[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 21, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7428-7462]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00555]
[[Page 7427]]
Vol. 90
Tuesday,
No. 12
January 21, 2025
Part III
Office of Personnel Management
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 CFR Part 532
Prevailing Rate Systems; Change in Criteria for Defining Appropriated
Fund Federal Wage System Wage Areas; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 90 , No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 7428]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
5 CFR Part 532
[Docket ID: OPM-2024-0016]
RIN 3206-AO69
Prevailing Rate Systems; Change in Criteria for Defining
Appropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage Areas
AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a final
rule to change the regulatory criteria used to define Federal Wage
System (FWS) wage area boundaries and make changes in certain wage
areas. The purpose of this change, which will affect around ten percent
of the FWS workforce, is to make the FWS wage area criteria more
similar to the General Schedule (GS) locality pay area criteria. This
change is based on a December 2023 majority recommendation of the
Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee (FPRAC), the statutory
national-level labor-management committee that advises OPM on the
administration of the FWS.
DATES:
Effective date: This rule is effective October 1, 2025.
Applicability date: Changes to wage schedules resulting from the
revised wage areas of application in appendix C to subpart B of 5 CFR
part 532 apply on the first day of the first applicable pay period
beginning on or after October 1, 2025. Changes to wage survey areas
apply at various times beginning on or after October 1, 2025, based on
the annual schedule of wage surveys, as listed in appendix A to subpart
B of 5 CFR part 532, and with the timing of survey area expansions for
affected wage areas as noted in the wage area listings in appendix C to
subpart B of 5 CFR part 532.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ana Paunoiu, by telephone at (202)
606-2858 or by email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Overview
There are two major job classification and pay systems in use by
the Federal Government: the GS and the FWS. The GS covers around 1.5
million employees, and the FWS covers around 200,000 employees with
around 170,000 in the appropriated fund system. On October 11, 2024,
OPM issued a proposed rule (89 FR 82874) to change the regulatory
criteria used to define FWS wage area boundaries for the appropriated
fund system and make changes in certain wage areas. Specifically, OPM
proposed to amend 5 CFR 532.211 to make the criteria OPM uses to define
the geographic boundaries of FWS wage areas more similar to the GS
locality pay area criteria and to define revised wage area boundaries
in accordance with those revised criteria.
The 60-day comment period ended on December 10, 2024. OPM received
585 comments from Members of Congress, labor organizations, several
hundred Federal employees, and one agency. Public comments, with one
exception, strongly supported changing the regulatory criteria in 5 CFR
532.211. After consideration of public comments about the proposed
rule, OPM is issuing a final rule that amends the regulatory criteria
in 5 CFR 532.211, pursuant to its authority to issue regulations
governing the FWS in 5 U.S.C. chapter 53, subchapter IV. In general,
this final rule implements changes to certain wage areas, as identified
in the proposed rule. This final rule also reflects a few corrections,
which are described in detail after the discussion of comments, and it
makes nonsubstantive changes to the authority citations for part 532 by
amending the existing authority citations to comply with 1 CFR part 21,
subpart B.
Background
During the period GS locality pay was being introduced in the early
1990s, FPRAC \1\ examined the differences in criteria between the GS
and FWS, and by consensus, recommended that OPM not change the FWS
criteria just for the sake of changing the criteria to make the systems
look more similar. Locality pay for GS employees was a new and unproven
concept at that time. Since then, however, the differences in
geographic pay area boundaries for the GS and FWS have increasingly
raised concerns among employees, their unions, local management
officials, and consequently Members of Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee is composed
of a Chair, five representatives from labor unions holding exclusive
bargaining rights for Federal prevailing rate employees, and five
representatives from Federal agencies. Entitlement to membership on
the Committee is provided for in 5 U.S.C. 5347. The Committee's
primary responsibility is to review the Prevailing Rate System and
other matters pertinent to establishing prevailing rates under
subchapter IV, chapter 53, 5 U.S.C., as amended, and from time to
time advise the Director of OPM on the Governmentwide administration
of the pay system for blue-collar Federal employees. Transcripts of
FPRAC meetings can be found under the Federal Wage System section of
OPM's website (https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/federal-wage-system/#url=FPRAC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in the proposed rule, since around 2006 the labor and
employing agency representative members of FPRAC have discussed the
possibility of making FWS wage areas more similar to GS locality pay
areas, but there was not a consensus for change. The labor organization
members expressed views that the difference in geographic treatment
between the FWS and GS systems is inequitable. The management members
expressed views that the differences best meet the intent of the
relevant laws that established the two systems.
In House Report 117-79 \2\ accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022, Congress encouraged OPM
``to explore limiting the number of local wage areas defined within a
GS Pay Locality to a single wage area.'' Given the magnitude of the
potential change in policy, FPRAC established a labor-management
working group to study various issues concerning the FWS, including
options on how to make the geographic wage area boundaries of FWS and
GS pay areas more similar. At its 649th meeting, on December 21, 2023,
based on working group discussions, FPRAC recommended by a 9 to 1
majority vote that OPM revise the regulatory criteria for defining wage
areas so that wage area criteria approved by the Director of OPM will
be more similar to GS locality pay area criteria approved by the
President's Pay Agent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ House Report 117-79 can be found at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-117hrpt79/pdf/CRPT-117hrpt79.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPM examined FPRAC's arguments and concluded that the amendments to
5 CFR 532.211 constitute an improvement to the FWS. OPM determined that
the changes to the regulatory criteria used to define and maintain FWS
wage areas will address the lack of equity that arises when FWS workers
within a given GS locality pay area are paid from two, three, or more
different wage schedules, while the GS employees who work alongside
them are all paid from the same salary schedule. Implementation of the
amendments to 5 CFR 532.211 will resolve equitably several of the
thorniest issues on FPRAC's agenda related to specific geographic
areas, such as the Tobyhanna Army Depot and other long-standing areas
of interest, such as folding in the Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island, FWS
wage area with the Boston wage area, redefining Monterey County,
California, to the San Francisco, CA, wage area, and redefining Shawnee
[[Page 7429]]
County, Kansas to the Kansas City, Missouri, wage area.
Comments Received on the Proposed Rule
Implementation Timeline
OPM invited comments on the implementation timeline and requested
input regarding any alternative implementation plans. OPM received over
100 comments regarding the implementation timeline from employees, many
of whom requested that the final rule be implemented ``as soon as
possible.'' See, e.g., Comments 008, 174, and 492.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A reference at the end of a comment summary provides the
location of the item in the public record. (i.e., the three-digit
number associated with the location in the docket). Comments filed
in response to the proposed rule are available at OPM-2024-0016-
0nnn, where ``nnn'' is the comment number. Note that the number must
be three digits, so insert preceding zeroes as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, several commenters questioned the effective date of
the proposed change recommending retroactive applicability. See, e.g.,
Comments 176, 187, 224, 227, and 414. OPM defines wage areas through
regulations in 5 CFR part 532. Changes in OPM's FWS regulations are
prospective, not retroactive. OPM lacks authority to implement this
change on a retroactive basis.
As OPM discussed in the proposed rule, many of the operational
aspects of this rule could be achieved relatively quickly following
publication of the final rule; however, one potential approach that OPM
highlighted was to delay the effective date of the final rule to
address budgetary constraints. OPM noted that, although the overall
budgetary impact of the rule is relatively small, the impact at the
local level could be considerable, making it difficult for local units
to manage sudden, unexpected increases in payroll. Given that this
final rule is publishing in the middle of FY 2025 and while agencies
are operating under a continuing resolution, OPM has concluded that
imposing the unplanned-for payroll costs 30 days after publication, in
the middle of the fiscal year, would place undue burdens and
potentially unmanageable costs on multiple agencies. OPM recognizes
that the delayed implementation date has real impacts on individual
employees, but this rule will result in long-term structural changes
that will increase equity between FWS and GS employees within defined
geographic areas. OPM expects that, by delaying the effective date
until the beginning of the next FY, agencies will be able to better
plan for and manage increased payroll expenses, leading to a more
effective implementation of this change. OPM recognizes that a longer
lead time (e.g., FY 2027) would further ease the transition for
agencies; however, OPM believes that organizational interests need to
be balanced with the impact that further delays may have on employees.
Accordingly, balancing the governmental interests and the interests of
employees, this final rule will be effective on October 1, 2025, the
first day of FY 2026. Changes in pay based on the updated wage area
boundaries will be effective the first day of the first pay period
following October 1, 2025.
Several commenters mentioned that the affected counties will be
moved to the new wage areas after the new full-scale surveys. See,
e.g., Comments 93, 236, 238, and 287. We note that only changes to the
survey areas will be staggered across FYs 2026 to 2028 as reflected in
the amended survey schedule in appendix A to subpart B of 5 CFR part
532 and appendix C to subpart B of part 532. These schedule changes
will allow the Department of Defense (DOD) sufficient time to plan for
conducting full-scale wage surveys in survey areas that will expand
significantly, in some cases doubling, in geographic size. As described
in the proposed rule, a survey area county that is removed from a
current wage area that is being eliminated and defined to a different
wage area that is being continued but revised in this rule would
initially be added to the area of application of the gaining wage area
rather than being defined directly to the survey area. The county would
subsequently be incorporated into the relevant wage area's survey area
based on the timing of full-scale local wage surveys. For example,
Calhoun County, AL, is currently part of the Anniston-Gadsden, AL,
survey area. Under this rule, Calhoun County will be moved to the
Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, AL, area of application, effective the
first day of the first pay period following October 1, 2025, until
January 2028. Calhoun County will subsequently be moved from the
Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, AL, area of application to the
Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, AL, survey area, effective for wage
surveys beginning in January 2028, coinciding with the survey cycle for
this wage area.
Under this final rule, there will be an initial implementation
resulting in wage rate increases for most affected employees. Once
surveys have been conducted in the expanded survey areas, wage
schedules will be adjusted. However, OPM anticipates that the long-
standing pay cap and floor increase provisions will control subsequent
wage schedule adjustments. (See 89 FR 82875 for discussion of the pay
cap and floor increase provisions.)
Impact on Local Businesses
OPM requested public comments from local businesses on the
implementation and impacts of moving the small number of FWS employees
who would be affected by the proposed rule to different wage schedules
and the likelihood that the changes would affect those businesses. We
only received one comment--from a Federal employee who also owns a
plumbing business--stating that ``the private sector pays so much more
than the government would ever be willing to'' and that he would not be
able to hire anyone if his business paid rates as low as the FWS.
Comment 343. As explained in the proposed rule and further detailed in
this final rule, over the years, the FWS goal of setting pay in line
with prevailing private sector rates has been diminished by
appropriations legislation provisions that have capped FWS wage
schedule adjustments regardless of local market conditions. On January
27, 2022, OPM approved DOD requests to establish special rates \4\ to
establish a minimum pay rate of $15 per hour for Appropriated Fund and
Nonappropriated Fund FWS employees, in accordance with Compensation
Policy Memorandum (CPM) 2022-02, ``Achieving a $15 Per Hour Minimum Pay
Rate for Federal Employees.'' \5\ This policy helped address the gap
between FWS and private sector wage levels overall, but pay gaps are
still substantial in different parts of the country as a result of the
wage schedule adjustment cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The ``Special rates'' section later in this rule provides
more information about the role of special rates.
\5\ The ``Achieving a $15 Per Hour Minimum Pay Rate for Federal
Employees'' memorandum may be found at https://chcoc.gov/content/achieving-15-hour-minimum-pay-rate-federal-employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FWS vs GS
Locality Pay
OPM received numerous comments from employees supporting FWS
employees receiving ``locality pay.'' As stated in the proposed rule,
FWS and GS employees are paid under separate pay systems. The pay
systems differ because they are governed by separate laws and
regulations authorizing different types of surveys, occupational and
geographic coverage, pay adjustment cycles, and pay ranges. The Federal
Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 was enacted to provide locality
pay to GS employees. FWS employees are specifically excluded
[[Page 7430]]
from coverage under the locality pay system for GS employees because
FWS employees have their own statutory local prevailing rate pay
system. As such, GS locality pay percentages, which are add-ons to the
base GS pay table, by law do not apply to the FWS. Instead, through
annual appropriations legislation, employees in the FWS receive at
least the same annual percentage pay adjustment as GS employees based
on where they work.
Likewise, there were several comments from FWS employees reflecting
a misunderstanding of the intent of this rule, with some comments
suggesting that FWS employees will be moved to the GS pay scale. That
is not what this rule does. We reiterate that the FWS and GS are
different statutory pay systems, and this rule is focused to address
the major issue identified for administrative resolution by FPRAC,
which is to change the regulatory criteria for wage areas such that
wage area definitions will, in almost all cases, follow the same labor
market definitions and consider the same economically integrated
regions as used for GS non-Rest of U.S. (RUS) locality pay areas. The
FWS and GS will continue to be distinct and separate job classification
and pay systems.
Cost of Living
Numerous employees argued that amending the regulatory criteria
used to define and maintain FWS wage areas is necessary because of a
high cost of living. See, e.g., Comments 17, 112, 329, 459. OPM notes
that, by law, the cost of labor within a wage area, rather than the
cost of living, determines FWS pay rates. Similarly, GS locality
payments are not based on living costs but on salary surveys done by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as required by law.
Annual Pay Adjustments Timing
Other commenters indicated that annual pay increases for FWS and GS
employees do not coincide and that FWS employees receive their pay
adjustments several months after GS employees. Both GS and FWS workers
receive only one annual pay adjustment each year. FWS employees do not
necessarily receive pay adjustments after GS employees; they are just
on a different annual cycle than GS employees. Pay adjustments for the
GS and FWS have separate effective dates. The annual adjustments for GS
employees are made in January of each year (see 5 U.S.C. 5303(a)).
Because FWS employees are paid according to local prevailing rates, FWS
pay rates are adjusted each year based on prevailing private sector
wage levels for similar work in a local wage area subject to pay cap
and floor increase provisions. DOD obtains the rates paid by local
private sector employers by conducting annual local wage surveys. The
wage surveys are scheduled throughout the year and, consequently, the
pay increases are effective based on when wage surveys are completed
throughout the year (see 5 U.S.C. 5344(a)). For example, FWS employees
in the Boston, MA, wage area receive pay adjustments that are effective
in October each year, three months earlier in the FY than GS employees
receive their pay adjustments. (Pay increases for FWS employees
typically occur in October, whereas GS increases typically take effect
in January.)
Grade and Steps Structure
A few commenters also expressed concerns regarding the FWS and GS
grades and steps structure. For example, one commenter said that FWS
and GS grades do not align and another asserted that, while FWS grades
are divided into 5 steps, GS grades are divided into 10 steps. See,
e.g., Comments 221 and 312. As already stated, differences between the
FWS and GS pay systems include occupational coverage and pay ranges.\6\
The FWS pay system covers most trade, craft, and laboring employees
(blue-collar workers) in the Executive Branch and has existed in
various forms based on local prevailing wage levels since 1862. The FWS
has a multi-level job-grading system that includes the full range of
trade, craft, and laboring jobs. Occupations often cover more than one
grade level, and many occupations are typically represented at each
grade. Regardless of occupation, the pay range for all regular schedule
jobs at a particular grade level in a specific wage area is the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ OPM provides information regarding the classification
process and job grading criteria for GS employees in Classifying
General Schedule Positions available at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/classification-qualifications/classifying-general-schedule-positions/#url=Standards; and for FWS employees in
Classifying Federal Wage System Positions (available at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/classification-qualifications/classifying-federal-wage-system-positions/#url=Standards) and
Introduction to the Federal Wage System Job Grading System
(available at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/classification-qualifications/classifying-federal-wage-system-positions/fwsintro.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FWS pay structure is primarily divided into wage grade
nonsupervisory (WG), wage leader (WL), and wage supervisor (WS) hourly
wage schedules. The WG and WL schedules have 15 levels or grades each,
and the WS schedule has 19 grades. Generally, each grade represents
progressively more difficult levels of work requiring higher levels of
skills and/or experience. Employees are paid the full prevailing rate
at step 2 of each grade level. Step 5, the highest step in the FWS, is
112 percent above the prevailing rate of pay. The FWS grade structure
is established under 5 U.S.C. 5343(e)(1). The FWS regular wage schedule
regulations can be found at 5 CFR 532.203.
The GS pay system covers most white-collar civilian Federal
employees. The GS has 15 grades (GS-1 through GS-15). Again, each grade
represents progressively more difficult levels of work requiring higher
levels of knowledge and/or experience. Each grade has a range of salary
divided into 10 steps. The GS grade structure is established under 5
U.S.C. 5332(a)(2).
Hazard Pay
One commenter noted that FWS employees ``make less money for
equivalent work'' and ``only get hazard pay for the hours (. . .) in a
hazard zone.'' Comment 48. Other commenters suggested that their work
duties are more hazardous than those of GS employees. See, e.g.,
Comments 79, 295, 481. Hazardous duty pay (HDP) is paid to qualifying
GS employees and Environmental Differential Pay (EDP) is paid to
qualifying FWS employees. HDP and EDP have separate legal authorities.
The legal authority for HDP is found in 5 U.S.C. 5545(d). The legal
authority for EDP is found in 5 U.S.C. 5343(c)(4). The regulations for
GS HDP are in 5 CFR 550.901. The regulations for FWS EDP are in 5 CFR
532.511.
Under 5 CFR 532.511, an FWS employee must be paid an environmental
differential when exposed to a working condition or hazard that falls
within one of the categories approved by OPM. Although OPM issues EDP
regulations, each agency is responsible for evaluating local situations
to determine if it should pay EDP. This responsibility was given to the
agencies because each local agency and installation can best determine
the nature of the work performed by its employees. In order to receive
a differential, there must be actual exposure to the environmental
condition. An environmental differential is paid either on the basis of
actual exposure or on the basis of hours in pay status.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Information on EDP may be found in Subchapter S8 Pay
Administration in the Federal Wage System Appropriated Fund
Operating Manual at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/federal-wage-system/#url=Appropriated-Fund. The
Schedule of Environmental Differentials Paid for Exposure to Various
Degrees of Hazards, Physical Hardships, and Working Conditions of an
Unusual Nature is listed under Appendix J of this manual (available
at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/federal-wage-system/appropriated-fund-operating-manual/appendixj.pdf). Appendix J lists all the FWS EDP categories either
as actual exposure categories or as hours in a pay status
categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7431]]
GS Supervisory Differential
One commenter stated that special rates established for FWS
employees in their area led to some GS employees making less than FWS
employees they are supervising. Comment 330. GS supervisors may receive
a supervisory differential when they have a higher paid subordinate
that is not covered by the GS pay system. OPM encourages GS employees
to discuss such matters with their employing agency's human resources
office for any policy guidance their agency uses in similar situations.
We note that there is no authority to pay a supervisory differential to
an FWS employee supervising a higher paid subordinate who is under a
different pay system.
Pay Increases for FWS Employees Impacted by This Rule
OPM received various comments from FWS employees reflecting a
misunderstanding of the expected impact on wages for FWS employees as a
result of implementing this rule, with some comments indicating a ``12
percent across-the-board pay increase.'' See, e.g., Comments 70, 83,
137, 257, and 499. As explained in the ``Impact'' section of the
proposed rule, the pay increases will vary considerably, based on wage
area and grades. For example, pay increases for FWS employees in Monroe
County, PA, who will be moved to the New York, NY, wage area, will vary
from around $0.49 per hour at grade WG-01 to $7.85 per hour at grade
WG-15 based on current wage levels. In some wage areas employees will
be placed on lower wage schedules and either be covered by pay
retention rules or experience a reduction in pay if they are not
eligible to retain a rate of pay.
Recruitment and Retention Issues
Many commenters indicated that the changes to the regulatory
criteria in 5 CFR 532.211 are necessary because of recruitment and
retention issues. For example, several commenters stated that placing
FWS employees in the same geographic area as GS employees for pay
setting purposes would help recruit and retain skilled candidates. See,
e.g., Comments 50, 74, 120, and 284. While we acknowledge that pay
increases may help address some recruitment and retention issues, the
changes in criteria used to define and maintain FWS wage areas are not
driven by recruitment or retention challenges, and FWS area definition
criteria have never considered recruitment and retention criteria, just
as GS locality pay area criteria contain no mention of recruitment or
retention. This rule seeks to make the labor market determinations and
pay area boundaries more similar, as recommended through National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) language, by using similar criteria in
both pay systems, and to therefore advance greater equity between the
two systems.
Comments Regarding Specific Wage Areas
Southern Missouri FWS Wage Area
OPM received a few comments from FWS employees requesting that
several counties in the Southern Missouri wage area be redefined to the
St. Louis, MO, wage area (see, e.g., Comments 259 and 296) and one
comment requesting that Butler County, MO, be redefined to either the
St. Louis wage area or Memphis, TN, wage area (Comment 264). Some
commenters expressed concerns that FWS rates of pay in Southern
Missouri are lower than those received by employees who work in the St.
Louis wage area, by GS employees, or by people who work in comparable
jobs in the private sector. See, e.g., Comments 57, 203, 253, 263, 264,
265, 296, and 395.
Neither the current regulatory criteria nor the new criteria
support the suggested changes to the Southern Missouri wage area. As
stated in the proposed rule, OPM must receive the advice of FPRAC
before reviewing and making any changes to wage area boundaries. Any
management or labor member of FPRAC may introduce a subject for
discussion by the Committee. For example, for FPRAC to consider a
proposal to change the definition of a county, a member of the
Committee must introduce the matter for discussion. It is the Chair's
responsibility to approve items to be discussed on the Committee's
agenda. FWS employees may wish to consider going through the chain of
command within their employing agency or through their labor union
representative to bring issues to FPRAC's attention.
We note that local wage surveys in the Southern Missouri wage area
continue to meet all requirements for determining prevailing wage rates
in the local labor market. The wage schedule for the Southern Missouri
wage area is based on data collected from Christian, Greene, Laclede,
Phelps, Pulaski, and Webster Counties, MO. The difference in rates of
pay between the Southern Missouri wage area and other wage areas,
including St. Louis, MO, and Memphis, TN, reflects the fact that the
prevailing cost of labor varies by wage area. It is not unusual for FWS
employees who work in different wage areas to receive substantially
different rates of pay even though they may have similar grade levels
and job duties. For example, the wage rate for a WG-10, step 2,
employee in the Southern Missouri wage area is $27.45, while it is
$34.12 in the St. Louis wage area. These rates reflect the prevailing
wage levels for this level of work in each wage survey area subject to
annual pay cap and floor increase appropriations law provisions.
Puerto Rico Wage Area
OPM also received two comments inquiring if these changes will
apply to the Puerto Rico wage area and asserting that pay rates in this
wage area are lower than in other wage areas. See Comments 246 and 312.
As stated in the proposed rule, changes to the criteria used to define
and maintain wage areas will not result in any changes to the Puerto
Rico wage area boundaries or pay. Likewise, as explained in response to
the comments regarding the Missouri wage areas, FWS employees are paid
different wage rates based on their location since the cost of labor
varies from wage area to wage area. The pay system is neither designed
nor intended to ensure all FWS employees receive the same wage rates in
all regions.
Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, Wage Area
OPM received several comments requesting that Hancock County, ME,
and Acadia National Park be redefined to the new Boston-Worcester-
Providence, MA, wage area. See, e.g., Comments 348, 385, and 393.
Hancock County and Acadia National Park are defined to the Central and
Northern Maine wage area. Neither the current nor the new regulatory
criteria support the redefinition of Hancock County and Acadia National
Park to the Boston-Worcester-Providence wage area. We also note that
Hancock County is not neighboring the Boston wage area with the Central
and Northern Maine and the Boston-Worcester-Providence wage areas being
separated by the Augusta, ME, wage area.
OPM received several comments requesting that Aroostook County, ME,
be removed from the Central and Northern Maine survey area because it
only has 15 FWS employees and does not meet the minimum 100 FWS
employees working in the county requirement and that Hancock County
[[Page 7432]]
be added to this survey area instead. See, e.g., Comments 389, 393, and
529. As previously mentioned, OPM proposes changes to wage areas,
including changes to existing survey areas, based on the advice of
FPRAC. FWS employees may wish to consider going through the chain of
command within their employing agency or through their labor union
representative to bring issues to FPRAC's attention.
OPM received a comment from an employee requesting the Kennebec
County, ME, be redefined from the Augusta, ME, wage area to the new
Boston-Worcester-Providence wage area. See Comment 388. Neither the
current regulatory criteria nor the new criteria support this suggested
change.
Mono and Inyo Counties, CA
OPM received a few comments from local government officials in Mono
and Inyo Counties, CA, requesting that these two counties be redefined
in their entirety to the Los Angeles, CA, wage area. See, e.g., Comment
293. Currently, Mono County, with the exception of locations where the
Bridgeport, CA, special schedule applies, is defined to the Reno, NV,
wage area, and Inyo County, with the exception of the China Lake Naval
Weapons Center portion, is defined to the Las Vegas, NV, wage area.
Neither the current nor the new regulatory criteria support redefining
these two counties in their entirety to the Los Angeles, CA, wage area.
As mentioned previously, OPM proposes any changes to wage area
definitions after FPRAC review and recommendation.
Yuma County, AZ
One agency recommended that Yuma County, AZ, be redefined from the
San Diego County, CA, wage area to the Phoenix, AZ, wage area because
the Federal Salary Council recommended the inclusion of Yuma County
into the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ GS locality Pay Area, still
pending approval from the President's Pay Agent. Changes in GS locality
pay area definitions will not result in automatic changes in FWS wage
area definitions. Neither the current nor the new regulatory criteria
support redefining Yuma County to the Phoenix, AZ, wage area. As
already mentioned, OPM proposes any changes to wage area definitions
after FPRAC review and recommendation.
San Diego, CA, Survey Area
OPM received a comment from an FWS employee in the San Diego, CA,
wage area opposing the redefinition of Yuma County, AZ, from the San
Diego area of application to the San Diego survey area. The commenter
argued that the cost of living is lower in Yuma County than in San
Diego County and adding survey data from Yuma County to the San Diego
wage area would lead to overall lower pay in the wage area. Comment
394. As stated in the proposed rule, OPM is moving Yuma County to the
San Diego survey area beginning in September 2027 because more than 100
FWS employees work in this county. This move is necessary to comply
with the requirement that OPM include in survey areas all counties with
100 or more FWS employees. A future wage survey will determine the
impact, if any, on wage levels that apply in the San Diego wage area
and that would likely continue to be subject to annual appropriations
legislation setting a cap and floor on wage schedule adjustments.
Southern Colorado Wage Area
OPM received three comments from FWS employees in the City of
Colorado Springs, CO, expressing concerns that FWS rates of pay in the
City of Colorado Springs are lower than those earned by people who work
in comparable jobs in the private sector and in the Consolidated City
and County of Denver. See, Comments 444, 454, and 455. The City of
Colorado Springs, in El Paso County, CO, is defined to the Southern
Colorado wage area, and the Consolidated City and County of Denver is
defined to the Denver, CO, wage area. Local wage surveys in the
Southern Colorado wage area continue to meet all requirements for
determining prevailing wage rates in the local labor market. The wage
schedule for the Southern Colorado wage area is based on data collected
from El Paso, Pueblo, and Teller Counties, CO. The difference in rates
of pay between the Southern Colorado and Denver wage areas, as
previously mentioned regarding other wage areas, reflects the fact that
the prevailing cost of labor varies by wage area.
Neither the current regulatory criteria nor the new criteria
support a redefinition of the Southern Colorado wage area.
Gettysburg National Military Park
OPM received a comment from a labor organization local
representative at the Gettysburg National Military Park requesting that
this installation be defined to the new Washington-Baltimore-Arlington
wage area, and pointing out that the cost of living is the same for
both GS and FWS employees and that FWS employees are ``earning less
than employees at the local Sheetz and warehouses.'' Comment 365.
The Gettysburg National Military Park is located in Adams County,
PA, which is defined to the Harrisburg, PA, wage area, and part of the
Harrisburg-York-Lebanon, PA, combined statistical area (CSA). The
purpose of this rule is not to make the FWS system identical to the GS
locality pay system but to no longer allow, in almost all cases, non-
RUS locality pay areas to be split by FWS wage areas. Please see why
Adams County will continue to be defined to the Harrisburg wage area in
the ``Statement of Need'' subsection below.
Assateague Island
Two commenters stated that ``[t]he Assateague Island FWS exception
needs to be eliminated,'' and argued that moving Worcester County, MD,
to the Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA, wage area would lead to FWS
employees at Assateague Island National Seashore being paid a lot less
than counterparts working in the rest of Worcester County. Comments 333
and 546. OPM has been defining Worcester County (excluding the
Assateague Island part) to the Wilmington, DE, wage area and the
Assateague Island part of Worcester County to the current Norfolk-
Portsmouth-Newport News-Hampton, VA, wage area. According to OPM data,
there are 10 FWS employees working for the Department of the Interior,
with a duty station in the Town of Chincoteague, Accomack County, VA.
Since the duty station is located within the current Norfolk-
Portsmouth-Newport News-Hampton wage area, this rule will continue to
define the Assateague Island part of Worcester County to the new
Virginia Beach-Chesapeake, VA, wage area. As already explained, OPM
proposes any changes to wage area definitions, other than the ones
automatically resulting from the application of revised regulatory
criteria defining wage areas, after FPRAC review and recommendation.
Ft. Wayne-Marion, IN, Wage Area
OPM received one comment from a labor organization local
representative requesting that the J.E. Roush Lake Project part of
Huntington County and Wabash County, IN, be redefined from the Ft.
Wayne-Marion, IN, wage area to the new Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN
wage area. Comment 491. Neither the current regulatory criteria nor the
new criteria support the suggested changes to the Ft. Wayne-Marion, IN,
wage area. FPRAC may consider a proposal to review the definition of
Huntington and Wabash Counties if a committee member introduces this
issue for discussion.
[[Page 7433]]
Timing of the Local Wage Surveys
OPM received one comment from an FWS employee in the Central and
Northern Maine wage area requesting that the local wage survey order
month in this wage area be changed from May to August. Comment 393.
Under 5 CFR 532.207, FWS wage surveys are scheduled to begin in
specific months each year based on the following criteria: timing of
wage surveys in relation to wage adjustments in principal local private
sector establishments; reasonable distribution of survey workloads for
the lead agencies; timing of wage surveys in nearby wage areas; and
scheduling relationships with other pay surveys. FPRAC may consider a
proposal to change a survey order month if a committee member
introduces a proposal for discussion.
Conduct of Local Wage Surveys
One labor organization stated that the way local wage surveys are
conducted needs reforming because they ``fail to accurately reflect the
true conditions of the labor markets.'' Comment 543. Several other
commenters also expressed concern about the results of the local wage
surveys, saying that they fail to capture private sector wages. See,
e.g., Comment 259. One agency stated that, in certain survey areas,
such as Narragansett Bay area, there are challenges in identifying
private establishments with jobs comparable with the survey jobs
willing to participate in surveys. As previously stated, the intent of
this rule is to make the regulatory criteria OPM uses to define FWS
wage areas more similar to GS locality pay areas and make changes to
certain wage areas based on the revised criteria in 5 CFR 532.211. Any
reforms to the local wage surveys collection process need to be
reviewed by FPRAC.
Special Rates
One commenter requested that OPM consider special rates for Acadia
National Park, Bar Harbor, and Mount Desert Island, in the Central and
Northern Maine wage area. Comment 408. Another commenter requested
extending special rates currently established in the Jacksonville, FL,
wage area to FWS positions in Polk County, FL, which is being redefined
to this wage area through this rule. Comment 346. Under 5 CFR 532.251,
a lead agency with the approval of OPM may establish special rates for
pay within all or part of a wage area for a designated occupation or
occupational specialization and grade, in lieu of rates on the regular
schedule. OPM may authorize special rates to the extent it considers
necessary to overcome existing or likely significant handicaps in the
recruitment or retention of well qualified personnel when these
handicaps are due to any of the following circumstances: rates of pay
offered by private sector employers for an occupation or occupational
specialization and grade are significantly higher than rates paid by
the Federal Government within the competitive labor market; the
remoteness of the area or location involved; or any other circumstance
that OPM considers appropriate. If an employing agency should find it
necessary to establish special rates for FWS employees in the Central
and Northern Maine or Jacksonville, FL, wage areas, it must submit data
to DOD demonstrating staffing problems and certify the availability of
sufficient funds to support a special rates request for specific
occupations, grades, installations, and/or locations. If DOD concurs
that special rates are necessary for those occupations, grades,
installations, and/or locations, the request will be forwarded to OPM
for review.
One agency asked how the changes in wage areas resulting from
amending the regulatory criteria in 5 CFR 532.211 would affect existing
special rates. OPM sees no basis for canceling existing special rates.
Special rates sometimes apply wage area wide and sometimes apply to a
specific Federal installation or set of occupations within a wage area.
If an employee who is paid a special rate would be entitled to a higher
wage rate from a regular wage schedule upon movement to a different
wage schedule, the employee would be entitled to the higher wage rate
on the regular wage schedule. OPM will continue to work closely with
the lead agency to manage appropriate special wage rates to address
recruitment or retention challenges.
Elimination of the ``Pay Cap'' Provision
One labor organization wrote in support of the elimination of the
yearly ``pay cap'' provision from the appropriations legislation.
Comment 543. As stated in the proposed rule, each year since fiscal
year 1979, appropriations legislation has limited FWS pay adjustments
so as not to exceed average GS pay adjustments. For FY 2024, the FWS
pay limitation of 5.26 percent was in section 737 of division B of the
Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024. Congress originally
imposed limits on FWS pay adjustments during the high inflation era of
the late 1970's for budget purposes and to ensure that FWS pay rates
did not increase more rapidly than GS pay rates. In certain high cost
of labor areas, GS employees were leaving white-collar positions to
take higher paying blue-collar positions. Federal employee
organizations have strongly opposed FWS pay limitations since they were
first imposed, but agencies were concerned about the budget impact of
lifting the cap system-wide in any one fiscal year. At the October 20,
2022, FPRAC public meeting,\8\ the Committee recommended by consensus
that OPM should seek elimination of an annual provision placed in the
Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act that
establishes a statutory limitation each year on the maximum allowable
FWS wage schedule adjustment. OPM is considering available policy
options and solutions to advance this policy change forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ A copy of the October 20th, 2022 FPRAC meeting transcript
may be found at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/federal-wage-system/federal-prevailing-rate-advisory-committee/meeting-number-642-october-20-2022.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GS Locality Pay Areas
OPM received several comments requesting that Lucas County, OH, be
included in the Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, MI, GS locality pay area.
Comments 362, 363, and 356. Two other commenters requested that several
counties in Western Colorado be added to the Denver-Aurora, CO, GS
locality pay area. Comments 151 and 205. The purpose of this rule is to
change the regulatory criteria used to define and maintain FWS wage
areas and to redefine certain FWS wage areas established for the FWS
pay system under 5 U.S.C. 5343. This rulemaking does not address
boundaries of locality pay areas for the GS pay system and other pay
systems that receive locality pay under 5 U.S.C. 5304.
One commenter wrote against the implementation of OPM's proposal,
stating that adding outlying counties to the core GS locality pay area
would lead to lower rates of pay for employees working within the
Metropolitan Statistical Area and arguing that the FWS wage areas and
GS locality pay areas should not be aligned until the GS system is
reformed. Comment 417. This commenter also noted that FWS wage areas
would not fully coincide with GS locality pay areas. As explained
previously, the purpose of this rule is to make changes to the criteria
used to define and maintain FWS wage areas and to redefine boundaries
of FWS wage
[[Page 7434]]
areas, according to the amended regulatory criteria. This rule is not
meant to make changes to the GS system or consider ideas for reforming
the GS system. Lastly, as stated in the proposed rule and reiterated in
this final rule, the new wage area definitions are not intended to
mirror GS locality pay areas, and some differences between the
geographical boundaries of wage areas and locality pay areas will
continue to exist.
Corrections
The proposed rule contained an error where Union County, PA, was
listed in both the proposed Harrisburg-York-Lebanon (89 FR 82892 and
82916) and Scranton-Wilkes-Barre wage areas (89 FR 82893 and 82917).
This error occurred because, while drafting the proposed rule, Union
County was identified as one of the four counties of the Bloomsburg-
Berwick CSA, which is within the Harrisburg, PA, wage area. Under the
new wage area criteria, a CSA should not be split between two wage
areas except in unusual circumstances. In this instance, OPM intended
to make an exception to the metropolitan area criterion based on a
comprehensive analysis of all of the wage area definition criteria.
The Federal Correctional Complex Allenwood in Union County has been
defined to the Harrisburg wage area since it opened in the early 1990s,
and OPM finds no compelling reason based on the mixed nature of a
comprehensive analysis of the regulatory criteria to move Union County
to a different wage area. From an organizational relationship
perspective, there are other Bureau of Prisons institutions immediately
to the south of Allenwood in Lewisburg, PA, that will be defined to the
Harrisburg-York-Lebanon wage area. As correctly noted in the proposed
rule, OPM's intent was to first define Union County, PA, to the
Harrisburg-York-Lebanon area of application and then, effective for
wage surveys beginning in May 2026, Union County would become part of
the survey area for the Harrisburg-York-Lebanon wage area because there
are more than 100 FWS employees with official duty stations in the
county. This decision required that the Bloomsburg-Berwick CSA remain
split between the Harrisburg-York-Lebanon and Scranton-Wilkes-Barre
wage areas as an exception to the metropolitan area criteria. The
Bloomsburg-Berwick CSA is comprised of four Micropolitan Statistical
Areas with some of its counties geographically closer to Harrisburg and
some closer to Scranton and Wilkes-Barre. The employment interchange
criterion indicates that there are only marginal differences in
commuting rates to and from the Bloomsburg-Berwick CSA as a whole and
the Harrisburg-York-Lebanon and Scranton-Wilkes-Barre survey areas.
After recognizing that Union County was erroneously listed in two
wage areas in the proposed rule, OPM is correcting the disposition of
the following counties for the final rule. Columbia, Montour, and
Northumberland Counties, PA, will be defined to the area of application
of the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre wage area as noted in the proposed rule.
Union County and Snyder County, on the west side of the Susquehanna
River, will be defined to the Harrisburg-York-Lebanon wage area. Snyder
County is located to the south of Union County and both counties are
closest to Harrisburg.
Wayne County, PA, was erroneously listed as being part of the
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA, wage area in the ``Definitions of Wage Areas
and Wage Area Survey Areas'' section (see 89 FR 82917). As correctly
stated elsewhere in the proposed rule, Wayne County is moving to the
New York-Newark, NY, wage area. (See 89 FR 82890, 82893, and 82914.)
The area of application designation for Palm Beach County, FL, was
erroneously listed as January 2027 (see 89 FR 82883 and 82905);
however, the proposal correctly identified May 2027 as the effective
date for the survey area (see 89 FR 82905). This error occurred because
currently the wage survey order month for the Miami-Dade, FL, wage area
is January. However, DOD had requested certain changes in wage survey
order months to allow balancing of the wage survey workload throughout
the year, including revising the listing of the beginning month of
survey from ``January'' to ``May'' for the Miami-Dade wage area (see 89
FR 82878). As such, OPM is correcting the area of application
designation for Palm Beach County to read ``May.''
Expected Impact of This Final Rule
1. Statement of Need
OPM is issuing this rule pursuant to its authority in 5 U.S.C. 5343
to issue regulations governing the FWS. The purpose of these changes is
to address longstanding inequities between the Federal Government's two
main pay systems. While the pay systems are different in some ways, the
concept of geographic pay differentials based on local labor market
conditions is a key feature of both systems. The FWS regulatory
criteria in 5 CFR 532.211 are being revised to better align FWS wage
areas with non-RUS GS locality pay areas. The revised FWS criteria
include CSA and micropolitan statistical area (MSA) definitions and
employment interchange data reported by the Census Bureau that reflects
social and economic integration in a region. Revised FWS wage area
definitions are based on an analysis of these factors by FPRAC's
working group and OPM's analysis of the criteria to be consistent with
the FPRAC majority recommendation to use the new criteria. There is no
intent that FWS wage areas will be identical to GS locality pay areas
in all cases. In limited circumstances, such as with Adams and York
Counties, PA, this rule will not result in all non-RUS locality pay
areas no longer including more than one FWS wage area. The Harrisburg,
PA, wage area, will continue to coincide with the Washington-Baltimore-
Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA and the Harrisburg-Lebanon, PA GS locality
pay areas. Adams and York Counties, PA, are currently part of the
Washington-Baltimore-Arlington GS locality pay area, based on a Federal
Salary Council recommendation and Pay Agent decision to keep these
counties defined to that locality pay area after a new GS locality pay
area was later established for Harrisburg. Adams and York Counties will
continue to be defined to the Harrisburg, PA, wage area because they
are part of the Harrisburg-York-Lebanon, PA, CSA and to avoid splitting
this CSA as will be required by the new regulatory criteria.
2. Impact
Per available data, OPM expects these changes will impact
approximately 17,000 FWS employees nationwide or about 10 percent of
the appropriated fund FWS workforce. The amendments to current
regulatory criteria used to define and maintain FWS wage areas will
result in numerous changes in the composition of many of these wage
areas. As a result, several FWS wage areas will no longer be viable
separately, and the counties in those abolished wage areas will be
defined to another wage area.
Most employees affected by this approach will receive increases in
pay, but some will be placed on pay retention if moved to a lower wage
schedule or experience a reduction in pay if not eligible for pay
retention. As such, about 85 percent of the affected employees (roughly
14,500 employees) will receive pay increases, about 11 percent (roughly
1,800 employees) will be placed on pay retention, around 3 percent
(about 500 employees) will be placed at a lower wage level, and around
1 (less than 200 employees) percent will see no change in their wage
[[Page 7435]]
level because their current wage rate is identical to the wage rate on
a wage schedule they will be moved to.
This rule primarily affects FWS employees of DOD and its
components, although employees of many other agencies, including the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), are impacted. For example, the
Anniston-Gadsden, AL, wage area will be abolished and most of its
counties will be added to the Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, AL, wage
area. FWS employees working in these counties will see their pay
increased at most grades. For example, based on current wage levels, at
grades WG-01 through WG-04 there will be no change in pay while, at
grades WG-05 through WG-15, pay increases could vary from $0.72 per
hour to $5.99 per hour. Likewise, based on these proposed changes,
Monroe County, PA, will be moved to the New York, NY, wage area. As
such, based on current pay levels, pay increases for FWS employees in
Monroe County will vary from about $0.49 per hour at grade WG-01 to
$7.85 per hour at grade WG-15. However, the Washington, DC, Baltimore,
MD, and parts of the Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg, MD, wage
areas will be combined into a revised Washington, DC, based wage area.
FWS employees will be moved to the existing Washington, DC, wage
schedule, which will result in placement on a wage schedule with lower
rates, based on current pay levels, than in the current Baltimore and
Hagerstown wage areas at lower grade levels. This will primarily affect
employees at lower grade levels at VA Medical Centers in these wage
areas. For example, WG-2, step 2, for the Washington, DC, wage schedule
is currently $18.47 per hour whereas it is $24.51 per hour for
Baltimore, which will result in around a $6 an hour decrease, based on
current wage levels, once this final rule goes into effect.
Nonetheless, most employees will retain their current wage rates if
they are not under temporary or term appointments. There are around 35
FWS employees at the Baltimore VA Medical Center under temporary
appointments who will see an actual reduction in pay if their
appointments are not changed to be permanent and assuming their
temporary employment status will continue in future. At higher wage
grades, employees in the Baltimore and Hagerstown wage areas will
receive higher rates under a Washington, DC, based wage schedule based
on current pay levels.
This final rule affects about 10 percent of FWS appropriated fund
workers, and there will be 118 separate appropriated fund wage areas
versus 130 today. The changes are limited in scope with most FWS
employees seeing no impact at all on their wage levels.
This rule has potential budgetary impacts affecting three major
Army Depots, in particular, that will need to be managed appropriately
and effectively by employing agencies. It is noteworthy, however, that
the overall budget impact of revising wage area boundaries under this
final rule equates to about $140 million per year--only around 1
percent of the current base payroll for the FWS appropriated fund
workforce as a whole.
As mentioned previously, 14 percent of the affected employees will
be placed on retained pay status; however, a vast majority of the
affected employees--about 85 percent--will receive a pay increase. OPM
concludes that the benefits of this final rule outweigh the negative
impacts since this rule will better equalize geographic pay area
treatment across the Federal Government's two main pay systems. The pay
retention law exists to alleviate potential decreases in wage rates
caused by management actions such as changes in wage area boundaries.
We also note that Federal agencies have considerable discretionary
authority to provide pay and leave flexibilities to address significant
recruitment and retention problems. Pay and leave flexibilities are
always an option to address recruitment or retention challenges at any
time. Agency headquarters staff may contact OPM for assistance with
understanding and implementing pay and leave flexibilities when
appropriate. Information on those flexibilities is available on the OPM
website at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-and-leave-flexibilities-for-recruitment-and-retention.
Considering that a fairly small number of employees is affected,
OPM does not anticipate this rule will have a substantial impact on the
local economies or a large impact in the local labor markets. As these
and future wage area changes may impact higher volumes of employees in
geographical areas and could rise to the level of impacting local labor
markets, OPM will continue to monitor the revised wage areas for such
impacts.
As described below, OPM estimates the rule results in annualized
transfers in the form of additional payroll of approximately $149.9
million and annualized costs of approximately $0.9 million over ten
years at a 2 percent discount rate.
3. Baseline
The geographic boundaries of FWS wage areas and of GS locality pay
areas are not the same. Around 1.5 million GS employees are in 58
locality pay areas and around 170,000 appropriated fund FWS employees
are in 130 wage areas. However, since 2004, appropriations legislation
has required that FWS employees receive the same percentage adjustment
amount that GS employees receive where they work.\9\ This provision is
known as the floor increase provision. Consequently, the floor increase
provision requires pay adjustments each FY that result in certain FWS
wage areas having more than one wage schedule in effect where there are
multiple wage areas within the boundaries of a single non-RUS GS
locality pay area. Although a majority of FWS wage areas coincide only
with part of the RUS GS locality pay area, many FWS wage areas coincide
with parts of more than one GS locality pay area. In each situation
where the boundary of a prevailing rate wage area coincides with the
boundary of a single GS locality pay area boundary, DOD must establish
one wage schedule applicable in the wage area. For example, the New
Orleans, LA, FWS wage area coincides with part of the RUS GS locality
pay area. In this case, the minimum prevailing rate adjustment for the
New Orleans wage area in FY 2024 was the same as the RUS GS locality
pay area adjustment, 4.99 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For FY 2024, the floor increase and pay cap provisions may
be found in section 737 of Division B of the Further Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2024 (the FY 2024 Act), Public Law 118-47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7436]]
In each situation where a prevailing rate wage area coincides with
part of more than one GS locality pay area, DOD must establish more
than one prevailing rate wage schedule for that wage area, and
therefore, FWS employees within the same wage area may receive
substantially different rates of pay. For example, the boundaries of
the Philadelphia, PA, FWS wage area coincide with parts of two
different GS locality pay areas--New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA and
Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD. In this case, DOD established
two separate wage schedules for use during FY 2024 in the Philadelphia
FWS wage area. In the part of the Philadelphia wage area that coincides
with the New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT GS locality pay area, the minimum
prevailing rate adjustment was 5.53 percent and in the part coinciding
with the Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD GS locality pay area,
the minimum prevailing rate adjustment was 5.28 percent. OPM's guidance
to agencies regarding FY 2024 FWS pay adjustments can be found at
https://www.chcoc.gov/content/fiscal-year-2024-prevailing-rate-pay-adjustments.
Furthermore, at Tobyhanna Army Depot, the largest employer in
Monroe County, PA, more than 1,000 Federal employees paid under the GS
work in close proximity to more than 1,500 Federal employees paid under
the FWS. Prior to 2005, Monroe County was part of the RUS GS locality
pay area, while the county was (and is) part of the Scranton-Wilkes-
Barre FWS wage area. In January 2005, Monroe County was reassigned from
RUS to the New York GS locality pay area. As a result, all GS employees
at Tobyhanna got an immediate 12 percent pay increase, of which 8
percent was attributable to the reassignment of Monroe County to the
New York locality pay area. This led to a deep sense of unfairness on
the part of FWS employees at Tobyhanna which continues to this day.
This final rule addresses most of the differences in pay among FWS
employees within the same wage area and between FWS employees and GS
employees working at the same location. It revises the wage area
criteria for FWS to achieve better alignment between FWS wage areas and
GS locality pay areas and addresses observable geographic pay
disparities between FWS and GS employees that have been caused by using
different sets of rules to define FWS wage areas and GS locality pay
areas.
4. Costs
OPM employs four full-time staff, at grades GS-12 through GS-15, to
discharge its responsibilities under the FWS. The annual cost is
estimated at $753,215 based on an average salary of $188,304 and
includes wages, benefits, and overhead. This estimate is based on the
2024 GS salary pay rate for the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-
VA-WV-PA locality pay area. We do not anticipate an increase in
administrative costs for OPM under this final rule.
During FPRAC discussions on methods to address the House Report
language, it became apparent that DOD might need to hire additional
staff members to conduct surveys in the expanded wage areas. However,
there will also be fewer wage surveys to conduct each year because 12
wage areas will be abolished, and their survey counties moved to
neighboring wage areas. Currently, DOD's operating costs for conducting
FWS wage surveys and issuing wage schedules are estimated at $12
million, but it is reasonable to expect that additional specialist wage
survey staff members may be needed to complete local wage survey work
in the wage areas that will become larger in the time allotted \10\ by
statute for local wage surveys to be completed. OPM estimates that an
average wage specialist at around the GS-9 level with a $70,000 a year
salary in the Washington, DC, area could have a fully burdened cost of
$140,000 to carry out the additional wage survey work. Allowing for six
new DOD employees would increase government costs by around $840,000
for the first year. OPM requested comments regarding the costs of wage
survey administration. One labor organization proposed a change in
legislation so that wage schedules are calculated using data collected
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics instead. Comment 478. As previously
stated, this rulemaking amends the regulatory criteria used to define
and maintain wage areas and redefine certain wage areas accordingly and
cannot make regulatory changes that would require changes in existing
law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Local wage surveys are scheduled in advance, with surveys
scheduled by regulation to begin in a certain month in each wage
area. The beginning month of appropriated fund wage surveys and the
fiscal year during which full-scale surveys are conducted are set
out as appendix A to subpart B of part 532. Under 5 U.S.C. 5344(a),
any increase in rates of basic pay is effective not later than the
first day of the first pay period on or after the 45th day,
excluding Saturdays and Sundays, after a survey was ordered to begin
in a wage area. For example, the January wage schedule is ordered in
January and becomes effective in March of each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FWS wage surveys are conducted under the information collection
titled ``Establishment Information Form,'' ``Wage Data Collection
Form,'' and ``Wage Data Collection Continuation Form'' OMB Control
number 3260-0036. DOD wage specialist data collectors survey about
21,760 businesses annually. Based on past experience with local wage
surveys, DOD estimates that each survey collection requires 1.5 hours
of respondent burden for collection forms, resulting in a total yearly
burden of 32,640 hours. (See the Paperwork Reduction Act section
below.) The changes in wage area boundaries in this rule are not
expected to affect the public reporting burden of the current
information collection. This is because the number of counties included
in future survey areas will remain very similar to those included in
current survey areas. OPM invited public comment on this matter, but no
comments were submitted.
This final rule will affect the FWS employees of up to 30 Federal
agencies--ranging from cabinet-level departments to small independent
agencies--affecting around 17,000 FWS employees. The estimated payroll
cost of this final rule, including 36.70 percent fringe benefits,\11\
is approximately $150 million when annualized at a 2 percent rate, and
its cumulative undiscounted 10-year cost is around $1.5 billion for
geographic areas being moved from one wage area to another as a result
of amending the criteria used to define FWS wage area boundaries. The
total first year base payroll cost represents around 1 percent of the
$10 billion overall annual base FWS payroll. About half the overall
cost will be incurred by the Department of the Army, primarily at
Tobyhanna, Letterkenny, and Anniston Army Depots because a substantial
number of the FWS employees who will be affected by the proposed
changes is concentrated at these large federal installations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ DOD provides annual costs for civilian personnel fringe
benefits at https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/rates/fy2024/2024_d.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment 1 \12\ provides OPM's estimate of the payroll costs for
the first 10 years of implementation of this rule. This document was
developed by OPM staff who provide technical support to FPRAC. The cost
estimate lists the wage areas that will have counties added as
[[Page 7437]]
a result of the final rule and identifies the counties being added.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Attachment 1 may be found in the docket OPM-2024-0016 on
www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To calculate the estimated first year cost of around $140 million,
we used Wage Grade, Wage Leader, and Wage Supervisor employment numbers
in each impacted county and compared the difference in pay between the
grade's step-2 rate under the county's current wage schedule, the
prevailing wage grade level, and the wage schedule the county will be
defined under by this final rule. The overall costs were further
adjusted based on the average step rate for FWS employees being above
step 2.\13\ The ten cells to the right of each county provide the costs
for the first ten years of implementation. In the ``Totals'' worksheet,
the ``Totals'' column provides the estimated total cost for the
increased payroll for the first 10 years after implementation. The
``Emps'' column provides the sum of Wage Grade, Wage Leader, and Wage
Supervisor employees in the county. The bottom row of each wage area
section of Attachment 1 provides the total payroll costs associated
with this rule for all counties being moved to the wage area listed.
Estimated costs for the second through tenth years were calculated
using a 2 percent adjustment factor, in line with the President's
budget plan for FY 2025 and an estimated 36.7 percent fringe benefit
factor. As these are only estimates, actual future costs will vary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The step 2 rate is the prevailing wage level, or 100
percent of market, that DOD bases all the other step rates on. The
average step for employees changes over time and is different from
area to area and grade to grade within a wage area. Currently, the
average rate is just above step 3, which is 4 percent above step 2.
FPRAC has used this methodology for calculating costs for many years
and has found it to be a fairly accurate predictor of cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Future wage schedules will be based on local wage surveys that will
include survey counties that were previously survey counties in wage
areas with different prevailing wage levels. As such, the measurable
prevailing wage levels within a wage area are likely to be different
than those measured in the most recent local wage surveys. For
instance, starting with new full-scale wage surveys beginning in
October 2027, the proposed San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland wage area
will include Monterey and San Joaquin Counties, CA, in its wage
surveys. It is possible that inclusion of these counties in an enlarged
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland survey area might result in prevailing
wage levels being measured at a lower level than if they were not
included. However, as a result of statistical sampling methods and
natural changes in wage growth across the mix of private industrial
establishments that will be surveyed, it is not certain what, if any,
impact will occur on wage survey results until a full-scale wage survey
has been completed in the expanded wage area. It is reasonable to
anticipate that adding counties with lower prevailing wage levels to a
survey area with higher prevailing wage levels will result in somewhat
lower wage survey findings overall and lower wage schedules. However,
the floor increase provision that has been included in appropriations
law each year since FY 2004 would offset that impact if the provision
is continued. As long as a floor increase provision provides for a
minimum annual adjustment amount for a wage schedule, the combining of
counties with lower prevailing wage levels into a wage area with higher
prevailing wage levels will have no impact on the payable wage rates in
that wage area should the floor increase amount continue to be higher
than the pay cap amount. In this scenario, the additional payroll costs
that agencies would incur in Monterey and San Joaquin counties would be
because employees there would be paid wage rates from the San Jose-San
Francisco-Oakland wage schedule that are higher than wage rates
applicable in their current wage areas.
Agency payroll providers will need to properly assign official duty
station codes within their systems for impacted employees by
reassigning the codes from one FWS wage schedule to another. Although
around 17,000 FWS employees will be affected by these changes in wage
area boundaries, there are far fewer official duty station codes that
will need to be updated by the four major payroll providers in their
payroll systems. OPM estimates this number of impacted official duty
station codes to be around 254. This is not anticipated to be a
significant additional cost burden or to require additional funding as
agency payroll systems are often updated as a routine business matter
as pay area boundaries change and as wage schedules are updated every
year. For example, the payroll providers implemented changes in GS
locality pay area affecting around 34,000 employees in January 2024.
However, OPM estimates that implementing payroll changes in terms of
the time required for the 254 official duty station codes across the
four payroll providers at a cost of around $7,800. OPM calculated this
estimate by allowing for ten minutes to manually update each duty
station change in each of the four payroll systems by a mid-range
payroll processing staff member with an average salary and benefits
cost of around $96,000 per year, which equates to a cost of around
$7.66 per change per provider. OPM invited public comment on this
estimate, but no comments were received.
5. Benefits
This rule has important benefits. Employees have expressed
understandable equity concerns since the mid-1990s about why there are
different geographic boundaries defined for the Federal Government's
two main pay systems. Over the years, Members of Congress have
expressed interest in this issue and written letters in support of
aligning FWS wage areas and GS locality pay areas. FPRAC heard
testimony from Congressional staff, local union and management
representatives, and employees in support of better aligning the
geographic boundaries of FWS wage areas and GS locality pay areas,
including testimony that a high rate of commuting interchange--which,
for example, triggered Monroe County's reassignment from the Rest of
U.S. GS locality pay area to the New York-Newark GS locality pay area
in 2005--should also be reflected in the FWS wage areas. This final
rule will address most of the internal equity and fairness concerns
found across the country that are unnecessarily damaging to employee
morale when an alternative and defensible approach is possible. This
can also be accomplished at a relatively low cost of an increase in
base payroll of only around 1 percent. FPRAC acknowledged that,
although around 2,000 FWS employees will be placed on lower wage
schedules as a result of these actions, around 1,870 of these employees
will be entitled to pay retention. Accordingly, FPRAC found that the
benefits to FWS employees overall outweighed the concerns regarding the
limited number of positions negatively impacted.
Further, FPRAC members, agency and union representatives, and
employees expressed concerns at public FPRAC meetings that the FWS no
longer reflects modern compensation practices for prevailing rate
tradespeople and laborers and that updating the wage area definition
criteria to be more similar to the GS locality pay area criteria will
be a step in the right direction to begin modernizing the prevailing
rate system. Despite the projection of continuing application of the
floor and pay cap provisions to the FWS wage schedules, implementation
of these changes to the criteria used to define and maintain FWS wage
areas, in particular adopting the use of employment interchange
[[Page 7438]]
measures and CSA definitions, will better position the FWS to align
with regional prevailing wage practices because they better reflect
current commuting, employment, and recruitment patterns.
6. Alternatives
Over the course of 15 working group meetings, at which there was
extensive discussion, FPRAC considered various options to address the
FWS and GS pay equity concerns expressed in the House Report language.
These discussions had been taking place for many years previously
without consensus. One alternative to the approach adopted in this
final rule was to make no changes to the current FWS wage areas and
encourage agencies to use pay flexibilities when challenged with
recruitment issues. However, maintaining the status quo will not
resolve employee equity concerns or address the interests expressed by
Congress.
Another option considered was conducting piecemeal reviews of wage
areas using the existing wage area definition criteria (distance,
commuting, demographic), only when employees or other stakeholders
raise concerns. This has been FPRAC's approach since 2012, but it has
not addressed the fundamental inequities resulting from managing the
FWS and GS with different sets of rules (i.e., different criteria) for
defining pay area boundaries. The current regulatory criteria were not
designed to allow for changing wage area definitions absent factors
such as military base closures or changes in MSAs.
FPRAC also considered adding CSA definitions alone as a criterion
to the existing regulatory criteria in 5 CFR 532.211. OMB published new
CSA and MSA definitions on July 21, 2023, in OMB Bulletin 23-01, and
FPRAC has a practice of using new MSA definitions when they become
available. The new OMB definitions and an analysis of the current FWS
regulatory criteria to define wage areas did not appear to address some
of the most contentious counties under FPRAC discussion as those
counties still did not align with the GS locality pay areas. For
example, the 2023 OMB definitions moved Monroe County, PA, from the New
York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA, CSA to the Allentown-Bethlehem-East
Stroudsburg, PA-NJ, CSA. OMB Bulletin No. 20-01 (which FPRAC previously
used) included the East Stroudsburg, PA, MSA, comprised only of Monroe
County, PA, in the New York CSA. OMB Bulletin No. 23-01 supersedes the
previous ones and lists Monroe County as the sole county of the East
Stroudsburg, PA, micropolitan statistical area, and part of the
Allentown-Bethlehem-East Stroudsburg, PA-NJ, CSA. Both Monroe County
and the Allentown CSA are part of the New York locality pay area for GS
employees. Based on the updated OMB Bulletin and applying the criteria
in this final rule, Monroe County will be defined to a wage area
consistent with the rest of the Allentown-Bethlehem-East Stroudsburg,
PA-NJ, CSA. Applying employment interchange analysis to better
recognize regional commuting patterns helps to clarify where best to
define the Allentown-Bethlehem-East Stroudsburg, PA-NJ, CSA and results
in the Allentown-Bethlehem-East Stroudsburg, PA-NJ, CSA, including
Monroe County, being defined as part of the New York, Newark wage area.
The committee also considered and decided against merely adopting
and applying GS locality pay area definitions to FWS wage areas. For GS
locality pay purposes, pay disparities with the non-Federal sector for
GS employees stationed in a locality pay area are based on data for the
entire locality pay area. The FWS continues the concept of using survey
areas and areas of application because FWS employees tend to be
employed in greater numbers at military installations and VA Medical
Centers and not throughout an entire wage area. In contrast, GS
employees are widely distributed geographically at all agencies.
FPRAC's members had disparate views on how future wage schedules
based on these geographic changes in wage area definitions could best
reflect prevailing wage levels. One view held that combining the survey
areas of two wage areas together should result in an entirely new wage
schedule being applied to FWS employees in the expanded wage area. OPM
determined that this method was not appropriate given that the floor
increase provision in appropriations law each year requires that wage
schedules be adjusted upwards by the same percentage adjustment amount
received by GS employees in the area. It would also be contrary to
longstanding precedent to ignore statutory pay cap and floor increase
provisions when wage survey areas change. Consequently, in this rule
OPM first adds counties moving between wage areas to the area of
application of the gaining wage area and subsequently adds counties to
survey areas for the next full-scale wage survey in the wage area.
These regulations will not immediately expand survey areas for
continuing, but enlarged, wage areas. Instead, abolished wage areas
will first be merged into the areas of application of continuing wage
areas and subsequently added to the survey areas for the next regularly
scheduled full wage surveys beginning in FY 2026, FY 2027, and FY 2028.
This will provide DOD time to allocate and train appropriate additional
staff, if needed. OPM invited comment on any additional alternative
approaches that could be considered that are in accordance with the
permanent and appropriations laws governing the development of FWS wage
schedules. One labor organization suggested that changes to FWS wage
areas should be automatic based on changes to GS locality pay areas.
Comment 478. Another commenter supported this suggestion. Comment 497.
FWS wage area changes have never been automatic and no changes in wage
area boundaries have ever been made without first receiving an FPRAC
recommendation. This rule will not change this practice. FWS wage area
boundaries could be revised through rulemaking concurrent with changes
in GS locality pay area boundaries after receiving and approving an
FPRAC recommendation and with the opportunity for public input.
Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
Regulatory Review
OPM has examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive
Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993), as supplemented by Executive Order 13563
(Jan. 18, 2011) and amended by Executive Order 14094 (Apr. 6, 2023),
which directs 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 certain rules with effects of $200 million or more in any
one year. This rule does not reach that threshold but has otherwise
been designated as a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Acting Director of OPM certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
because the rule will apply only to Federal agencies and employees.
[[Page 7439]]
Federalism
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or
on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132
(Aug. 10, 1999), it is determined that this final rule does not have
sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a
Federalism Assessment.
Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in section 3(a)
and (b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Feb. 7, 1996).
Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before
issuing any rule that would impose spending costs on State, local, or
Tribal governments in the aggregate, or on the private sector, in any 1
year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation.
That threshold is currently approximately $183 million. This rule will
not result in the expenditure by State, local, or Tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or by the private sector, in excess of the threshold.
Thus, no written assessment of unfunded mandates is required.
Congressional Review Act
Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 (also known as the Congressional Review Act) (5 U.S.C. 801
et seq.) requires rules (as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804) 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 action before its effective date, as required by 5
U.S.C. 801. OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has
determined that this rule meets the criteria in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Paperwork Reduction Act
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required
to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure
to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA),
unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB
Control Number.
OPM plans to use an existing collection, Establishment Information
Form, Wage Data Collection Form, and Wage Data Collection Continuation
Form approved under OMB control number 3206-0036 in association with
this final rule. OPM does not believe this rule will result in a
significant change to the burden, reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements as discussed in the preamble of the rule.
Additional information regarding this collection--including all current
background materials--can be found at Information Collection Review
(reginfo.gov) by using the search function to enter either the title of
the collection or the OMB Control Number.
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532
Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information,
Government employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages.
Office of Personnel Management.
Kayyonne Marston,
Federal Register Liaison.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, OPM amends 5 CFR part 532
as follows:
PART 532--PREVAILING RATE SYSTEMS
0
1. The authority citation for part 532 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5343, 5346. Sec. 532.707 also issued under
5 U.S.C. 552.
0
2. Revise Sec. 532.211 to read as follows
Sec. 532.211 Criteria for appropriated fund wage areas.
(a) Each wage area shall consist of one or more survey areas along
with nonsurvey areas, if any.
(1) Survey area. A survey area is composed of the counties,
parishes, cities, townships, or similar geographic entities in which
survey data are collected. Survey areas are established and maintained
where there are a minimum of 100 or more wage employees subject to a
regular wage schedule and those employees are located close to
concentrations of private sector employment such as found in a Combined
Statistical Area or Metropolitan Statistical Area.
(2) Nonsurvey area. Nonsurvey counties, parishes, cities,
townships, or similar geographic entities may be combined with the
survey area(s) to form the wage area through consideration of criteria
including local commuting patterns such as employment interchange
measures, distance, transportation facilities, geographic features;
similarities in overall population, employment, and the kinds and sizes
of private industrial establishments; and other factors relevant to the
process of determining and establishing rates of pay for wage employees
at prevailing wage levels.
(b) Wage areas shall include wherever possible a recognized
economic community such as a Combined Statistical Area, a Metropolitan
Statistical Area, or a political unit such as a county. Two or more
economic communities or political units, or both, may be combined to
constitute a single wage area; however, except in unusual circumstances
and as an exception to the criteria, an individually defined Combined
Statistical Area, Metropolitan Statistical Area, county or similar
geographic entity shall not be subdivided for the purpose of defining a
wage area.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, wage areas
shall be established and maintained when:
(1) There is a minimum of 100 wage employees subject to the regular
schedule and the lead agency indicates that a local installation has
the capacity to do the survey; and
(2) There is, within a reasonable commuting distance of the
concentration of Federal employment:
(i) A minimum of either 20 establishments within survey
specifications having at least 50 employees each; or 10 establishments
having at least 50 employees each, with a combined total of 1,500
employees; and
(ii) The total private enterprise employment in the industries
surveyed in the survey area is at least twice the Federal wage
employment in the survey area.
(d)(1) Adjacent economic communities or political units meeting the
separate wage area criteria in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section
may be combined through consideration of local commuting patterns such
as employment interchange measures, distance, transportation
facilities, geographic features; similarities in overall population,
employment, and the kinds and sizes of private industrial
establishments; and other factors relevant to the process of
determining and establishing rates of pay for wage employees at
prevailing wage levels.
(2) When two wage areas are combined, the survey area of either or
both may be used, depending on the concentrations of Federal and
private employment and locations of establishments, the proximity of
the survey areas to each other, and the extent of economic similarities
or differences as indicated by relative
[[Page 7440]]
levels of wage rates in each of the potential survey areas.
(e) Appropriated fund wage and survey area definitions are set out
as appendix C to this subpart and are incorporated in and made part of
this section.
(f) A single contiguous military installation defined as a Joint
Base that will otherwise overlap two separate wage areas shall be
included in only a single wage area. The wage area of such a Joint Base
shall be defined to be the wage area with the most favorable payline
based on an analysis of the simple average of the 15 nonsupervisory
second step rates on each one of the regular wage schedules applicable
in the otherwise overlapped wage areas.
0
3. Revise and republish appendix A to subpart B to read as follows:
Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 532--Nationwide Schedule of
Appropriated Fund Regular Wage Surveys
This appendix shows the annual schedule of wage surveys. It lists
all States alphabetically, each State being followed by an alphabetical
listing of all wage areas in the State. Information given for each wage
area includes--
(1) The lead agency responsible for conducting the survey;
(2) The month in which the survey will begin; and
(3) Whether full-scale surveys will be done in odd or even numbered
fiscal years.
[[Page 7441]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year of
Beginning month full-scale
State Wage area Lead agency of survey survey odd or
even
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................ Birmingham-Cullman- DoD.............. January.......... Even.
Talladega.
Dothan................ DoD.............. July............. Odd.
Huntsville............ DoD.............. April............ Even.
Montgomery-Selma...... DoD.............. August........... Odd.
Alaska......................... Alaska................ DoD.............. July............. Even.
Arizona........................ Northeastern Arizona.. DoD.............. March............ Odd.
Phoenix............... DoD.............. March............ Odd.
Tucson................ DoD.............. March............ Odd.
Arkansas....................... Little Rock........... DoD.............. July............. Even.
California..................... Fresno................ DoD.............. February......... Odd.
Los Angeles........... DoD.............. November......... Odd.
Sacramento-Roseville.. DoD.............. February......... Odd.
San Diego............. DoD.............. September........ Odd.
San Jose-San Francisco- DoD.............. October.......... Even.
Oakland.
Colorado....................... Denver................ DoD.............. January.......... Odd.
Southern Colorado..... DoD.............. January.......... Even.
District of Columbia........... Washington-Baltimore- DoD.............. July............. Odd.
Arlington.
Florida........................ Cocoa Beach........... DoD.............. October.......... Even.
Jacksonville.......... DoD.............. January.......... Odd.
Miami-Port St. Lucie- DoD.............. May.............. Odd.
Fort Lauderdale.
Panama City........... DoD.............. September........ Even.
Pensacola............. DoD.............. September........ Odd.
Tampa-St. Petersburg.. DoD.............. April............ Even.
Georgia........................ Albany................ DoD.............. August........... Odd.
Atlanta............... DoD.............. May.............. Odd.
Augusta............... DoD.............. June............. Odd.
Macon................. DoD.............. June............. Odd.
Savannah.............. DoD.............. May.............. Odd.
Hawaii......................... Hawaii................ DoD.............. June............. Even.
Idaho.......................... Boise................. DoD.............. July............. Odd.
Illinois....................... Bloomington-Pontiac... DoD.............. September........ Odd.
Chicago-Naperville, IL DoD.............. September........ Even.
Indiana........................ Evansville-Henderson.. DoD.............. October.......... Odd.
Fort Wayne-Marion..... DoD.............. October.......... Odd.
Indianapolis-Carmel- DoD.............. October.......... Odd.
Muncie.
Iowa........................... Cedar Rapids-Iowa City DoD.............. July............. Even.
Davenport-Moline...... DoD.............. October.......... Even.
Des Moines............ DoD.............. September........ Odd.
Kansas......................... Manhattan............. DoD.............. November......... Even.
Wichita............... DoD.............. November......... Even.
Kentucky....................... Lexington............. DoD.............. February......... Even.
Louisville............ DoD.............. February......... Odd.
Louisiana...................... Lake Charles- DoD.............. April............ Even.
Alexandria.
New Orleans........... DoD.............. June............. Even.
Shreveport............ DoD.............. May.............. Even.
Maine.......................... Augusta............... DoD.............. May.............. Even.
Central and Northern DoD.............. June............. Even.
Maine.
Massachusetts.................. Boston-Worcester- DoD.............. August........... Even.
Providence.
Michigan....................... Detroit-Warren-Ann DoD.............. January.......... Odd.
Arbor.
Northwestern Michigan. DoD.............. August........... Odd.
Southwestern Michigan. DoD.............. October.......... Even.
Minnesota...................... Duluth................ DoD.............. June............. Odd.
Minneapolis-St. Paul.. DoD.............. April............ Odd.
Mississippi.................... Biloxi................ DoD.............. November......... Even.
Jackson............... DoD.............. February......... Odd.
Meridian.............. DoD.............. February......... Odd.
Northern Mississippi.. DoD.............. February......... Even.
Missouri....................... Kansas City........... DoD.............. October.......... Odd.
St. Louis............. DoD.............. October.......... Odd.
Southern Missouri..... DoD.............. October.......... Odd.
Montana........................ Montana............... DoD.............. July............. Even.
Nebraska....................... Omaha................. DoD.............. October.......... Odd.
Nevada......................... Las Vegas............. DoD.............. September........ Even.
Reno.................. DoD.............. March............ Even.
New Hampshire.................. Portsmouth............ DoD.............. September........ Even.
New Mexico..................... Albuquerque-Santa Fe- DoD.............. April............ Odd.
Los Alamos.
New York....................... Albany-Schenectady.... DoD.............. March............ Odd.
Buffalo............... DoD.............. September........ Odd.
New York-Newark....... DoD.............. January.......... Even.
Northern New York..... DoD.............. March............ Odd.
Rochester............. DoD.............. April............ Even.
[[Page 7442]]
Syracuse-Utica-Rome... DoD.............. March............ Even.
North Carolina................. Asheville............. DoD.............. June............. Even.
Central North Carolina DoD.............. May.............. Even.
Charlotte-Concord..... DoD.............. August........... Odd.
Southeastern North DoD.............. January.......... Odd.
Carolina.
North Dakota................... North Dakota.......... DoD.............. March............ Even.
Ohio........................... Cincinnati............ DoD.............. January.......... Odd.
Cleveland-Akron-Canton DoD.............. April............ Odd.
Columbus-Marion- DoD.............. January.......... Odd.
Zanesville.
Dayton................ DoD.............. January.......... Even.
Oklahoma....................... Oklahoma City......... DoD.............. August........... Odd.
Tulsa................. DoD.............. August........... Odd.
Oregon......................... Portland-Vancouver- DoD.............. July............. Even.
Salem.
Southwestern Oregon... DoD.............. June............. Even.
Pennsylvania................... Harrisburg-York- DoD.............. May.............. Even.
Lebanon.
Philadelphia-Reading- DoD.............. October.......... Even.
Camden.
Pittsburgh............ DoD.............. July............. Odd.
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre. DoD.............. August........... Odd.
Puerto Rico.................... Puerto Rico........... DoD.............. July............. Odd.
South Carolina................. Charleston............ DoD.............. July............. Even.
Columbia.............. DoD.............. May.............. Even.
South Dakota................... Eastern South Dakota.. DoD.............. October.......... Even.
Tennessee...................... Eastern Tennessee..... DoD.............. February......... Odd.
Memphis............... DoD.............. February......... Even.
Nashville............. DoD.............. February......... Even.
Texas.......................... Austin................ DoD.............. June............. Even.
Corpus Christi- DoD.............. June............. Even.
Kingsville-Alice.
Dallas-Fort Worth..... DoD.............. October.......... Odd.
El Paso............... DoD.............. April............ Even.
Houston-Galveston- DoD.............. March............ Even.
Texas City.
San Antonio........... DoD.............. June............. Odd.
Texarkana............. DoD.............. April............ Odd.
Waco.................. DoD.............. May.............. Odd.
Western Texas......... DoD.............. May.............. Odd.
Wichita Falls, Texas- DoD.............. July............. Even.
Southwestern Oklahoma.
Utah........................... Utah.................. DoD.............. July............. Odd.
Virginia....................... Richmond.............. DoD.............. November......... Odd.
Roanoke............... DoD.............. November......... Even.
Virginia Beach- DoD.............. May.............. Even.
Chesapeake.
Washington..................... Seattle-Everett....... DoD.............. September........ Even.
Southeastern DoD.............. June............. Odd.
Washington- Eastern
Oregon.
Spokane............... DoD.............. July............. Odd.
West Virginia.................. West Virginia......... DoD.............. March............ Odd.
Wisconsin...................... Madison............... DoD.............. July............. Even.
Milwaukee-Racine- DoD.............. June............. Odd.
Waukesha.
Southwestern Wisconsin DoD.............. June............. Even.
Wyoming........................ Wyoming............... DoD.............. January.......... Even.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
4. Revise and republish appendix C to subpart B to read as follows:
Appendix C to Subpart B of Part 532--Appropriated Fund Wage and Survey
Areas
This appendix lists the wage area definitions for appropriated
fund employees. With a few exceptions, each area is defined in terms
of county units, independent cities, or a similar geographic entity.
Each wage area definition consists of:
(1) Wage area title. Wage areas usually carry the title of the
principal city in the area. Sometimes, however, the area title
reflects a broader geographic area, such as Combined Statistical
Area or Metropolitan Statistical Area.
(2) Survey area definition. Lists each county, independent city,
or a similar geographic entity in the survey area.
(3) Area of application definition. Lists each county,
independent city, or a similar geographic entity which, in addition
to the survey area, is in the area of application.
Definitions of Wage Areas and Wage Area Survey Areas
ALABAMA
Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega
Survey Area
Alabama:
Calhoun (effective for wage surveys beginning in January 2028)
Etowah (effective for wage surveys beginning in January 2028)
Jefferson
St. Clair
Shelby
Talladega (effective for wage surveys beginning in January 2028)
Tuscaloosa
Walker
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Alabama:
Bibb
Blount
Calhoun (effective until January 2028)
Chilton
Clay
Coosa
Cullman
Etowah (effective until January 2028)
Fayette
Greene
Hale
Lamar
Marengo
Perry
Pickens
Talladega (effective January 2028)
[[Page 7443]]
Winston
Dothan
Survey Area
Alabama:
Dale
Houston
Georgia:
Early
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Alabama:
Barbour
Coffee
Geneva
Henry
Georgia:
Clay
Miller
Seminole
Huntsville
Survey Area
Alabama:
Limestone
Madison
Marshall
Morgan
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Alabama
Colbert
DeKalb
Franklin
Lauderdale
Lawrence
Marion
Tennessee
Giles
Lincoln
Wayne
Montgomery-Selma
Survey Area
Alabama
Autauga
Elmore
Montgomery
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Alabama
Bullock
Butler
Crenshaw
Dallas
Lowndes
Pike
Wilcox
ALASKA
Anchorage
Survey Area
Alaska: (boroughs and the areas within a 24-kilometer (15-mile)
radius of their corporate city limits)
Anchorage
Fairbanks
Juneau
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Alaska:
State of Alaska (except special area schedules)
ARIZONA
Northeastern Arizona
Survey Area
Arizona:
Apache
Coconino
Navajo
New Mexico:
San Juan
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Colorado:
Dolores
Gunnison (Only includes the Curecanti National Recreation Area
portion)
La Plata
Montezuma
Montrose
Ouray
San Juan
San Miguel
Utah:
Garfield (Only includes the Bryce Canyon, Capitol Reef, and
Canyonlands National Parks portions)
Grand (Only includes the Arches and Canyonlands National Parks
portions)
Iron (Only includes the Cedar Breaks National Monument and Zion
National Park portions)
Kane
San Juan
Washington
Wayne (Only includes the Capitol Reef and Canyonlands National
Parks portions)
Phoenix
Survey Area
Arizona:
Gila
Maricopa
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Arizona:
Pinal
Yavapai
Tucson
Survey Area
Arizona:
Pima
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Arizona:
Cochise
Graham
Greenlee
Santa Cruz
ARKANSAS
Little Rock
Survey Area
Arkansas:
Jefferson
Pulaski
Saline
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Arkansas:
Arkansas
Ashley
Baxter
Boone
Bradley
Calhoun
Chicot
Clark
Clay
Cleburne
Cleveland
Conway
Dallas
Desha
Drew
Faulkner
Franklin (Does not include the Fort Chaffee portion)
Fulton
Garland
Grant
Greene
Hot Spring
Independence
Izard
Jackson
Johnson
Lawrence
Lincoln
Logan
Lonoke
Marion
Monroe
Montgomery
Newton
Ouachita
Perry
Phillips
Pike
Polk
Pope
Prairie
Randolph
Scott
Searcy
Sharp
Stone
Union
Van Buren
White
Woodruff
Yell
CALIFORNIA
Fresno
Survey Area
California:
Fresno
Kings
Tulare
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
California:
Madera
Mariposa
Tuolumne (Only includes the Yosemite National Park portion)
Los Angeles
Survey Area
California:
Kern (effective for wage surveys beginning in November 2026)
Los Angeles
Orange (effective for wage surveys beginning in November 2026)
Riverside (effective for wage surveys beginning in November
2026)
San Bernardino (effective for wage surveys beginning in November
2026)
[[Page 7444]]
Santa Barbara (effective for wage surveys beginning in November
2026)
Ventura (effective for wage surveys beginning in November 2026)
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
California:
Inyo (Only includes the China Lake Naval Weapons Center portion)
Kern (effective until November 2026)
Orange (effective until November 2026)
Riverside (effective until November 2026)
San Bernardino (effective until November 2026)
Santa Barbara (effective until November 2026)
San Luis Obispo
Ventura (effective until November 2026)
Sacramento-Roseville
Survey Area
California:
Placer
Sacramento
Sutter
Yolo
Yuba
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
California:
Amador
Butte
Colusa
El Dorado
Glenn
Humboldt
Lake
Modoc
Nevada
Plumas
Shasta
Sierra
Siskiyou
Tehama
Trinity
San Diego
Survey Area
California:
San Diego
Arizona:
Yuma (effective for wage surveys beginning in September 2027)
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Arizona:
La Paz
Yuma (effective until September 2027)
California:
Imperial
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland
Survey Area
California:
Alameda
Contra Costa
Marin
Monterey (effective for wage surveys beginning in October 2027)
Napa
San Joaquin (effective for wage surveys beginning in October
2027)
San Francisco
San Mateo
Santa Clara
Solano
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
California:
Calaveras
Mendocino
Merced
Monterey (effective until October 2027)
San Benito
San Joaquin (effective until October 2027)
Santa Cruz
Sonoma
Stanislaus
Tuolumne (Does not include the Yosemite National Park portion)
COLORADO
Denver
Survey Area
Colorado:
Adams
Arapahoe
Boulder
Broomfield
Denver
Douglas
Gilpin
Jefferson
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Colorado:
Clear Creek
Eagle
Elbert
Garfield
Grand
Jackson
Lake
Larimer
Lincoln
Logan
Morgan
Park
Phillips
Pitkin
Rio Blanco
Routt
Sedgwick
Summit
Washington
Weld
Yuma
Southern Colorado
Survey Area
Colorado:
El Paso
Pueblo
Teller
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Colorado:
Alamosa
Archuleta
Baca
Bent
Chaffee
Cheyenne
Conejos
Costilla
Crowley
Custer
Delta
Fremont
Gunnison (does not includes the Curecanti National Recreation
Area portion)
Hinsdale
Huerfano
Kiowa
Kit Carson
Las Animas
Mineral
Otero
Prowers
Rio Grande
Saguache
CONNECTICUT
New Haven-Hartford
Survey Area
Connecticut:
Hartford
New Haven
New London (effective for wage surveys beginning in April 2027)
Massachusetts:
Hampden (effective for wage surveys beginning in April 2027)
Hampshire (effective for wage surveys beginning in April 2027)
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Connecticut:
Litchfield
Middlesex
New London (effective until April 2027)
Tolland
Windham
Massachusetts:
Franklin
Hampden (effective until April 2027)
Hampshire (effective until April 2027)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Washington-Baltimore-Arlington
Survey Area
District of Columbia:
Washington, DC
Maryland (city):
Baltimore (effective for wage surveys beginning in July 2027)
Maryland (counties):
Anne Arundel (effective for wage surveys beginning in July 2027)
Baltimore (effective for wage surveys beginning in July 2027)
Carroll (effective for wage surveys beginning in July 2027)
Charles
Frederick
Harford (effective for wage surveys beginning in July 2027)
Howard (effective for wage surveys beginning in July 2027)
Montgomery
Prince George's
Washington (effective for wage surveys beginning in July 2027)
Pennsylvania:
Franklin (effective for wage surveys beginning in July 2027)
Virginia (cities):
Alexandria
Fairfax
Falls Church
Manassas
Manassas Park
Virginia (counties):
Arlington
Fairfax
[[Page 7445]]
King George (effective for wage surveys beginning in July 2027)
Loudoun
Prince William
West Virginia:
Berkley (effective for wage surveys beginning in July 2027)
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Maryland (city):
Baltimore (effective until July 2027)
Maryland (counties)
Allegany
Anne Arundel (effective until July 2027)
Baltimore (effective until July 2027)
Calvert
Caroline
Carroll (effective until July 2027)
Dorchester
Garrett
Harford (effective until July 2027)
Howard (effective until July 2027)
Kent
Queen Anne's
St. Mary's
Talbot
Washington (effective until July 2027)
Pennsylvania:
Franklin (effective until July 2027)
Fulton
Virginia (cities):
Fredericksburg
Harrisonburg
Staunton
Waynesboro
Winchester
Virginia (counties):
Albemarle (Only includes the Shenandoah National Park portion)
Augusta
Caroline
Clarke
Culpeper
Fauquier
Frederick
Greene (Only includes the Shenandoah National Park portion)
King George (effective until July 2027)
Madison
Orange
Page
Rappahannock
Rockingham
Shenandoah
Spotsylvania
Stafford
Warren
Westmoreland
West Virginia:
Berkeley (effective until July 2027)
Hampshire
Hardy
Jefferson
Mineral
Morgan
FLORIDA
Cocoa-Beach
Survey Area
Florida:
Brevard
Area of Application. Survey area.
Jacksonville
Survey Area
Florida:
Alachua
Baker
Clay
Columbia (effective for wage surveys beginning in January 2027)
Duval
Nassau
Orange (effective for wage surveys beginning in January 2027)
St. Johns
Sumter (effective for wage surveys beginning in January 2027)
Georgia:
Camden
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Florida:
Bradford
Citrus
Columbia (effective until January 2027)
Dixie
Flagler
Gilchrist
Hamilton
Lafayette
Lake
Levy
Madison
Marion
Orange (effective until January 2027)
Osceola
Polk
Putnam
Seminole
Sumter (effective until January 2027)
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Volusia
Georgia:
Charlton
Miami-Port St. Lucie-Fort Lauderdale
Survey Area
Florida:
Miami-Dade
Palm Beach (effective for wage surveys beginning in May 2027)
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Florida:
Broward
Collier
Glades
Hendry
Highlands
Indian River
Lee
Martin
Monroe
Okeechobee
Palm Beach (effective until May 2027)
St. Lucie
Area of Application. Survey area.
Panama City
Survey Area
Florida:
Bay
Gulf
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Florida:
Calhoun
Franklin
Gadsden
Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson
Leon
Liberty
Wakulla
Washington
Georgia:
Decatur
Pensacola
Survey Area
Florida:
Escambia
Santa Rosa
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Alabama:
Baldwin
Clarke
Conecuh
Covington
Escambia
Mobile
Monroe
Washington
Florida:
Okaloosa
Walton
Tampa-St. Petersburg
Survey Area
Florida:
Hillsborough
Pasco
Pinellas
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Florida:
Charlotte
De Soto
Hardee
Hernando
Manatee
Sarasota
GEORGIA
Albany
Survey Area
Georgia:
Colquitt
Dougherty
Lee
Mitchell
Worth
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Georgia:
Atkinson
Baker
Ben Hill
Berrien
Brooks
Calhoun
Clinch
Coffee
Cook
Echols
[[Page 7446]]
Grady
Irwin
Lanier
Lowndes
Quitman
Randolph
Schley
Sumter
Terrell
Thomas
Tift
Turner
Ware
Webster
Atlanta
Survey Area
Alabama:
Lee (effective for wage surveys beginning in May 2027)
Macon (effective for wage surveys beginning in May 2027)
Russell (effective for wage surveys beginning in May 2027)
Georgia:
Butts
Chattahoochee (effective for wage surveys beginning in May 2027)
Cherokee
Clayton
Cobb
De Kalb
Douglas
Fayette
Forsyth
Fulton
Gwinnett
Henry
Muscogee (effective for wage surveys beginning in May 2027)
Newton
Paulding
Rockdale
Walton
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Alabama:
Chambers
Cherokee
Cleburne
Lee (effective until May 2027)
Macon (effective until May 2027)
Randolph
Russell (effective until May 2027)
Tallapoosa
Georgia:
Banks
Barrow
Bartow
Carroll
Chattahoochee (effective until May 2027)
Clarke
Coweta
Dawson
Elbert
Fannin
Floyd
Franklin
Gilmer
Gordon
Greene
Habersham
Hall
Haralson
Harris
Hart
Heard
Jackson
Jasper
Lamar
Lumpkin
Madison
Marion
Meriwether
Morgan
Muscogee (effective until May 2027)
Oconee
Oglethorpe
Pickens
Pike
Polk
Putnam
Rabun
Spalding
Stephens
Stewart
Talbot
Taliaferro
Towns
Troup
Union
Upson
White
Augusta
Survey Area
Georgia:
Columbia
McDuffie
Richmond
South Carolina:
Aiken
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Georgia:
Burke
Emanuel
Glascock
Jefferson
Jenkins
Lincoln
Warren
Wilkes
South Carolina:
Allendale
Bamberg
Barnwell
Edgefield
McCormick
Macon
Survey Area
Georgia:
Bibb
Houston
Jones
Laurens
Twiggs
Wilkinson
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Georgia:
Baldwin
Bleckley
Crawford
Crisp
Dodge
Dooly
Hancock
Johnson
Macon
Monroe
Montgomery
Peach
Pulaski
Taylor
Telfair
Treutlen
Washington
Wheeler
Wilcox
Savannah
Survey Area
Georgia:
Bryan
Chatham
Effingham
Liberty
South Carolina:
Beaufort (effective for wage surveys beginning in May 2027)
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Georgia:
Appling
Bacon
Brantley
Bulloch
Candler
Evans
Glynn
Jeff Davis
Long
McIntosh
Pierce
Screven
Tattnall
Toombs
Wayne
South Carolina:
Beaufort (effective until May 2027)
Hampton
Jasper
HAWAII
Hawaii
Survey Area
Hawaii:
Honolulu
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Hawaii:
Hawaii
Kauai (includes the islands of Kauai and Niihau)
Maui (includes the islands of Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and
Kahoolawe)
IDAHO
Boise
Survey Area
Idaho:
Ada
Boise
Canyon
Elmore
Gem
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Idaho:
Adams
Bannock
Bear Lake
Bingham
Blaine
[[Page 7447]]
Bonneville
Butte
Camas
Caribou
Cassia
Clark
Custer
Fremont
Gooding
Jefferson
Jerome
Lemhi
Lincoln
Madison
Minidoka
Oneida
Owyhee
Payette
Power
Teton
Twin Falls
Valley
Washington
ILLINOIS
Bloomington-Pontiac
Survey Area
Illinois:
Champaign
Menard
Sangamon
Vermilion
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Illinois:
Christian
Clark
Coles
Crawford
Cumberland
De Witt
Douglas
Edgar
Ford
Jasper
Livingston
Logan
McLean
Macon
Morgan
Moultrie
Piatt
Scott
Shelby
Chicago-Naperville, IL
Survey Area
Illinois:
Cook
Du Page
Kane
Lake
McHenry
Will
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Illinois:
Boone
Bureau
De Kalb
Grundy
Iroquois
Kankakee
Kendall
La Salle
Ogle
Putnam
Stephenson
Winnebago
Indiana:
Jasper
Lake
La Porte
Newton
Porter
Pulaski
Starke
Wisconsin:
Kenosha
INDIANA
Evansville-Henderson
Survey Area
Indiana:
Daviess
Greene
Knox
Martin
Orange
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Illinois:
Edwards
Gallatin
Hardin
Lawrence
Richland
Wabash
White
Indiana:
Crawford
Dubois
Gibson
Perry
Pike
Posey
Spencer
Vanderburgh
Warrick
Kentucky:
Crittenden
Daviess
Hancock
Henderson
McLean
Ohio
Union
Webster
Fort Wayne-Marion
Survey Area
Indiana:
Adams
Allen
DeKalb
Huntington
Wells
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Indiana:
Cass
Elkhart
Fulton
Jay
Kosciusko
LaGrange
Marshall
Noble
St. Joseph
Steuben
Wabash
Whitley
Ohio:
Defiance
Henry
Paulding
Putnam
Williams
Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie
Survey Area
Indiana:
Boone
Grant (effective for wage surveys beginning in October 2026)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hendricks
Johnson
Lawrence (effective for wage surveys beginning in October 2026)
Marion
Miami (effective for wage surveys beginning in October 2026)
Monroe (effective for wage surveys beginning in October 2026)
Morgan
Shelby
Vigo (effective for wage surveys beginning in October 2026)
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Indiana:
Bartholomew
Benton
Blackford
Brown
Carroll
Clay
Clinton
Decatur
Delaware
Fayette
Fountain
Grant (effective until October 2026)
Henry
Howard
Jackson
Jennings
Lawrence (effective until October 2026)
Madison
Miami (effective until October 2026)
Monroe (effective until October 2026)
Montgomery
Owen
Parke
Putnam
Randolph
Rush
Sullivan
Tippecanoe
Tipton
Vermillion
Vigo (effective until October 2026)
Warren
Wayne
White
IOWA
Cedar Rapids-Iowa City
Survey Area
Iowa:
Benton
Black Hawk
Johnson
[[Page 7448]]
Linn
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Iowa:
Allamakee
Bremer
Buchanan
Butler
Cedar
Chickasaw
Clayton
Davis
Delaware
Fayette
Floyd
Grundy
Henry
Howard
Iowa
Jefferson
Jones
Keokuk
Mitchell
Tama
Van Buren
Wapello
Washington
Winneshiek
Davenport-Moline
Survey Area
Illinois:
Henry
Rock Island
Iowa:
Scott
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Illinois:
Brown
Carroll
Cass
Fulton
Hancock
Henderson
Jo Daviess
Knox
Lee
McDonough
Marshall
Mason
Mercer
Peoria
Schuyler
Stark
Tazewell
Warren
Whiteside
Woodford
Iowa:
Clinton
Des Moines
Dubuque
Jackson
Lee
Louisa
Muscatine
Des Moines
Survey Area
Iowa:
Polk
Story
Warren
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Iowa:
Adair
Appanoose
Boone
Calhoun
Carroll
Cerro Gordo
Clarke
Dallas
Decatur
Franklin
Greene
Guthrie
Hamilton
Hancock
Hardin
Humboldt
Jasper
Kossuth
Lucas
Madison
Mahaska
Marion
Marshall
Monroe
Poweshiek
Ringgold
Union
Wayne
Webster
Winnebago
Worth
Wright
KANSAS
Manhattan
Survey Area
Kansas:
Geary
Riley (effective for wage surveys beginning in November 2027)
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Kansas:
Brown
Clay
Cloud
Coffey
Dickinson
Lyon
Marshall
Morris
Nemaha
Ottawa
Pottawatomie
Republic
Riley (effective until November 2027)
Saline
Washington
Wichita
Survey Area
Kansas:
Butler
Sedgwick
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Kansas:
Barber
Barton
Chase
Chautauqua
Cheyenne
Clark
Comanche
Cowley
Decatur
Edwards
Elk
Ellis
Ellsworth
Finney
Ford
Gove
Graham
Grant
Gray
Greeley
Greenwood
Hamilton
Harper
Harvey
Haskell
Hodgeman
Jewell
Kearny
Kingman
Kiowa
Labette
Lane
Lincoln
Logan
McPherson
Marion
Meade
Mitchell
Montgomery
Morton
Neosho
Ness
Norton
Osborne
Pawnee
Phillips
Pratt
Rawlins
Reno
Rice
Rooks
Rush
Russell
Scott
Seward
Sheridan
Sherman
Smith
Stafford
Stanton
Stevens
Sumner
Thomas
Trego
Wallace
Wichita
Wilson
Woodson
KENTUCKY
Lexington
Survey Area
Kentucky:
Bourbon
Clark
Fayette
Jessamine
Madison
Scott
Woodford
[[Page 7449]]
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Kentucky:
Anderson
Bath
Bell
Boyle
Breathitt
Casey
Clay
Estill
Fleming
Franklin
Garrard
Green
Harrison
Jackson
Knott
Knox
Laurel
Lee
Leslie
Lincoln
McCreary
Marion
Menifee
Mercer
Montgomery
Morgan
Nicholas
Owsley
Perry
Powell
Pulaski
Rockcastle
Rowan
Taylor
Washington
Wayne
Whitley
Wolfe
Louisville
Survey Area
Indiana:
Clark
Floyd
Jefferson
Kentucky:
Bullitt
Hardin
Jefferson
Oldham
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Indiana:
Harrison
Scott
Washington
Kentucky:
Breckinridge
Grayson
Hart
Henry
Larue
Meade
Nelson
Shelby
Spencer
Trimble
LOUISIANA
Lake Charles-Alexandria
Survey Area
Louisiana:
Allen
Beauregard
Calcasieu
Grant
Rapides
Sabine
Vernon
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Louisiana:
Acadia
Avoyelles
Caldwell
Cameron
Catahoula
Concordia
Evangeline
Franklin
Iberia
Jefferson Davis
Lafayette
La Salle
Madison
Natchitoches
St. Landry
St. Martin
Tensas
Vermilion
Winn
New Orleans
Survey Area
Louisiana:
Jefferson
Orleans
Plaquemines
St. Bernard
St. Charles
St. John the Baptist
St. Tammany
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Louisiana:
Ascension
Assumption
East Baton Rouge
East Feliciana
Iberville
Lafourche
Livingston
Pointe Coupee
St. Helena
St. James
St. Mary
Tangipahoa
Terrebonne
Washington
West Baton Rouge
West Feliciana
Shreveport
Survey Area
Louisiana:
Bossier
Caddo
Webster
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Louisiana:
Bienville
Claiborne
De Soto
East Carroll
Jackson
Lincoln
Morehouse
Ouachita
Red River
Richland
Union
West Carroll
Texas:
Gregg
Harrison
Panola
Rusk
Upshur
MAINE
Augusta
Survey Area
Maine:
Kennebec
Knox
Lincoln
Area of Application. Survey area:
Central And Northern Maine
Survey Area
Maine:
Aroostook
Penobscot
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Maine:
Hancock
Piscataquis
Somerset
Waldo
Washington
MASSACHUSETTS
Boston-Worcester-Providence
Survey Area
Maine:
Androscoggin (effective for wage surveys beginning in August
2026)
Cumberland (effective for wage surveys beginning in August 2026)
Sagadahoc (effective for wage surveys beginning in August 2026)
York (effective for wage surveys beginning in August 2026)
Massachusetts:
Barnstable
Bristol (effective for wage surveys beginning in August 2026)
Essex
Middlesex
Norfolk
Plymouth
Suffolk
Worcester (effective for wage surveys beginning in August 2026)
New Hampshire:
Rockingham (effective for wage surveys beginning in August 2026)
Strafford (effective for wage surveys beginning in August 2026)
Rhode Island:
Bristol (effective for wage surveys beginning in August 2026)
Kent (effective for wage surveys beginning in August 2026)
Newport (effective for wage surveys beginning in August 2026)
Providence (effective for wage surveys beginning in August 2026)
Washington (effective for wage surveys beginning in August 2026)
[[Page 7450]]
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Maine:
Androscoggin (effective until August 2026)
Cumberland (effective until August 2026)
Franklin
Oxford
Sagadahoc (effective until August 2026)
York (effective until August 2026)
Massachusetts:
Bristol (effective until August 2026)
Dukes
Nantucket
Worcester (effective until August 2026)
New Hampshire:
Belknap
Carroll
Cheshire
Coos
Grafton
Hillsborough
Merrimack
Rockingham (effective until August 2026)
Strafford (effective until August 2026)
Sullivan
Rhode Island:
Bristol (effective until August 2026)
Kent (effective until August 2026)
Newport (effective until August 2026)
Providence (effective until August 2026)
Washington (effective until August 2026)
Vermont:
Orange
Windham
Windsor
MICHIGAN
Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor
Survey Area
Michigan:
Lapeer
Livingston
Macomb
Oakland
St. Clair
Washtenaw (effective for wage surveys beginning in January 2027)
Wayne
Ohio:
Lucas (effective for wage surveys beginning in January 2027)
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Michigan:
Arenac
Bay
Clare
Clinton
Eaton
Genesee
Gladwin
Gratiot
Huron
Ingham
Isabella
Jackson
Lenawee
Midland
Monroe
Saginaw
Sanilac
Shiawassee
Tuscola
Washtenaw (effective until January 2027)
Ohio:
Fulton
Lucas (effective until January 2027)
Wood
Northwestern Michigan
Survey Area
Michigan:
Delta
Dickinson
Marquette
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Michigan:
Alcona
Alger
Alpena
Antrim
Baraga
Benzie
Charlevoix
Cheboygan
Chippewa
Crawford
Emmet
Gogebic
Grand Traverse
Houghton
Iosco
Iron
Kalkaska
Keweenaw
Leelanau
Luce
Mackinac
Manistee
Menominee
Missaukee
Montmorency
Ogemaw
Ontonagon
Oscoda
Otsego
Presque Isle
Roscommon
Schoolcraft
Wexford
Wisconsin:
Florence
Marinette
Southwestern Michigan
Survey Area
Michigan:
Barry
Calhoun
Kalamazoo
Van Buren
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Michigan:
Allegan
Berrien
Branch
Cass
Hillsdale
Ionia
Kent
Lake
Mason
Mecosta
Montcalm
Muskegon
Newaygo
Oceana
Osceola
Ottawa
St. Joseph
MINNESOTA
Duluth
Survey Area
Minnesota:
Carlton
St. Louis
Wisconsin:
Douglas
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Minnesota:
Aitkin
Becker (only includes the White Earth Indian Reservation
portion)
Beltrami
Cass
Clearwater
Cook
Crow Wing
Hubbard
Itasca
Koochiching
Lake
Lake of the Woods
Mahnomen
Wisconsin:
Ashland
Bayfield
Burnett
Iron
Sawyer
Washburn
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Survey Area
Minnesota:
Anoka
Carver
Chisago
Dakota
Hennepin
Morrison (effective for wage surveys beginning in April 2027)
Ramsey
Scott
Stearns (effective for wage surveys beginning in April 2027)
Washington
Wright
Wisconsin:
St. Croix
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Minnesota:
Benton
Big Stone
Blue Earth
Brown
Chippewa
Cottonwood
Dodge
Douglas
Faribault
Fillmore
Freeborn
Goodhue
Grant
Isanti
Kanabec
Kandiyohi
Lac Qui Parle
Le Sueur
McLeod
Martin
Meeker
[[Page 7451]]
Mille Lacs
Morrison (effective until April 2027)
Mower
Nicollet
Olmsted
Pine
Pope
Redwood
Renville
Rice
Sherburne
Sibley
Stearns (effective until April 2027)
Steele
Stevens
Swift
Todd
Traverse
Wabasha
Wadena
Waseca
Watonwan
Winona
Yellow Medicine
Wisconsin:
Pierce
Polk
MISSISSIPPI
Biloxi
Survey Area
Mississippi:
Hancock
Harrison
Jackson
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Mississippi:
George
Pearl River
Stone
Jackson
Survey Area
Mississippi:
Hinds
Rankin
Warren
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Mississippi:
Adams
Amite
Attala
Claiborne
Copiah
Franklin
Holmes
Humphreys
Issaquena
Jefferson
Jefferson Davis
Lawrence
Lincoln
Madison
Marion
Pike
Scott
Sharkey
Simpson
Smith
Walthall
Wilkinson
Yazoo
Meridian
Survey Area
Alabama:
Choctaw
Mississippi:
Forrest
Lamar
Lauderdale
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Alabama:
Sumter
Mississippi:
Clarke
Covington
Greene
Jasper
Jones
Kemper
Leake
Neshoba
Newton
Perry
Wayne
Northern Mississippi
Survey area
Mississippi:
Clay
Grenada
Lee
Leflore
Lowndes
Monroe
Oktibbeha
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Mississippi:
Alcorn
Bolivar
Calhoun
Carroll
Chickasaw
Choctaw
Coahoma
Itawamba
Lafayette (Does not include the Holly Springs National Forest
portion)
Montgomery
Noxubee
Pontotoc (Does not include the Holly Springs National Forest
portion)
Prentiss
Quitman
Sunflower
Tallahatchie
Tishomingo
Union (Does not include the Holly Springs National Forest
portion)
Washington
Webster
Winston
Yalobusha
MISSOURI
Kansas City
Survey Area
Kansas:
Jefferson (effective for wage surveys beginning in October 2026)
Johnson
Leavenworth
Osage (effective for wage surveys beginning in October 2026)
Shawnee (effective for wage surveys beginning in October 2026)
Wyandotte
Missouri:
Cass
Clay
Jackson
Johnson (effective for wage surveys beginning in October 2026)
Platte
Ray
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Kansas:
Allen
Anderson
Atchison
Bourbon
Doniphan
Douglas
Franklin
Jackson
Jefferson (effective until October 2026)
Linn
Miami
Osage (effective until October 2026)
Shawnee (effective until October 2026)
Wabaunsee
Missouri:
Adair
Andrew
Atchison
Bates
Buchanan
Caldwell
Carroll
Chariton
Clinton
Daviess
DeKalb
Gentry
Grundy
Harrison
Henry
Holt
Johnson (effective until October 2026)
Lafayette
Linn
Livingston
Macon
Mercer
Nodaway
Pettis
Putnam
Saline
Schuyler
Sullivan
Worth
St. Louis
Survey Area
Illinois:
Clinton
Madison
Monroe
St. Clair
Williamson (effective for wage surveys beginning in October
2026)
Missouri (city):
St. Louis
Missouri (counties):
Boone (effective for wage surveys beginning in October 2026)
Franklin
Jefferson
St. Charles
[[Page 7452]]
St. Louis
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Illinois:
Adams
Alexander
Bond
Calhoun
Clay
Effingham
Fayette
Franklin
Greene
Hamilton
Jackson
Jefferson
Jersey
Johnson
Macoupin
Marion
Montgomery
Perry
Pike
Pope
Pulaski
Randolph
Saline
Union
Washington
Wayne
Williamson (effective until October 2026)
Missouri:
Audrain
Bollinger
Boone (effective until October 2026)
Callaway
Cape Girardeau
Clark
Cole
Cooper
Crawford
Gasconade
Howard
Iron
Knox
Lewis
Lincoln
Madison
Marion
Mississippi
Moniteau
Monroe
Montgomery
Osage
Perry
Pike
Ralls
Randolph
St. Francois
Ste. Genevieve
Scotland
Scott
Shelby
Warren
Washington
Southern Missouri
Survey Area
Missouri:
Christian
Greene
Laclede
Phelps
Pulaski
Webster
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Kansas:
Cherokee
Crawford
Missouri:
Barry
Barton
Benton
Butler
Camden
Carter
Cedar
Dade
Dallas
Dent
Douglas
Hickory
Howell
Jasper
Lawrence
Maries
Miller
Morgan
New Madrid
Newton
Oregon
Ozark
Polk
Reynolds
Ripley
St. Clair
Shannon
Stoddard
Stone
Taney
Texas
Vernon
Wayne
Wright
MONTANA
Montana
Survey Area
Montana:
Cascade
Lewis and Clark
Yellowstone
Area of Applicaton. Survey area plus:
Montana:
Beaverhead
Big Horn
Blaine
Broadwater
Carbon
Carter
Chouteau
Custer
Daniels
Dawson
Deer Lodge
Fallon
Fergus
Flathead
Gallatin
Garfield
Glacier
Golden Valley
Granite
Hill
Jefferson
Judith Basin
Lake
Liberty
Lincoln
McCone
Madison
Meagher
Mineral
Missoula
Musselshell
Park
Petroleum
Phillips
Pondera
Powder River
Powell
Prairie
Ravalli
Richland
Roosevelt
Rosebud
Sanders
Sheridan
Silver Bow
Stillwater
Sweet Grass
Teton
Toole
Treasure
Valley
Wheatland
Wibaux
Wyoming:
Big Horn
Park
Teton
NEBRASKA
Omaha
Survey Area
Iowa:
Pottawattamie
Nebraska:
Douglas
Lancaster
Sarpy
Area of Applicaton. Survey area plus:
Iowa:
Adams
Audubon
Buena Vista
Cass
Cherokee
Clay
Crawford
Fremont
Harrison
Ida
Mills
Monona
Montgomery
O'Brien
Page
Palo Alto
Plymouth
Pocahontas
Sac
Shelby
Sioux
Taylor
Woodbury
Nebraska:
Adams
Antelope
Arthur
Blaine
Boone
Boyd
[[Page 7453]]
Brown
Buffalo
Burt
Butler
Cass
Cedar
Chase
Cherry
Clay
Colfax
Cuming
Custer
Dakota
Dawson
Dixon
Dodge
Dundy
Fillmore
Franklin
Frontier
Furnas
Gage
Garfield
Gosper
Grant
Greeley
Hall
Hamilton
Harlan
Hayes
Hitchcock
Holt
Hooker
Howard
Jefferson
Johnson
Kearney
Keith
Keya Paha
Knox
Lincoln
Logan
Loup
McPherson
Madison
Merrick
Nance
Nemaha
Nuckolls
Otoe
Pawnee
Perkins
Phelps
Pierce
Platte
Polk
Red Willow
Richardson
Rock
Saline
Saunders
Seward
Sherman
Stanton
Thayer
Thomas
Thurston
Valley
Washington
Wayne
Webster
Wheeler
York
South Dakota:
Union
NEVADA
Las Vegas
Survey Area
Nevada:
Clark
Nye
Area of Applicaton. Survey area plus:
Arizona:
Mohave
California:
Inyo (Does not include the China Lake Naval Weapons Center
portion.)
Nevada:
Esmeralda
Lincoln
Reno
Survey Area
California:
Lassen (effective for wage surveys beginning in March 2026)
Nevada:
Lyon
Mineral
Storey
Washoe
Area of Applicaton. Survey area plus:
California:
Alpine
Lassen (effective until March 2026)
Mono (Does not cover locations where the Bridgeport, CA, special
schedule applies)
Nevada (city):
Carson City
Nevada (county):
Churchill
Douglas
Elko
Eureka
Humboldt
Lander
Pershing
White Pine
NEW MEXICO
Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Los Alamos
Survey Area
New Mexico:
Bernalillo
McKinley (effective for wage surveys beginning in April 2027)
Sandoval
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
New Mexico:
Catron
Cibola
Colfax
Curry
De Baca
Guadalupe
Harding
Lincoln (Does not include the White Sands Missile Range portion)
Los Alamos
McKinley (effective until April 2027)
Mora
Quay
Rio Arriba
Roosevelt
San Miguel
Santa Fe
Socorro (Does not include the White Sands Missile Range portion)
Taos
Torrance
Union
Valencia
NEW YORK
Albany-Schenectady
Survey Area
New York:
Albany
Montgomery
Rensselaer
Saratoga
Schenectady
Area of Applicaton. Survey area plus:
Massachusetts:
Berkshire
New York:
Columbia
Delaware
Fulton
Greene
Hamilton
Schoharie
Warren
Washington
Vermont:
Bennington
Rutland
Buffalo
Survey Area
New York:
Erie
Niagara
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
New York:
Allegany
Cattaraugus
Chautauqua
Wyoming
Pennsylvania:
Elk (Only includes the Allegheny National Forest portion)
Forest (Only includes the Allegheny National Forest portion)
McKean
Warren
New York-Newark
Survey Area
New Jersey:
Bergen
Burlington (Only includes the Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst
portion)
Essex
Hudson
Middlesex
Monmouth (effective for wage surveys beginning in January 2028)
Morris
Ocean (effective for wage surveys beginning in January 2028)
Passaic
Somerset
Union
New York:
Bronx
Dutchess (effective for wage surveys beginning in January 2028)
Kings
[[Page 7454]]
Nassau
New York
Orange
Queens
Suffolk
Westchester
Pennsylvania:
Monroe (effective for wage surveys beginning in January 2028)
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Connecticut:
Fairfield
New Jersey:
Hunterdon
Mercer
Monmouth (effective until January 2028)
Ocean (effective until January 2028)
Sussex
Warren
New York:
Dutchess (effective until January 2028)
Putnam
Richmond
Rockland
Sullivan
Ulster
Pennsylvania:
Carbon
Lehigh
Monroe (effective until January 2028)
Northampton
Pike
Wayne
Northern New York
Survey Area
New York:
Clinton
Franklin
Jefferson
St. Lawrence
Vermont:
Chittenden
Franklin
Grand Isle
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
New York:
Essex
Lewis
Vermont:
Addison
Caledonia
Essex
Lamoille
Orleans
Washington
Rochester
Survey Area
New York:
Livingston
Monroe
Ontario
Orleans
Steuben
Wayne
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
New York:
Chemung
Genesee
Schuyler
Seneca
Yates
Pennsylvania:
Tioga
Syracuse-Utica-Rome
Survey Area
New York:
Herkimer
Madison
Oneida
Onondaga
Oswego
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
New York:
Broome
Cayuga
Chenango
Cortland
Otsego
Tioga
Tompkins
NORTH CAROLINA
Asheville
Survey Area
North Carolina:
Buncombe
Haywood
Henderson
Madison
Transylvania
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
North Carolina:
Avery
Cherokee
Clay
Graham
Jackson
Macon
Mitchell
Polk
Rutherford
Swain
Yancey
Central North Carolina
Survey Area
North Carolina:
Cumberland
Durham
Harnett
Hoke
Johnston
Orange
Wake
Wayne
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
North Carolina:
Alamance
Bladen
Caswell
Chatham
Davidson
Davie
Edgecombe
Forsyth
Franklin
Granville
Guilford
Halifax
Lee
Montgomery
Moore
Nash
Northampton
Person
Randolph
Richmond
Robeson
Rockingham
Sampson
Scotland
Stokes
Surry
Vance
Warren
Wilson
Yadkin
South Carolina:
Dillon
Marion
Marlboro
Charlotte-Concord
Survey Area
North Carolina:
Cabarrus
Gaston
Mecklenburg
Rowan
Union
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
North Carolina:
Alexander
Anson
Burke
Caldwell
Catawba
Cleveland
Iredell
Lincoln
McDowell
Stanly
Wilkes
South Carolina:
Chester
Chesterfield
Lancaster
York
Southeastern North Carolina
Survey Area
North Carolina:
Brunswick
Carteret
Columbus
Craven
Jones
Lenoir
New Hanover
Onslow
Pamlico
Pender
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
North Carolina:
Beaufort
Bertie
Duplin
Greene
Hyde
Martin
Pitt
Washington
[[Page 7455]]
NORTH DAKOTA
North Dakota
Survey Area
Minnesota:
Clay
Polk
North Dakota:
Burleigh
Cass
Grand Forks
McLean
Mercer
Morton
Oliver
Traill
Ward
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Minnesota:
Becker (does not include the White Earth Indian Reservation
portion)
Kittson
Marshall
Norman
Otter Tail
Pennington
Red Lake
Roseau
Wilkin
North Dakota:
Adams
Barnes
Benson
Billings
Bottineau
Bowman
Burke
Cavalier
Dickey
Divide
Dunn
Eddy
Emmons
Foster
Golden Valley
Grant
Griggs
Hettinger
Kidder
LaMoure
Logan
McHenry
McIntosh
McKenzie
Mountrail
Nelson
Pembina
Pierce
Ramsey
Ransom
Renville
Richland
Rolette
Sargent
Sheridan
Sioux
Slope
Stark
Steele
Stutsman
Towner
Walsh
Wells
Williams
OHIO
Cincinnati
Survey Area
Indiana:
Dearborn
Kentucky:
Boone
Campbell
Kenton
Ohio:
Clermont
Hamilton
Warren
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Indiana:
Franklin
Ohio
Ripley
Switzerland
Union
Kentucky:
Bracken
Carroll
Gallatin
Grant
Lewis
Mason
Owen
Pendleton
Robertson
Ohio:
Adams
Brown
Butler
Clinton
Highland
Cleveland-Akron-Canton
Survey Area
Ohio:
Cuyahoga
Geauga
Lake
Mahoning (effective for wage surveys beginning in April 2027)
Medina
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Ohio:
Ashland
Ashtabula
Carroll
Columbiana
Coshocton
Crawford
Erie
Holmes
Huron
Lorain
Mahoning (effective until April 2027)
Ottawa
Portage
Richland
Sandusky
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
Tuscarawas
Wayne
Columbus-Marion-Zanesville
Survey Area
Ohio:
Delaware
Fairfield
Franklin
Licking
Madison
Pickaway
Ross (effective for wage surveys beginning in January 2027)
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Ohio:
Athens
Fayette
Guernsey
Hancock
Hardin
Hocking
Knox
Logan
Marion
Morgan
Morrow
Muskingum
Noble
Perry
Pike
Ross (effective until January 2027)
Seneca
Union
Vinton
Wyandot
Dayton
Survey Area
Ohio:
Champaign
Clark
Greene
Miami
Montgomery
Preble
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Ohio:
Allen
Auglaize
Darke
Mercer
Shelby
Van Wert
OKLAHOMA
Oklahoma City
Survey Area
Oklahoma:
Canadian
Cleveland
McClain
Oklahoma
Pottawatomie
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Oklahoma:
Alfalfa
Atoka
Beckham
Blaine
Caddo
Coal
Custer
Dewey
Ellis
Garfield
Garvin
Grady
[[Page 7456]]
Grant
Harper
Hughes
Johnston
Kingfisher
Lincoln
Logan
Major
Marshall
Murray
Noble
Payne
Pontotoc
Roger Mills
Seminole
Washita
Woods
Woodward
Tulsa
Survey Area
Oklahoma:
Creek
Mayes
Muskogee
Osage
Pittsburg
Rogers
Tulsa
Wagoner
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Arkansas:
Benton
Carroll
Crawford
Franklin (Only includes the Fort Chaffee portion)
Madison
Sebastian
Washington
Missouri:
McDonald
Oklahoma:
Adair
Cherokee
Choctaw
Craig
Delaware
Haskell
Kay
Latimer
Le Flore
McCurtain
McIntosh
Nowata
Okfuskee
Okmulgee
Ottawa
Pawnee
Pushmataha
Sequoyah
Washington
OREGON
Portland-Vancouver-Salem
Survey Area
Oregon:
Clackamas
Marion
Multnomah
Polk
Washington
Washington:
Clark
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Oregon:
Benton
Clatsop
Columbia
Gilliam
Hood River
Linn
Sherman
Tillamook
Wasco
Yamhill
Washington:
Cowlitz
Klickitat
Skamania
Wahkiakum
Southwestern Oregon
Survey Area
Oregon:
Douglas
Jackson
Lane
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
California:
Del Norte
Oregon:
Coos
Crook
Curry
Deschutes
Jefferson
Josephine
Klamath
Lake
Lincoln
PENNSYLVANIA
Harrisburg-York-Lebanon
Survey Area
Pennsylvania:
Cumberland
Dauphin
Lebanon
Union (effective for wage surveys beginning in May 2026)
York
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Pennsylvania:
Adams
Clinton
Juniata
Lancaster
Lycoming
Mifflin
Perry
Snyder
Union (effective until May 2026)
Philadelphia-Reading-Camden
Survey Area
Delaware:
Kent (effective for wage surveys beginning in October 2027)
New Castle (effective for wage surveys beginning in October
2027)
Maryland:
Cecil (effective for wage surveys beginning in October 2027)
New Jersey:
Burlington (Excluding the Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst
portion)
Camden
Gloucester
Salem (effective for wage surveys beginning in October 2027)
Pennsylvania:
Bucks
Chester
Delaware
Montgomery
Philadelphia
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Delaware:
Kent (effective until October 2027)
New Castle (effective until October 2027)
Sussex
Maryland:
Cecil (effective until October 2027)
Somerset
Wicomico
Worcester (Does not include the Assateague Island portion)
New Jersey:
Atlantic
Cape May
Cumberland
Salem (effective until October 2027)
Pennsylvania:
Berks
Schuylkill
Pittsburgh
Survey Area
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny
Beaver
Butler
Cambria (effective for wage surveys beginning in July 2027)
Washington
Westmoreland
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Ohio:
Belmont
Harrison
Jefferson
Pennsylvania:
Armstrong
Bedford
Blair
Cambria (effective until July 2027)
Cameron
Centre
Clarion
Clearfield
Crawford
Elk (Does not include the Allegheny National Forest portion)
Erie
Fayette
Forest (Does not include the Allegheny National Forest portion)
Greene
Huntingdon
Indiana
Jefferson
Lawrence
Mercer
Potter
Somerset
Venango
West Virginia:
Brooke
Hancock
Marshall
[[Page 7457]]
Ohio
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre
Survey Area
Pennsylvania:
Lackawanna
Luzerne
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Pennsylvania:
Bradford
Columbia
Montour
Northumberland
Sullivan
Susquehanna
Wyoming
PUERTO RICO
Puerto Rico
Survey Area
Puerto Rico (Municipios):
Bayam[oacute]n
Can[oacute]vanas
Carolina
Cata[ntilde]o
Guaynabo
Humacao
Lo[iacute]za
San Juan
Toa Baja
Trujillo Alto
Area of Application.
Puerto Rico
SOUTH CAROLINA
Charleston
Survey Area
South Carolina:
Berkeley
Charleston
Dorchester
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
South Carolina:
Colleton
Georgetown
Horry
Williamsburg
Columbia
Survey Area
South Carolina:
Darlington
Florence
Kershaw
Lee
Lexington
Richland
Sumter
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
South Carolina:
Abbeville
Anderson
Calhoun
Cherokee
Clarendon
Fairfield
Greenville
Greenwood
Laurens
Newberry
Oconee
Orangeburg
Pickens
Saluda
Spartanburg
Union
SOUTH DAKOTA
Eastern South Dakota
Survey Area
South Dakota:
Minnehaha
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Iowa:
Dickinson
Emmet
Lyon
Osceola
Minnesota:
Jackson
Lincoln
Lyon
Murray
Nobles
Pipestone
Rock
South Dakota:
Aurora
Beadle
Bennett
Bon Homme
Brookings
Brown
Brule
Buffalo
Campbell
Charles Mix
Clark
Clay
Codington
Corson
Davison
Day
Deuel
Dewey
Douglas
Edmunds
Faulk
Grant
Gregory
Haakon
Hamlin
Hand
Hanson
Hughes
Hutchinson
Hyde
Jerauld
Jones
Kingsbury
Lake
Lincoln
Lyman
McCook
McPherson
Marshall
Mellette
Miner
Moody
Potter
Roberts
Sanborn
Spink
Stanley
Sully
Todd
Tripp
Turner
Walworth
Yankton
Ziebach
TENNESSEE
Eastern Tennessee
Survey Area
Tennessee:
Carter
Hawkins
Sullivan
Unicoi
Washington
Virginia (city):
Bristol
Virginia (counties):
Scott
Washington
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Kentucky:
Harlan
Letcher
North Carolina:
Alleghany
Ashe
Watauga
Tennessee:
Cocke
Greene
Hancock
Johnson
Virginia:
Buchanan
Grayson
Lee
Russell
Smyth
Tazewell
Memphis
Survey Area
Arkansas:
Crittenden
Mississippi
Mississippi:
De Soto
Tennessee:
Shelby
Tipton
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Arkansas:
Craighead
Cross
Lee
Poinsett
St. Francis
Mississippi:
Benton
Lafayette (Only includes the Holly Springs National Forest
portion)
Marshall
Panola
Pontotoc (Only includes the Holly Springs National Forest
portion)
Tate
Tippah
Tunica
Union (Only includes the Holly Springs National Forest portion)
[[Page 7458]]
Missouri:
Dunklin
Pemiscot
Tennessee:
Carroll
Chester
Crockett
Dyer
Fayette
Gibson
Hardeman
Hardin
Haywood
Lake
Lauderdale
Madison
McNairy
Obion
Nashville
Survey Area
Kentucky:
Christian
Tennessee:
Cheatham
Davidson
Dickson
Montgomery
Robertson
Rutherford
Sumner
Williamson
Wilson
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Alabama:
Jackson
Georgia:
Catossa
Chattooga
Dade
Murray
Walker
Whitfield
Illinois:
Massac
Kentucky:
Adair
Allen
Ballard
Barren
Butler
Caldwell
Calloway
Carlisle
Clinton
Cumberland
Edmonson
Fulton
Graves
Hickman
Hopkins
Livingston
Logan
Lyon
McCracken
Marshall
Metcalfe
Monroe
Muhlenberg
Russell
Simpson
Todd
Trigg
Warren
Tennessee:
Anderson
Bedford
Benton
Bledsoe
Blount
Bradley
Campbell
Cannon
Claiborne
Clay
Coffee
Cumberland
Decatur
DeKalb
Fentress
Franklin
Grainger
Grundy
Hamblen
Hamilton
Henderson
Henry
Hickman
Houston
Humphreys
Jackson
Jefferson
Knox
Lawrence
Lewis
Loudon
McMinn
Macon
Marion
Marshall
Maury
Meigs
Monroe
Moore
Morgan
Overton
Perry
Pickett
Polk
Putnam
Rhea
Roane
Scott
Sequatchie
Sevier
Smith
Stewart
Trousdale
Union
Van Buren
Warren
Weakley
White
TEXAS
Austin
Survey Area
Texas:
Hays
Milam
Travis
Williamson
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Texas:
Bastrop
Blanco
Burnet
Caldwell
Fayette
Lee
Llano
Mason
San Saba
Corpus Christi-Kingsville-Alice
Survey Area
Texas:
Hidalgo (effective for wage surveys beginning in June 2026)
Nueces
San Patricio
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Texas:
Aransas
Bee
Brooks
Calhoun
Cameron
Duval
Goliad
Hidalgo (effective until June 2026)
Jim Wells
Kenedy
Kleberg
Live Oak
Refugio
Starr
Victoria
Willacy
Dallas-Fort Worth
Survey Area
Texas:
Collin
Dallas
Denton
Ellis
Grayson
Hood
Johnson
Kaufman
Parker
Rockwall
Tarrant
Wise
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Oklahoma:
Bryan
Carter
Love
Texas:
Cherokee
Cooke
Delta
Erath
Fannin
Henderson
Hill
Hopkins
Hunt
Jack
Lamar
Montague
Navarro
Palo Pinto
Rains
Smith
Somervell
Van Zandt
Wood
[[Page 7459]]
El Paso
Survey Area
New Mexico:
Dona Ana
Otero
Texas:
El Paso
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
New Mexico:
Chaves
Eddy
Grant
Hidalgo
Lincoln (Only includes the White Sands Missile Range portion)
Luna
Sierra
Socorro (Only includes the White Sands Missile Range portion)
Texas:
Culberson
Hudspeth
Houston-Galveston-Texas City
Survey Area
Texas:
Brazoria
Fort Bend
Galveston
Harris
Liberty
Montgomery
Waller
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Texas:
Angelina
Austin
Chambers
Colorado
Grimes
Hardin
Houston
Jackson
Jasper
Jefferson
Lavaca
Madison
Matagorda
Nacogdoches
Newton
Orange
Polk
Sabine
San Augustine
San Jacinto
Shelby
Trinity
Tyler
Walker
Washington
Wharton
San Antonio
Survey Area
Texas:
Bexar
Comal
Guadalupe
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Texas:
Atascosa
Bandera
DeWitt
Dimmit
Edwards
Frio
Gillespie
Gonzales
Jim Hogg
Karnes
Kendall
Kerr
Kinney
La Salle
McMullen
Maverick
Medina
Real
Uvalde
Val Verde
Webb
Wilson
Zapata
Zavala
Texarkana
Survey Area
Arkansas:
Little River
Miller
Texas:
Bowie
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Arkansas:
Columbia
Hempstead
Howard
Lafayette
Nevada
Sevier
Texas:
Camp
Cass
Franklin
Marion
Morris
Red River
Titus
Waco
Survey Area
Texas:
Bell
Coryell
McLennan
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Texas:
Anderson
Bosque
Brazos
Burleson
Falls
Freestone
Hamilton
Lampasas
Leon
Limestone
Mills
Robertson
Western Texas
Survey Area
Texas:
Callahan
Ector
Howard
Jones
Lubbock
Midland
Nolan
Taylor
Tom Green
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
New Mexico:
Lea
Oklahoma:
Beaver
Cimarron
Texas
Texas:
Andrews
Armstrong
Bailey
Borden
Brewster
Briscoe
Brown
Carson
Castro
Childress
Cochran
Coke
Coleman
Collingsworth
Comanche
Concho
Cottle
Crane
Crockett
Crosby
Dallam
Dawson
Deaf Smith
Dickens
Donley
Eastland
Fisher
Floyd
Gaines
Garza
Glasscock
Gray
Hale
Hall
Hansford
Hartley
Haskell
Hemphill
Hockley
Hutchinson
Irion
Jeff Davis
Kent
Kimble
King
Lamb
Lipscomb
Loving
Lynn
McCulloch
Martin
Menard
Mitchell
Moore
Motley
Ochiltree
Oldham
Parmer
Pecos
Potter
[[Page 7460]]
Presidio
Randall
Reagan
Reeves
Roberts
Runnels
Schleicher
Scurry
Shackelford
Sherman
Stephens
Sterling
Stonewall
Sutton
Swisher
Terrell
Terry
Throckmorton
Upton
Ward
Wheeler
Winkler
Yoakum
Wichita Falls, Texas-Southwestern Oklahoma
Survey Area
Oklahoma:
Comanche
Cotton
Stephens
Tillman
Texas:
Archer
Clay
Wichita
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Oklahoma:
Greer
Harmon
Jackson
Jefferson
Kiowa
Texas:
Baylor
Foard
Hardeman
Knox
Wilbarger
Young
UTAH
Utah
Survey Area
Utah:
Box Elder
Davis
Salt Lake
Tooele
Utah
Weber
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Colorado:
Mesa
Moffat
Idaho:
Franklin
Utah:
Beaver
Cache
Carbon
Daggett
Duchesne
Emery
Garfield (Does not include the Bryce Canyon, Capitol Reef, and
Canyonlands National Parks portions)
Grand (Does not include the Arches and Canyonlands National
Parks portions)
Iron (Does not include the Cedar Breaks National Monument and
Zion National Park portions)
Juab
Millard
Morgan
Piute
Rich
Sanpete
Sevier
Summit
Uintah
Wasatch
Wayne (Does not include the Capitol Reef and Canyonlands
National Parks portions)
VIRGINIA
Richmond
Survey Area
Virginia (cities):
Colonial Heights
Hopewell
Petersburg
Richmond
Virginia (counties):
Charles City
Chesterfield
Dinwiddie
Goochland
Hanover
Henrico
New Kent
Powhatan
Prince George
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Virginia (cities):
Charlottesville
Emporia
Virginia (counties):
Albemarle (Does not include the Shenandoah National Park
portion)
Amelia
Brunswick
Buckingham
Charlotte
Cumberland
Essex
Fluvanna
Greene (Does not include the Shenandoah National Park portion)
Greensville
King and Queen
King William
Lancaster
Louisa
Lunenburg
Mecklenburg
Nelson
Northumberland
Nottoway
Prince Edward
Richmond
Sussex
Roanoke
Survey Area
Virginia (cities):
Radford
Roanoke
Salem
Virginia (counties):
Botetourt
Craig
Montgomery
Roanoke
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Virginia (cities):
Buena Vista
Covington
Danville
Galax
Lexington
Lynchburg
Martinsville
Staunton
Waynesboro
Virginia (counties):
Alleghany
Amherst
Appomattox
Augusta (Does not include the Shenandoah National Park portion)
Bath
Bedford
Bland
Campbell
Carroll
Floyd
Franklin
Giles
Halifax
Henry
Highland
Patrick
Pittsylvania
Pulaski
Rockbridge
Wythe
Virginia Beach-Chesapeake
Survey Area
North Carolina:
Currituck
Pasquotank (effective for wage surveys beginning in May 2026)
Virginia (cities):
Chesapeake
Hampton
Newport News
Norfolk
Poquoson
Portsmouth
Suffolk
Virginia Beach
Williamsburg
Virginia (counties):
Gloucester
James City
York
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Maryland:
Worcester (Only includes the Assateague Island portion)
North Carolina:
Camden
Chowan
Dare
Gates
Hertford
Pasquotank (effective until May 2026)
Perquimans
[[Page 7461]]
Tyrrell
Virginia (city):
Franklin
Virginia (counties):
Accomack
Isle of Wight
Mathews
Middlesex
Northampton
Southampton
Surry
WASHINGTON
Seattle-Tacoma
Survey Area
Washington:
Island (effective for wage surveys beginning in September 2026)
King
Kitsap
Pierce
Snohomish
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Washington:
Chelan (Only includes the North Cascades National Park section)
Clallam
Grays Harbor
Island (effective until September 2026)
Jefferson
Lewis
Mason
Pacific
San Juan
Skagit
Thurston
Whatcom
Southeastern Washington-Eastern Oregon
Survey Area
Oregon:
Umatilla
Washington:
Benton
Franklin
Walla Walla
Yakima
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Oregon:
Baker
Grant
Harney
Malheur
Morrow
Union
Wallowa
Wheeler
Washington:
Columbia
Kittitas (Only includes the Yakima Firing Range portion)
Spokane
Survey Area
Washington:
Spokane
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Idaho:
Benewah
Bonner
Boundary
Clearwater
Idaho
Kootenai
Latah
Lewis
Nez Perce
Shoshone
Washington:
Adams
Asotin
Chelan (Does not include the North Cascades National Park
portion)
Douglas
Ferry
Garfield
Grant
Kittitas (Does not include the Yakima Firing Range portion)
Lincoln
Okanogan
Pend Oreille
Stevens
Whitman
WEST VIRGINIA
West Virginia
Survey Area
Kentucky:
Boyd
Greenup
Ohio:
Lawrence
West Virginia:
Cabell
Harrison
Kanawha
Marion
Monongalia
Putnam
Wayne
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Kentucky:
Carter
Elliott
Floyd
Johnson
Lawrence
Magoffin
Martin
Pike
Ohio:
Gallia
Jackson
Meigs
Monroe
Scioto
Washington
Virginia (city):
Norton
Virginia (counties):
Dickenson
Wise
West Virginia:
Barbour
Boone
Braxton
Calhoun
Clay
Doddridge
Fayette
Gilmer
Grant
Greenbrier
Jackson
Lewis
Lincoln
Logan
McDowell
Mason
Mercer
Mingo
Monroe
Nicholas
Pendleton
Pleasants
Pocahontas
Preston
Raleigh
Randolph
Ritchie
Roane
Summers
Taylor
Tucker
Tyler
Upshur
Webster
Wetzel
Wirt
Wood
Wyoming
WISCONSIN
Madison
Survey Area
Wisconsin:
Dane
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Wisconsin:
Adams
Columbia
Grant
Green
Green Lake
Iowa
Lafayette
Marquette
Rock
Sauk
Waushara
Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha
Survey Area
Wisconsin:
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Washington
Waukesha
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Wisconsin:
Brown
Calumet
Dodge
Door
Fond du Lac
Jefferson
Kewaunee
Manitowoc
Menominee
Oconto
Outagamie
Racine
Shawano
Sheboygan
Walworth
Winnebago
[[Page 7462]]
Southwestern Wisconsin
Survey Area
Wisconsin:
Chippewa
Eau Claire
La Crosse
Monroe
Trempealeau
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Minnesota:
Houston
Wisconsin:
Barron
Buffalo
Clark
Crawford
Dunn
Forest
Jackson
Juneau
Langlade
Lincoln
Marathon
Oneida
Pepin
Portage
Price
Richland
Rusk
Taylor
Vernon
Vilas
Waupaca
Wood
WYOMING
Wyoming
Survey Area
South Dakota:
Pennington
Wyoming:
Albany
Laramie
Natrona
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Nebraska:
Banner
Box Butte
Cheyenne
Dawes
Deuel
Garden
Kimball
Morrill
Scotts Bluff
Sheridan
Sioux
South Dakota:
Butte
Custer
Fall River
Harding
Jackson
Lawrence
Meade
Oglala Lakota
Perkins
Wyoming:
Campbell
Carbon
Converse
Crook
Fremont
Goshen
Hot Springs
Johnson
Lincoln
Niobrara
Platte
Sheridan
Sublette
Sweetwater
Uinta
Washakie
Weston
[FR Doc. 2025-00555 Filed 1-13-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-39-P