United States. As explained 

more fully in 76 FR 32859, the Pay 

Agent established the states of Alaska 

and Hawaii as locality pay areas 

effective July 7, 2011. That change was 

consistent with the sense of the 

Congress statement in NAREAA that the 

two states each would be covered by a 

single separate locality pay area. 

Some comments were outside of the 

scope of these regulations. For example, 

some commenters suggested specific 

pay levels they claimed should be 

implemented for one or more locality 

pay areas. Other commenters expressed 

concern that employees covered by 

certain Federal pay systems outside of 

the General Schedule, such as the 

Federal Wage System, would not benefit 

from the changes planned for the 

geographic definitions of GS locality 

pay areas. Some commenters offered 

views on changes they think should be 

made to the General Schedule that 

would require changes in law, such as 

eliminating the statutory pay limitation 

that limits locality pay rates to the rate 

for level IV of the Executive Schedule (5 

U.S.C. 5304 (g)(1)). 

The purpose of these regulations is to 

define the boundaries of locality pay 

areas established for the General 

Schedule pay system and other pay 

systems that receive locality pay under 

5 U.S.C. 5304, not to determine locality 

pay percentages, adjust location 

coverage for pay systems that do not 

receive locality pay under 5 U.S.C. 

5304, or consider ideas for reforms to 

the General Schedule that would require 

changes in law. 

One commenter suggested the final 

regulations include Clallam and 

Jefferson Counties, WA, in the Seattle 

locality pay area as areas of application 

(https://www.regulations.gov/comment/ 

OPM-2023-0009-0226). The Council 

recommended in its February 4, 2023 

report (https://www.opm.gov/policydata-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/ 

general-schedule/federal-salary-council/

recommendation22.pdf) that the 

Washington State Counties of Clallam 

and Jefferson be included in the SeattleTacoma, WA, locality pay area as areas 

of application. Because the Pay Agent 

was still considering the Council’s 

recommendation regarding Clallam and 

Jefferson Counties for locality pay in 

January 2024 when OPM published the 

proposed rule, these counties were not 

included as proposed areas of 

application. 

The commenter recommended the 

two counties be included in the Seattle 

locality pay area because the Council 

recommended in its February 4, 2023, 

annual report that the Pay Agent do so. 

In addition, review of the report of the 

Council Working Group read into the 

record at the Council’s public meeting 

held on October 28, 2022, has provided 

additional context for the Council’s 

February 2023 recommendation and 

provides further justification to support 

the commenter’s recommendation. With 

respect to isolation as a Rest of U.S. 

location, Jefferson County is analogous 

to an island location such as San Juan 

County, WA, which the proposed rule 

and final regulations both include in the 

Seattle locality pay area as an area of 

application. Jefferson County is located 

on the Olympic Peninsula within 

western Washington State and is 

divided by the Olympic Mountains into 

an eastern portion and a western portion 

with no access by road between those 

two portions without crossing into 

either Clallam County, WA, or Grays 

Harbor County, WA. The western 

portion is bordered by the Pacific Ocean 

coastline, and the eastern portion is 

bordered by the marine waters of the 

Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Puget 

Sound. Jefferson County’s small GS 

workforce consists mostly of 

Department of Navy positions located at 

Naval Magazine Indian Island, across 

the Puget Sound from Seattle. 

With Jefferson County included in the 

Seattle locality pay area, Clallam 

County, WA, would be completely 

bordered by water and a higher-paying 

locality pay area, so the Council 

recommended also including Clallam 

County in the Seattle locality pay area 

as an area of application. 

Based on the Pay Agent’s review of 

the Council’s analysis of those two 

counties for locality pay in January 

2024, the Pay Agent agrees with the 

Council’s reasoning on those two 

counties. Accordingly, the Pay Agent 

agrees with the commenter and finds it 

prudent not to delay treating the 

counties the same as other similarly 

situated locations. Jefferson County and 

Clallam County, WA, are therefore being 

included in the Seattle, WA locality pay 

area in this final rule. 

One commenter suggested that all GS 

employees should receive the same 

locality pay rates regardless of location 

after adjusting all GS pay rates 

nationwide so that they equal the GS 

pay rates now applicable in the San 

Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA, 

locality pay area, which currently has 

the highest locality pay percentage. 

Such an approach would not be 

permissible under current law. The 

ultimate goal of locality pay is to reduce 

pay disparities to the same extent in 

each locality pay area (5 U.S.C. 5304). 

Therefore, it is appropriate that locality 

rates differ between locations. 

Expected Impact of This Rule 

This rule establishes four new locality 

pay areas based on updated pay 

disparity data and adds many locations 

to existing locality pay areas as a result 

of using the revised criteria the Pay 

Agent has approved for areas of 

application. Wage rates for employees 

who receive GS locality pay will 

increase in these areas relative to the 

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, the larger annual increases 

locations will receive as a result of being 

redesignated to a higher-paying locality 

pay area will be offset by the annual 

increases elsewhere being smaller than 

they would absent such redesignation. 

These changes will result in geographic 

differences in Federal salaries better 

reflecting the overall geographic 

differences in salary in line with 

statutory goals. In the proposed rule, 

OPM noted that this could affect Federal 

recruitment and retention across the 

U.S. and requested comments on this 

issue. However, OPM received no 

comments on the proposed rule 

establishing that recruitment and 

retention will be negatively impacted as 

a result of implementing these final 

regulations. 

OPM expects that this rule will most 

directly impact approximately 33,300 

GS employees. Modifying existing 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
78634 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

locality pay areas will affect 

approximately 17,100 GS employees, 

and establishing the four new locality 

pay areas will affect approximately 

16,200 GS employees. As discussed 

above, other Federal employees who 

receive GS locality pay will be 

indirectly impacted at the time of an 

annual pay adjustment. Due to the scope 

of this rule, OPM does not anticipate 

that it will substantially impact local 

economies or have a large ripple effect 

in local labor markets. 

OPM is highly interested in any 

impacts of locality pay adjustments 

resulting from this rulemaking and will 

continue to study the implications of 

such impacts as needed. 

Regulatory Review 

Executive Orders 13563, 12866, and 

14094 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 the provisions 

of Executive Order 14094 and, therefore, 

was not reviewed by OMB. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Director of OPM certifies that this 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities because this 

rule will affect only Federal agencies 

and employees. 

Federalism 

OPM examined this rule in 

accordance with Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, and determined that it will 

not have any negative impact on the 

rights, roles and responsibilities of 

State, local, or tribal governments. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets the applicable 

standard set forth in Executive Order 

12988. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform 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 

Subtitle E of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (known as the Congressional 

Review Act or CRA) (5 U.S.C. 801 et 

seq.) requires most final rules to be 

submitted to Congress before taking 

effect. OPM will submit to Congress and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States a report regarding the issuance of 

this rule before its effective date. The 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs in the Office of Management and 

Budget has determined that this rule is 

not a major rule as defined by the CRA 

(5 U.S.C. 804). 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not impose or affect 

any 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 amends 5 CFR part 

531 as follows: 

PART 531—PAY UNDER THE 

GENERAL SCHEDULE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 531 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5115, 5307, and 5338; 

sec. 4 of Public Law 103–89, 107 Stat. 981; 

and E.O. 12748, 56 FR 4521, 3 CFR, 1991 

Comp., p. 316; Subpart B also issued under 

5 U.S.C. 5303(g), 5305, 5333, 5334(a) and (b), 

and 7701(b)(2); Subpart D also issued under 

5 U.S.C. 5335 and 7701(b)(2); Subpart E also 

issued under 5 U.S.C. 5336; Subpart F also 

issued under 5 U.S.C. 5304, 5305, and 

5941(a); E.O. 12883, 58 FR 63281, 3 CFR, 

1993 Comp., p. 682; and E.O. 13106, 63 FR 

68151, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 224. 

Subpart F—Locality-Based 

Comparability Payments 

■ 2. In § 531.602, the definitions of CSA 

and MSA are revised to read as follows: 

§ 531.602 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

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. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. 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, Greene County, NY, and 

Hamilton County, NY; 

(3) Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Las Vegas, 

NM—consisting of the AlbuquerqueSanta 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 BirminghamHoover-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, MARI-NH-CT CSA and also including 

Androscoggin County, ME, Cumberland 

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-CheektowagaOlean, NY CSA and also including 

Allegany County, NY, and Wyoming 

County, NY; 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 78635 

(9) Burlington-South BurlingtonBarre, VT—consisting of the BurlingtonSouth Burlington-Barre, VT CSA and 

also including Addison County, VT, and 

Lamoille County, VT; 

(10) Charlotte-Concord, NC-SC— 

consisting of the Charlotte-Concord, NCSC 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, ILIN-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-WilmingtonMaysville, OH-KY-IN—consisting of the 

Cincinnati-Wilmington-Maysville, OHKY-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, OHPA—consisting of the Cleveland-AkronCanton, 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 ColumbusMarion-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 ChristiKingsville-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, TXOK 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, IAIL 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 DaytonSpringfield-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-MaderaHanford, CA CSA and also including 

Mariposa County, CA, and Tulare 

County, CA; 

(24) Harrisburg-Lebanon, PA— 

consisting of the Harrisburg-YorkLebanon, 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 IndianapolisCarmel-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 ParkKansas 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 MilwaukeeRacine-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-CTPA—consisting of the New YorkNewark, 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 OmahaCouncil Bluffs-Fremont, NE-IA CSA and 

also including Fremont County, IA, 

Shelby County, IA, and Burt County, 

NE; 

(39) Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, 

FL—consisting of the Palm BayMelbourne-Titusville, FL MSA; 

(40) Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, 

PA-NJ-DE-MD—consisting of the 

Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJDE-MD CSA, except for Joint Base 

McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, and also 

including Sussex County, DE, Somerset 

County, MD, Wicomico County, MD, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
78636 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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-OHWV 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, ORWA—consisting of the PortlandVancouver-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 RochesterBatavia-Seneca Falls, NY CSA; 

(48) Sacramento-Roseville, CA-— 

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 BraunfelsPearsall, 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 Clallam County, WA, 

Grays Harbor County, WA, Jefferson 

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 BeachNorfolk, 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, DCMD-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. 2023–25153 Filed 11–15–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–39–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 73 

[Docket No. FAA–2023–2220; Airspace 

Docket No. 23–AWP–59] 

RIN 2120–AA66 

Amendment of Restricted Area R–2512 

Holtville, CA 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action amends the using 

agency listed for restricted area R–2512 

Holtville, CA from ‘‘U.S. Navy, Fleet 

Area Control and Surveillance Facility, 

San Diego, CA’’ to ‘‘U.S. Marine Corps, 

Commanding Officer, Marine Corps Air 

Station Yuma, Yuma, AZ.’’ This action 

does not change any boundaries, 

altitudes, times of designation, or 

activities conducted within the 

restricted areas. 

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, January 

25, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven Roff, Rules and Regulations 

Group, Office of Policy, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267–8783. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the scope of the 

agency’s authority. This rulemaking is 

promulgated under the authority 

described in Subtitle VII, Part A, 

Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that 

section, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations to assign the use 

of the airspace necessary to ensure the 

safety of aircraft and the efficient use of 

airspace. This regulation is within the 

scope of that authority as it updates the 

using agency listed for restricted areas 

R–2512 Holtville, CA. 

Background 

The United States (U.S.) Navy 

Director, Air Warfare requested that the 

FAA amend the description of restricted 

area R–2512 Holtville, CA by changing 

the using agency listed for each from 

‘‘U.S. Navy, Fleet Area Control and 

Surveillance Facility, San Diego, CA’’ to 

‘‘U.S. Marine Corps, Commanding 

Officer, Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, 

Yuma, AZ.’’ The request is the result of 

the Department of the Navy determining 

it to be in the best interest of airspace 

and aircraft operations management. 

The U.S. Navy and U. S. Marine Corps 

support the using agency change. 

The Rule 

This action amends 14 CFR part 73 by 

changing the using agency name listed 

for restricted area R–2512 Holtville, CA, 

from ‘‘U.S. Navy, Fleet Area Control and 

Surveillance Facility, San Diego, CA’’ to 

‘‘U.S. Marine Corps, Commanding 

Officer, Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, 

Yuma, AZ.’’ This action is necessary in 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1