82874 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

1The Nonappropriated Fund (NAF) employment 

system is partially within the FWS and managed 

separately from the appropriated fund system. NAF 

activities primarily employ food service workers 

and housekeepers on military bases. Under 5 U.S.C. 

5343(a)(1)(B), NAF areas are not defined the same 

way as appropriated fund so FPRAC has not 

focused on NAF wage areas. NAF areas are only 

defined where employees are located. Under 5 CFR 

532.219, each NAF wage area ‘‘shall consist of one 

or more survey areas along with nonsurvey areas, 

if any, having nonappropriated fund employees.’’ 

2The 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/paysystems/federal-wage-system/#url=FPRAC). 

3An employee receiving pay retention gets 50 

percent of any general increases in pay in the 

maximum rate of the employee’s grade at the time 

of the increase. 

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: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) is proposing a 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 would 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. A summary of this proposed 

rule may be found in the docket for this 

rulemaking at www.regulations.gov. 

DATES: Send comments on or before 

December 10, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and/or 

Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 

and title, by the following method: 

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

All submissions received must 

include the agency name and docket 

number or RIN for this Federal Register 

document. Please arrange and identify 

your comments on the regulatory text by 

subpart and section number. All 

comments must be received by the end 

of the comment period for them to be 

considered. All comments and other 

submissions received generally will be 

posted at https://regulations.gov, 

without change, including any personal 

information provided. However, OPM 

retains discretion to redact personal or 

sensitive information, including but not 

limited to, personal or sensitive 

information pertaining to third parties. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ana 

Paunoiu, by telephone at (202) 606– 

2858 or by email at paypolicy@opm.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

The prevailing rate system under 5 

U.S.C. chapter 53, subchapter IV, is a 

uniform pay-setting system that covers 

FWS appropriated fund and 

nonappropriated fund employees.1 OPM 

proposes 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. These proposed 

changes would affect around 17,000 

FWS employees, or around ten percent 

of the appropriated fund FWS 

workforce, by moving them to different 

wage areas and existing wage schedules. 

Following several months of analysis 

and discussion of these proposed 

modifications to regulatory criteria, 

FPRAC2 identified that around 15,000 

FWS employees would be placed on 

higher wage schedules and around 

2,000 employees would be placed on 

lower wage schedules as a result of 

these changes in policy. Employees who 

would be placed on a lower wage 

schedule would, in most cases, be able 

to retain their current rate of pay under 

current 5 CFR 536.301(a)(4) pay 

retention rules.3 Employees under 

temporary or term appointments and 

employees appointed after the changes 

would go into effect are not eligible for 

pay retention. Under this approach, 

counties that would be moved from one 

wage area to another would first be 

added to the gaining wage area’s area of 

application and then be added to the 

gaining wage area’s survey area for the 

next suitable full-scale wage survey 

cycle. The specific timing of survey area 

changes is contained in the revised 

appendices to subpart B of 5 CFR part 

532 of this proposed rule. Most FWS 

employees would experience no change 

in wage rates through these proposed 

changes. 

History and Differences Between FWS 

Wage Areas and GS Locality Pay Areas 

There are two major job classification 

and pay systems in use by the Federal 

government. 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 

and around 30,000 in the 

nonappropriated fund system. Note that 

the nonappropriated fund system is not 

the subject of this proposed rule, which 

is limited to the appropriated fund 

system’s wage area definition criteria 

and conforming geographic area 

definitions. Craft, trade, and laboring 

workers are covered by the FWS and are 

employed directly by the Federal 

government with wage levels set 

according to prevailing private sector 

rates. Although there are now only 

around 200,000 such employees in 

appropriated and nonappropriated fund 

activities, there were around 700,000 

during the Vietnam War era when the 

FWS was established as a single job 

grading and pay system. Until 1965, 

each Federal agency had authority to 

determine local prevailing rates and 

establish wage area boundaries for its 

prevailing rate employees. 

Consequently, prevailing rate employees 

at the same grade level in the same city 

working for different agencies received 

different wage rates. In 1965, President 

Lyndon B. Johnson addressed these 

inequities by ordering Federal agencies 

to coordinate their wage-setting 

activities under the leadership of the 

Civil Service Commission. The 

Commission established the National 

Wage Policy Committee (NWPC), which 

was composed of the heads of the major 

employing agencies and the heads of the 

major Federal employee unions, to seek 

advice on how to administratively 

combine separate agency pay systems 

into a Coordinated Federal Wage System 

(CFWS). The NWPC worked diligently 

and collaboratively to develop and 

recommend policies for the new CFWS. 

In 1972, President Richard M. Nixon 

signed Public Law 92–392, the 

Prevailing Rate Systems Act, which 

established the current FWS. The FWS 

incorporated most of the existing 

administrative policies of the CFWS. 

Since 1972, the Commission and its 

successor agency, OPM, have been 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 82875 

4At the October 20th, 2022, FPRAC public 

meeting, 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 (i.e., the ‘‘pay cap provision’’). 

5Section 5304(d)(1) of title 5, United States Code, 

authorizes the President to designate a Pay Agent. 

In Executive Order 12748, the President designated 

the Secretary of Labor and the Directors of the 

Office of Management and Budget and the Office of 

Personnel Management to serve as the President’s 

Pay Agent. Under section 5304 of title 5, the Pay 

Agent provides for Federal Salary Council meetings, 

considers the recommendations of the Federal 

Salary Council, defines locality pay areas, and 

submits an annual report to the President on the 

locality pay program. The report compares rates of 

pay under the General Schedule to non-Federal pay, 

identifies areas in which a pay disparity exists and 

specifies the size of the disparity, makes 

recommendations for locality rates, and includes 

the views of the Federal Salary Council. 

responsible for overseeing the policies 

for administering the FWS after 

receiving advice from FPRAC. The FWS 

now covers about 170,000 appropriated 

fund craft, trade, and laboring 

employees. These employees are located 

in 130 separate wage areas throughout 

the country and in overseas locations. 

The geographic definitions of wage 

areas have remained largely the same 

since the late 1960s with changes 

occurring primarily as a result either of 

military base closures and realignments 

that left a wage area without enough 

FWS employees to participate in local 

wage surveys or of Metropolitan 

Statistical Area redefinitions. 

Each FWS wage area consists of a 

survey area and area of application. A 

survey area includes the counties, cities, 

and towns where DOD, the lead agency 

for appropriated fund wage areas, 

collects and analyzes private sector 

wage data to produce annual wage 

schedules for each of the 130 wage 

areas. An area of application includes 

the survey area and nearby counties, 

cities, and towns where the wage 

schedules for a wage area also apply. 

One of the key statutory principles 

underlying the FWS is that pay rates are 

to be maintained in line with prevailing 

levels of pay for comparable levels of 

work in the private sector within a local 

wage area. Because the FWS is a 

prevailing rate system, its wage 

schedules are market sensitive in the 

sense that the schedules are based on 

annual local wage surveys. However, all 

FWS wage schedules have been subject 

to appropriations legislation each year 

since FY 1979 to control maximum 

allowable adjustment amounts (‘‘pay 

cap provision’’) and since FY 2004 to 

provide for guaranteed minimum 

adjustment amounts based on the 

annual pay adjustments received by GS 

employees where they work (‘‘floor 

increase provision’’). The difference in 

rates of pay among wage areas reflects 

that the prevailing cost of labor varies 

by wage area as measured by annual 

local wage surveys carried out 

collaboratively by management and 

labor as required by law; however, the 

difference in rates also reflects the 

differential effects the appropriations 

provisions have had on the payable 

wage rates each year. This proposed rule 

assumes that the pay cap 4 provision 

and floor increase provision will 

continue in future years through 

appropriations legislation. 

The geographic definitions of wage 

areas for FWS employees covered by the 

5 CFR 532.211 wage area criteria are 

different than the pay areas for the 1.5 

million employees under the GS. This is 

because the two pay systems evolved 

separately and have followed different 

criteria for defining pay area boundaries 

for the last 30 years. When the Federal 

Employees Pay Comparability Act of 

1990 (FEPCA) was enacted to 

implement locality pay for the GS 

beginning in 1994, the legislation did 

not require that GS locality pay areas 

and FWS wage areas have the same 

geographic coverage. FEPCA did not 

specify the method for defining 

geographic pay area boundaries for GS 

locality pay areas. Instead, FEPCA 

established the Federal Salary Council 

(FSC), comprised of experts in pay and 

labor relations and representatives of 

employee organizations, to provide 

advice on how to best administer the GS 

locality pay system and close gaps 

between GS and non-Federal pay levels. 

The FSC meets annually. 

FWS wage areas consist of a survey 

area containing a number of counties 

surrounding a major military 

installation or Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) Medical Center where the 

Department of Defense (DOD) measures 

prevailing private sector wage levels 

and an area of application containing 

additional counties where DOD does not 

collect wage data but wage schedules 

apply. 

GS locality pay areas consist of a core 

set of counties generally mirroring the 

definition of a Combined Statistical 

Area (CSA) or Metropolitan Statistical 

Area (MSA), and in some cases, 

additional area of application counties 

that are added to the locality pay area 

based on analyses of regional 

commuting pattern data. The Bureau of 

Labor Statistics measures non-Federal 

labor costs in the locality pay areas and 

OPM determines overall pay disparities 

between GS and comparable nonFederal employment in the whole of 

each locality pay area on behalf of the 

President’s Pay Agent.5 As of 2024, 

there are 58 GS locality pay areas 

including a Rest of United States (RUS) 

area that covers the counties in the 

country that are not defined to 

individual locality pay areas. The FWS 

does not have this RUS concept for 

wage area definitions but instead has 

every county defined to an individual 

wage area’s area of application or survey 

area. We note that future changes to GS 

locality pay areas would not 

automatically apply to FWS wage areas. 

OPM, on advice from FPRAC, would 

review FWS wage areas when updates 

to CSA and/or MSA definitions are 

published by OMB or when there are 

significant changes to employment 

interchange measures. This policy is 

consistent with longstanding protocols 

OPM has followed to administer the 

FWS. 

FPRAC Review and Recommendations 

During the same period GS locality 

pay was being introduced in the early 

1990s, FPRAC 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 that time, 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. For example, 

FPRAC heard testimony at its January 

21, 2016, meeting from Congressional 

staff and local employees in support of 

a proposal introduced by an American 

Federation of Government Employees 

(AFGE) representative to review the 

geographic definitions of Monroe 

County, PA, including testimony that a 

high rate of commuting interchange— 

which triggered Monroe County’s 

reassignment to the New York-Newark 

GS locality pay area in 2005—also 

applies to the county’s blue-collar 

employees. 609th FPRAC Meeting 

transcript (available at https://

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

pay-leave/pay-systems/federal-wagesystem/federal-prevailing-rate-advisorycommittee/meetingtranscript609.pdf). 

More recently, FPRAC heard testimony 

from a military command representative 

of the Naval Support Activity, 

Monterey, California. The representative 

testified at the FPRAC 644th Meeting, 

during an extensive presentation, that 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
82876 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

6House Report 117–79 can be found at https://

www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-117hrpt79/ 

pdf/CRPT-117hrpt79.pdf. 

the geographical pay differences 

between GS and FWS employees at 

Naval Support Activity Monterey 

impacted negatively the retention and 

recruitment of qualified employees. 

644th FPRAC Meeting transcript 

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

policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/paysystems/federal-wage-system/federalprevailing-rate-advisory-committee/ 

meeting-transcript-644.pdf). In February 

2024, the president of AFGE Local 1647 

at Tobyhanna Army Depot, provided 

testimony at the FPRAC 650th Meeting 

regarding ‘‘long-standing inequity’’ 

between FWS and GS employees in 

Monroe County, PA. 650th FPRAC 

Meeting transcript (available at https:// 

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

pay-leave/pay-systems/federal-wagesystem/federal-prevailing-rate-advisorycommittee/meetingtranscript650.pdf). 

The difference in GS and FWS pay 

area boundaries is most noticeable on 

the East Coast from Maine to Virginia 

and on the West Coast in California. In 

some cases, there are as many as six 

different FWS wage areas coinciding 

with a single non-RUS locality pay area 

for GS employees. For example, the 

Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC– 

MD–VA–WV–PA GS locality pay area 

coincides with six different FWS wage 

areas—the Washington, District of 

Columbia, FWS wage area; the 

Baltimore, MD, FWS wage area; the 

Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg, 

MD, FWS wage area; the Harrisburg, PA, 

FWS wage area; the Richmond, VA, 

FWS wage area; and the West Virginia 

FWS wage area. Conversely, a single 

wage area may coincide with multiple 

GS locality pay areas, which, due to the 

appropriations pay cap and floor 

increase provisions, can result in 

multiple, different wage schedules 

within the wage area. For example, the 

Central and Western Massachusetts 

wage area coincides with four different 

GS locality pay areas—the AlbanySchenectady, NY, GS locality pay area; 

the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA– 

RI–NH–CT–ME, GS locality pay area; 

the Hartford-West Hartford, CT–MA, GS 

locality pay area; and RUS. As a result, 

FWS employees in the Central and 

Western Massachusetts wage area are 

paid from four separate wage schedules: 

(069R)—Central and Western 

Massachusetts (GS Locality—BostonWorcester-Providence, MA–RI–NH–CT– 

ME (BOS)); (269R)—Central and 

Western Massachusetts (GS Locality— 

Rest of United States (RUS)); (469R)— 

Central and Western Massachusetts (GS 

Locality—Hartford-West Hartford, CT– 

MA (HAR)); and (669R)—Central and 

Western Massachusetts (GS Locality— 

Albany-Schenectady, NY (AL)). Overall, 

there are 52 appropriated fund wage 

areas that only coincide with the GS 

RUS locality pay area. There are 10 

wage areas that coincide with only one 

GS locality pay area other than RUS 

(e.g., the Alaska wage area coincides 

with the Alaska GS locality pay area; the 

Salinas-Monterey wage area coincides 

only with San Jose-San FranciscoOakland, CA GS locality pay area; 

Baltimore wage area coincides only with 

the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, 

DC–MD–VA–WV–PA locality pay area). 

There are 68 FWS wage areas that 

coincide with multiple GS locality pay 

areas, including non-RUS and RUS. 

Therefore, not only are there differences 

in pay between FWS and GS employees 

working at the same location but also 

among FWS employees within the same 

wage area. The changes in this proposed 

rule would reduce the number of wage 

schedules that apply within a wage area 

as well as reduce inequities caused by 

maintaining different criteria for 

defining GS and FWS pay area 

boundaries. 

In House Report 117–79 6

accompanying the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, 

Congress encouraged OPM ‘‘to explore 

limiting the number of local wage areas 

defined within a GS Pay Locality to a 

single wage area.’’ Even before that, 

since around 2006, the labor and 

employing agency representative 

members of FPRAC discussed different 

methods for making FWS wage areas 

more similar to GS locality pay areas, 

though they have struggled to reach 

consensus on whether or how to effect 

changes that would be necessary to 

make pay area boundaries more similar. 

The labor organization members of the 

committee have expressed views that 

the differences in geographic treatment 

between the GS and FWS systems are 

inequitable and unsustainable when GS 

and FWS employees are working at the 

same Federal installation. 

Given the scope and complexity of the 

recommended change in policy that 

would be required to limit the number 

of local wage areas defined within a GS 

locality pay area to a single wage area, 

as requested in the House Report 

language, FPRAC established a working 

group to study the technical and policy 

obstacles involved in positively 

addressing the issue. Over the course of 

15 meetings, at which there was 

extensive discussion, the working group 

analyzed potential methods of using GS 

locality pay areas as a factor in defining 

FWS wage areas. The differences in 

regulatory criteria used to define FWS 

wage areas versus criteria used to 

establish and define GS locality pay 

areas were among the challenges to 

aligning FWS wage areas with GS 

locality pay areas the working group 

encountered. The working group noted 

that CSAs were initially used as the 

basis for creating GS locality pay areas, 

but the FWS never used the CSAs to 

define wage areas. Extensive analyses by 

the working group of various FWS wage 

areas that split GS locality pay areas 

showed that, if the CSAs were used to 

define wage areas, most wage areas 

studied would be more like the GS 

locality pay areas. However, some FWS 

wage areas would still not coincide with 

GS locality pay areas by switching to 

using CSAs alone. As such, the working 

group then considered another criterion 

used in defining GS locality pay areas, 

employment interchange, and studied 

the effects of using such criterion in 

defining FWS wage areas, as well. The 

working group concluded that 

considering employment interchange 

between metropolitan areas or 

individual counties, as applicable, and 

using CSA definitions would make wage 

areas more similar to GS locality pay 

areas. 

The FPRAC recommendation is 

limited to appropriated fund FWS wage 

area regulatory criteria and does not 

apply to nonappropriated fund 

regulatory criteria for defining wage area 

boundaries found in 5 CFR 532.219. The 

transcript of the December 21, 2023, 

meeting, expressing the views and 

concerns of the committee members 

expressed at that meeting, can be found 

on the OPM website at https://

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

pay-leave/pay-systems/federal-wagesystem/federal-prevailing-rate-advisorycommittee/meetingtranscript649.pdf. 

After reviewing the FPRAC 

recommendation, including the 

minority views, OPM has concluded 

that the views of the majority of the 

committee’s members regarding the 

proposed amendments to 5 CFR 532.211 

constitute a beneficial and equitable 

modernization of the FWS. OPM agrees 

with the committee that the primary 

differences in the criteria used to define 

GS and FWS pay area boundaries result 

from different ways of considering 

commuting patterns and metropolitan 

area definitions and how those relate to 

regional labor market integration. OPM’s 

existing regulatory criteria for defining 

wage area boundaries in 5 CFR 532.211 

have remained the same since the early 

1990s, except for a minor amendment in 

2016 to keep newly defined military 

Joint Bases defined to a single wage area 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 82877 

7The goal of the FWS is to maintain Federal 

trade, craft, and laboring employee pay rates in line 

with prevailing private sector pay levels for 

comparable work within a local wage area. To 

accomplish this goal, DoD conducts annual surveys 

to collect wage data from private sector 

establishments in each FWS wage area. By law, the 

cost of labor within a wage area, rather than the cost 

of living, determines FWS pay rates. If the wage 

area does not reflect commuting and recruitment 

patterns, then the full-scale wage survey within that 

area will also not capture prevailing private sector 

pay levels within the economically integrated area. 

and wage schedule. While the 

differences in geographic pay treatment 

made sense in the context of the 

development of the original pay 

systems, the interactions of GS and FWS 

statutory pay provisions have worked to 

create inequitable, unintended 

discrepancies in pay between similarly 

situated employees. Therefore, 

amending the wage area definition 

criteria following the FPRAC 

recommended method will address 

some of those differences in geographic 

pay treatment between the FWS and GS 

systems. 

Historically, the FWS and GS pay 

systems have both considered 

commuting patterns data published by 

the Census Bureau but have done so 

differently. While the FWS has looked 

at commuting from a county to nearby 

local wage survey areas (outcommuting) to associate counties with 

major military installations or VA 

Medical Centers, the GS has looked at 

employment interchange (in-commuting 

and out-commuting) within a large 

metropolitan area. Use of outcommuting alone was based on a 

traditional tendency of people to live in 

areas outside a centralized metropolitan 

area and commute to the metropolitan 

area for work. Adopting employment 

interchange as a criterion for defining 

wage areas would better reflect 

contemporary commuting patterns 

within an economic region. The 

methods and criteria for defining CSAs 

and MSAs have also evolved over time 

to now be focused on regional 

employment interchange measures as 

identified through analysis of 

commuting patterns gathered by the 

Census Bureau. Today, a person 

working in a skilled trades occupation 

under the FWS such as Electronics 

Mechanic or Aircraft Mechanic likely 

works in a competitive labor market 

with commuting and recruitment 

patterns that are similar in geographic 

scope to those of an Accountant or 

Human Resources Manager, for 

example, under the GS system.7

The other primary difference between 

the current FWS and GS geographic pay 

area criteria is that the FWS has 

historically defined wage area 

boundaries based in part on 

consideration of OMB-defined MSAs 

while not allowing for consideration of 

the larger CSAs. The concept of a CSA 

did not exist when the methods for 

creating FWS wage areas were 

established in the late 1960s. The 

legislative history for the Prevailing Rate 

Systems Act shows that Congress 

believed it would be inappropriate for 

there to be more than one wage area 

within the boundaries of an MSA. 

Although the Prevailing Rate Systems 

Act did not explicitly specify this, 

OPM’s regulations have long indicated 

that wage areas should not split MSA 

boundaries. 

CSAs also reflect economic 

relationships between communities 

within a region but do so on a broader 

geographic basis than for MSAs. A CSA 

is usually the combination of two or 

more MSAs within a region when they 

are sufficiently economically integrated. 

The GS locality pay system has defined 

locality pay areas based on these larger 

geographic areas since locality pay 

began. The proposed new wage area 

definitions in this rulemaking use the 

CSA and MSA definitions contained in 

OMB Bulletin No. 23–01, published July 

21, 2023. Current FWS wage area 

definitions split the boundaries of many 

CSAs, but the changes in wage area 

criteria and revised wage area 

definitions based on the criteria in this 

proposed rule would address this. 

Changes Proposed in This Rulemaking 

Based on the December 2023 FPRAC 

recommendation, OPM is proposing the 

following changes to § 532.211, 

including changing the title of the 

section to ‘‘Criteria for appropriated 

fund wage areas.’’ As discussed 

previously in the section discussing the 

differences between FWS and GS, OPM 

proposes to revise paragraph (a)(1) to 

require OPM to include in survey areas 

all counties with 100 or more FWS 

employees and to consider CSAs and 

MSAs in the designation of survey 

areas. OPM also proposes to revise 

paragraph (a)(2) to include employment 

interchange measures as a criterion in 

determining whether to combine 

nonsurvey areas with survey areas. 

OPM proposes to revise paragraph (b) 

to include, wherever possible, a 

recognized economic community such 

as a CSA, MSA, or a political unit such 

as a county or similar geographic entity. 

OPM would continue to be permitted to 

combine two or more economic 

communities or political units, or both, 

to constitute a single wage area. 

OPM proposes to revise paragraph (c) 

to address not only when wage areas 

must be established, but also the 

conditions under which wage areas 

must be maintained after being 

established. Because the original criteria 

for defining FWS wage areas were 

written decades ago when the FWS was 

first established, they focused on the 

initial development of a single system of 

wage areas out of several separate 

agency systems and did not define 

circumstances under which the newly 

established wage area boundaries would 

remain in place. This proposed language 

recognizes that wage area boundaries 

will be reexamined at times by FPRAC 

and OPM in consideration of the factors 

listed. This proposed rule would 

therefore revise paragraph (c) to include 

the word ‘‘maintained.’’ 

OPM proposes to amend paragraph 

(c)(1) to provide for greater flexibility in 

the ability to establish or maintain wage 

areas where there is a sufficient number 

of employees and resources available to 

host local wage surveys, but the 

employees do not necessarily work in 

the same agency. Currently, this section 

requires a minimum of 100 employees 

of one agency subject to the regular 

schedule for a wage area to be 

established. Since the proposed 

language for paragraph (c) will now 

include conditions precedent to 

continuation of an existing wage area, 

removing the requirement that the 

minimum 100 wage grade employees be 

within the same agency will allow OPM 

to consider factors such as intermittent 

fluctuations in the number of wage 

employees and prevailing rate 

principles when determining whether a 

wage area should be maintained. This 

proposed rule would therefore revise 

paragraph (c)(1) to specify that one of 

the criteria for a wage area to be 

maintained is if there are a minimum of 

100 wage employees subject to the 

regular schedule and the agency 

involved indicates that a local 

installation has the capacity to do the 

survey. 

OPM proposes to amend paragraph 

(d)(1) to list the factors that will be 

considered when determining whether 

or not adjacent wage areas should be 

combined. FPRAC would continue to 

provide OPM with recommendations on 

application of these factors. This 

proposed rule would therefore revise 

paragraph (d)(1) to allow adjacent 

economic communities or political units 

meeting the separate wage area criteria 

described previously in paragraphs (b) 

and (c) to 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
82878 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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.’’ 

OPM proposes to delete paragraphs 

(d)(1)(i)-(iii) and (d)(2) as they are no 

longer necessary and to redesignate 

paragraph (d)(3) as paragraph (d)(2). 

Based on the proposed changes to the 

regulatory criteria for establishing and 

maintaining wage areas, OPM is 

proposing conforming amendments to 

Appendix C to subpart B of part 532— 

Appropriated Fund Wage and Survey 

Areas. This appendix serves to list wage 

areas and their geographic coverage 

including the portion of each wage area 

where a lead agency gathers wage data 

(the survey area) and the rest of the 

wage area (the area of application) 

where the lead agency does not gather 

wage data but where the wage area’s 

wage schedules apply. Paragraphs (1), 

(2), and (3) would be revised to include 

‘‘a similar geographic entity’’ as an allencompassing phrase for recognized 

geographic units other than county units 

or independent cities. Paragraphs (1) 

and (2) would be revised to include 

Combined Statistical Area or 

Metropolitan Statistical Area as 

examples of broader geographic areas 

used to establish wage area titles. 

DOD has requested certain changes in 

wage survey order months to allow 

balancing of the wage survey workload 

throughout the year. As such, in 

Appendix A to subpart B of part 532, 

OPM is proposing to revise, under the 

State of Arkansas, the listing of the 

beginning month of survey from 

‘‘August’’ to ‘‘July’’ for the Little Rock 

wage area; revise under the State of 

California the listings of the beginning 

month of survey from ‘‘September’’ to 

‘‘November’’ and ‘‘even year’’ to ‘‘odd 

year’’ for the Los Angeles wage area; 

revise under the State of California the 

listings of the beginning month of 

survey from ‘‘September’’ to ‘‘October’’ 

and ‘‘odd year’’ to ‘‘even year’’ for the 

San Francisco wage area; revise under 

the District of Columbia, the listing of 

the beginning month of survey from 

‘‘August’’ to ‘‘July’’ for the Washington, 

DC, wage area; revise under the State of 

Florida the listing of the beginning 

month of survey from ‘‘January’’ to 

‘‘May’’ for the Miami-Dade wage area; 

revise under the State of Louisiana the 

listings of the beginning month of 

survey from ‘‘November’’ to ‘‘June’’ and 

‘‘odd year’’ to ‘‘even year’’ for the New 

Orleans wage area; revise under the 

State of Minnesota the listing of the 

beginning month of survey from 

‘‘March’’ to ‘‘April’’ for the 

Minneapolis-St. Paul wage area; revise 

under the State of New York the listing 

of the beginning month of survey from 

‘‘February’’ to ‘‘April’’ for the Rochester 

wage area; revise under the State of 

Oregon the listing of the beginning 

month of survey from ‘‘August’’ to 

‘‘July’’ for the Portland wage area; revise 

under the State of Pennsylvania the 

listing of the beginning month of survey 

from ‘‘January’’ to ‘‘May’’ for the 

Harrisburg wage area; and revise under 

the State of Texas the listing of the 

beginning month of survey from 

‘‘August’’ to ‘‘July’’ for the Wichita 

Falls, Texas-Southwestern Oklahoma 

wage area. 

As a result of the proposed changes to 

the regulatory criteria for defining and 

maintaining wage areas, the geographic 

boundaries of numerous wage areas 

would change. This proposed rule 

would result in OPM abolishing 12 of 

the 130 current appropriated fund FWS 

wage areas, 89 wage areas would be 

affected, and there would be no changes 

in the wage area definitions of 41 wage 

areas. Certain cities, counties, or 

portions of counties that coincide with 

GS locality pay areas would move to 

expanded wage areas based on the 

application of the new criteria. Because 

12 wage areas would be abolished, 

certain additional cities, counties, or 

portions of counties that coincide with 

the RUS locality pay area would also be 

redefined to existing wage areas. 

FPRAC has recommended that OPM 

use counties to define survey and 

nonsurvey areas in FWS wage areas in 

New England instead of cities and/or 

townships. FPRAC has also 

recommended that OPM use legacy 

county boundaries to define FWS 

survey and nonsurvey areas in the State 

of Connecticut instead of Connecticut 

Planning Regions to maintain 

consistency with the geographic entities 

used for GS locality pay areas. Defining 

FWS wage areas by using county or 

county-equivalent boundaries in New 

England, rather than New England cities 

and towns, would be more consistent 

with how most FWS wage areas are 

defined and may improve the statistical 

accuracy of wage survey analyses. 

The proposed changes in specific 

appropriated fund FWS wage area 

definitions are described below in the 

section on Redefined FWS Wage Areas. 

In certain instances, OPM is 

proposing delayed implementation 

dates for adding counties to the survey 

areas of wage areas that are gaining 

counties. This is necessary because it 

takes DOD, the lead agency for FWS 

wage surveys, a number of months to 

develop the statistical and logistical 

specifications for local wage surveys. 

The changes in wage area names, areas 

of application, and survey areas are 

detailed below in the section on 

Redefined FWS Wage Areas. 

Based on longstanding practice when 

abolishing wage areas and moving 

counties from one wage area to another, 

FWS employees in locations that would 

be defined to different wage areas would 

be placed on the existing wage 

schedules for those wage areas on the 

first day of the first applicable pay 

period beginning on or after the 

effective date of the final rule that 

would be published after this proposed 

rule. The movements of counties from 

an existing wage area to a different wage 

area are noted in detail below in the 

section on Redefined FWS Wage Areas. 

The implementation dates for new 

local wage surveys in expanded wage 

areas would vary by wage area 

accounting for, in certain cases, factors 

including the wage survey workload for 

the DOD wage survey staff. In particular, 

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 the existing regulation, 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. This would allow DOD 

sufficient time to plan for conducting 

full-scale wage surveys in survey areas 

that would expand significantly, in 

some cases doubling, in geographic size. 

It is anticipated that future wage 

schedule adjustments will continue to 

follow longstanding appropriations law 

provisions providing for annual 

adjustments that are both capped at the 

average GS increase amount (the ‘‘pay 

cap provision’’) while providing for the 

same percentage adjustment received by 

GS employees in each employment 

location (‘‘the floor increase provision’’). 

The statutory floor increase provision 

would continue to prevent any 

decreases in wage schedules as has been 

the case for prevailing rate system 

employees since FY 2004. The statutory 

pay cap provision would also continue 

to prevent existing wage schedules from 

increasing above the amount established 

as the cap each year, except in cases 

where the floor increase would provide 

for a greater increase. 

OPM believes that its proposed 

approach—in which the proposed 

changes to the wage areas could be 

implemented soon after publication of 

the final rule—is operationally feasible. 

Payroll providers typically are able to 

implement changes to wage area 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 82879 

designations quickly and do not require 

a great deal of lead time. In fact, changes 

to wage area designations are typically 

effective on the first day of the first 

applicable pay period beginning on or 

after 30 days following publication of 

the final rule adjusting a wage area. 

Further, and importantly, a short 

implementation timeframe would allow 

employees to immediately benefit from 

the updated wage area definitions. 

OPM’s proposed approach is also 

consistent with past practice. Currently 

OPM defines wage areas through a 

routine, consistent, and mechanical 

process to comply with the area 

definition criteria OPM establishes in 5 

CFR 532.211 and based on FPRAC 

recommendations. For example, when 

OPM abolished the Newburgh, NY wage 

area in 2016 to comply with an existing 

MSA criterion and expanded the New 

York wage area to encompass most of 

the Newburgh wage area, the movement 

of counties into the New York area of 

application was not delayed beyond the 

effective date of the final regulations. 

OPM did not establish a new policy 

where the merging of the Newburgh 

wage area into the New York wage area 

would be delayed until an entirely new 

wage survey could be conducted in the 

slightly enlarged New York survey area. 

The statutory pay cap and floor increase 

provisions continued to be applied to 

the wage schedules for the New York 

wage area. Likewise, when OPM 

abolished the Portland, ME, wage area 

in 2015 and added its counties to the 

Portsmouth, NH, wage area, OPM did 

not delay the merging of the Portland 

wage area into the Portsmouth wage 

area until an entirely new wage survey 

could be conducted in the enlarged 

wage area. In this case, the Portland 

survey area was carried over in its 

entirety to the Portsmouth survey area 

for the next full scale wage survey. The 

statutory pay cap and floor increase 

provisions continued to be applied to 

wage schedule adjustments in the 

enlarged Portsmouth wage area. 

OPM recognizes, however, that, even 

though the overall budgetary impact of 

this rule is relatively small (i.e., 1% of 

FWS payroll—see the Expected Impact 

of this Rulemaking section of this rule), 

the budgetary impact at the local level 

in some cases would be considerable 

and any unplanned increase in payroll 

can be challenging to manage. 

OPM therefore requests comment on 

the appropriate implementation 

timeframe. An alternative 

implementation option could provide 

for a delayed effective date of the final 

regulation, such that OPM’s regulatory 

amendments—including the new 

boundary criteria, and, therefore, the 

new wage schedules—would not go into 

effect until after a set period of time. 

The other aspects of OPM’s proposal 

would remain unchanged. 

Another alternative implementation 

plan, which a minority of FPRAC 

committee members suggested but 

which is inconsistent with past practice 

when revising wage areas, would defer 

the implementation of the revised 

criteria until DOD had the opportunity 

to conduct new wage surveys for the 

impacted areas based on the new 

criteria. For example, amendments to 

the Boston wage area might not go into 

effect until October 2026 while 

amendments would not go into effect in 

the Birmingham, AL, wage area until 

April 2028. Under this approach, the 

existing wage areas would be abolished 

and new wage areas established using 

the revised criteria as new surveys are 

completed, on a rolling basis. 

OPM invites comments on the 

implementation timeline and any 

alternative implementation plans and 

encourages commenters to address any 

implementation concerns with any 

alternative plans. 

The following wage area changes 

would be necessary, based on extensive 

FPRAC review and subsequent 

recommendations, to best fit the newly 

revised wage area definition criteria. As 

noted earlier, these changes are 

primarily driven by the adoption of the 

proposed regulatory criteria changing to 

follow CSA definitions, by not allowing 

a CSA to be divided between two or 

more wage areas, rather than just MSA 

definitions, and by allowing 

consideration of employment 

interchange data when analyzing and 

applying regional commuting 

information. These proposed changes do 

not merely adopt GS locality pay area 

definitions into the FWS but instead 

rely on FWS criteria being more similar 

to GS criteria. Indeed, because the GS 

and FWS continue to be separate 

statutory pay systems, there will 

continue to be differences in certain 

wage area definitions and the FWS will 

not use a catch-all RUS concept as is 

used for the GS locality pay system. 

The proposed changes in regulatory 

criteria would have no impact on the 

following FWS wage areas: Dothan, AL; 

Alaska, AK; Phoenix, AZ; Tucson, AZ; 

Little Rock, AR; Pensacola, FL; Hawaii, 

HI; Boise, ID; Cedar Rapids-Iowa City, 

IA; Des Moines, IA; Wichita, KS; Lake 

Charles-Alexandria, LA; New Orleans, 

LA; Augusta, ME; Central and Northern 

Maine; Biloxi, MS; Jackson, MS; 

Meridian, MS; Northern Mississippi; 

Montana; Omaha, NE; Las Vegas, NV; 

Central North Carolina; North Dakota; 

Tulsa, OK; Puerto Rico; Columbia, SC; 

Eastern South Dakota; Eastern 

Tennessee; Memphis, TN; Austin, TX; 

El Paso, TX; Houston-Galveston-Texas 

City, TX; Texarkana, TX; Western Texas; 

Wichita Falls, Texas-Southwestern 

Oklahoma; Utah; Southwestern 

Washington-Eastern Oregon; Spokane, 

WA; and Wyoming. 

Redefined FWS Wage Areas 

Anniston-Gadsden, AL, Wage Area 

With the redefinition of Calhoun, 

Etowah, and Talladega, AL, to the 

Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, AL, 

area of application, the AnnistonGadsden, AL, wage area would lose all 

of its survey area counties. This 

proposed rule would abolish the 

Anniston-Gadsden wage area and 

redefine its remaining counties to the 

Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, AL, 

wage area, Huntsville, AL, wage area, 

and Atlanta, GA, wage area. 

Birmingham, AL, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would change the 

name of the Birmingham, AL, wage area 

to the Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, 

AL, wage area. This proposed rule 

would redefine the following counties 

to the Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, 

AL, wage area based on the application 

of the new criteria: 

• Calhoun, Etowah, and Talladega 

Counties, AL, from the AnnistonGadsden, AL, survey area to the 

Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, AL, 

area of application. These counties 

would subsequently be moved to the 

Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, AL, 

survey area effective for local wage 

surveys beginning in January 2028; 

• Clay County, AL, from the 

Anniston-Gadsden, AL, area of 

application to the BirminghamCullman-Talladega, AL, area of 

application based on employment 

interchange measures favoring the 

Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, AL, 

wage area; 

• Coosa County, AL, from the 

Columbus, GA, area of application to 

the Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, 

AL, area of application because Coosa 

County is part of the BirminghamCullman-Talladega, AL, CSA; 

• Winston County, AL, from the 

Huntsville, AL, area of application to 

the Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, 

AL, area of application based on 

employment interchange measures 

favoring the Birmingham-CullmanTalladega, AL, wage area over the 

Huntsville wage area. 

Huntsville, AL, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would redefine 

the following counties to and away from 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
82880 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

the Huntsville, AL, wage area based on 

the application of the new criteria: 

• DeKalb County, AL, from the 

Anniston-Gadsden, AL, area of 

application to the Huntsville, AL, area 

of application because DeKalb County, 

AL, is part of the Huntsville-DecaturAlbertville, AL-TN, CSA; 

• Winston County, AL, from the 

Huntsville, AL, area of application to 

the Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, 

AL, area of application based on 

employment interchange measures 

favoring the Birmingham-CullmanTalladega, AL, wage area over the 

Huntsville, AL, wage area; 

• Jackson County, AL, from the 

Huntsville, AL, area of application to 

the Nashville, TN, area of application. 

Jackson County is part of the 

Chattanooga-Cleveland-Dalton, TN-GAAL, CSA. Most of this CSA is currently 

defined to the Nashville wage area. 

• Franklin, Lawrence, and Moore 

Counties, TN, from the Huntsville, AL, 

area of application to the Nashville, TN, 

area of application because these 

counties are part of the NashvilleDavidson-Murfreesboro, TN, CSA. 

Northeastern Arizona, AZ, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would also 

redefine the following county away 

from the Northeastern Arizona wage 

area based on the application of the new 

criteria: 

• McKinley County, NM, from the 

Northeastern Arizona survey area to the 

Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Los Alamos, NM, 

area of application based on 

employment interchange measures 

being more favorable to the 

Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Los Alamos, NM, 

than to the Northeastern Arizona wage 

area. This county would subsequently 

be moved to the Albuquerque-Santa FeLos Alamos, NM, survey area effective 

for local wage surveys beginning in 

April 2027. 

Fresno, CA, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would redefine 

the following counties to and away from 

the Fresno, CA, wage area based on the 

application of the new criteria: 

• Madera County, CA, (Devils 

Postpile National Monument portion) 

from the Reno, NV, area of application 

to the Fresno, CA, area of application 

because Madera County is part of the 

Fresno-Hanford-Corcoran, CA, CSA; 

• Madera County, CA, (Yosemite 

National Park portion) from the 

Stockton, CA, area of application to the 

Fresno, CA, area of application because 

Madera County is part of the FresnoHanford-Corcoran, CA, CSA; 

• Mariposa County, CA, from the 

Stockton, CA, area of application to the 

Fresno, CA, area of application based on 

employment interchange measures 

favoring the Fresno, CA, wage area more 

than the San Jose-San FranciscoOakland, CA, wage area; 

• Tuolumne County, CA, (Yosemite 

National Park portion only) from the 

Stockton, CA, area of application to the 

Fresno, CA, area of application so that 

Yosemite National Park is not split 

across multiple wage areas; 

• Kern County, CA, (does not include 

China Lake Naval Weapons Center, 

Edwards Air Force Base, and portions 

occupied by Federal activities in Boron 

(City)) from the Fresno, CA, area of 

application to the Los Angeles, CA, area 

of application based on employment 

interchange measures favoring the Los 

Angeles, CA, wage area more than the 

Fresno, CA, wage area. 

Los Angeles, CA, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would redefine 

the following counties to and within the 

Los Angeles, CA, wage area based on 

application of the new criteria: 

• Kern County, CA, (does not include 

China Lake Naval Weapons Center, 

Edwards Air Force Base, and portions 

occupied by Federal activities in Boron 

(City)) from the Fresno, CA, area of 

application to the Los Angeles, CA, area 

of application because Kern County is 

part of the Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA, 

CSA; 

• Riverside County, CA, (does not 

include the Joshua Tree National 

Monument portion) from the San 

Bernardino-Riverside-Ontario, CA, 

survey area to Los Angeles, CA, area of 

application because Riverside County is 

part of the Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA, 

CSA; 

• Riverside County, CA, to the Los 

Angeles, CA, survey area effective for 

local wage surveys beginning in 

November 2026 because more than 100 

FWS employees work in Riverside 

County; 

• San Bernardino County, CA, (only 

that portion occupied by, and south and 

west of, the Angeles and San Bernardino 

National Forests) from the San 

Bernardino-Riverside-Ontario, CA, 

survey area to Los Angeles, CA, area of 

application; 

• San Bernardino County, CA, to the 

Los Angeles, CA, survey area effective 

for local wage surveys beginning in 

November 2026 because more than 100 

FWS employees work in San Bernardino 

County; 

• Kern County, CA, to the Los 

Angeles, CA, survey area effective for 

local wage surveys beginning in 

November 2026 because more than 100 

FWS employees work in Kern County; 

• Santa Barbara County, CA, from the 

Santa Barbara, CA, survey area to the 

Los Angeles, CA, area of application 

based on employment interchange 

measures being most favorable to the 

Los Angeles, CA, wage area. This county 

would subsequently be moved to the 

Los Angeles, CA, survey area effective 

for local wage surveys beginning in 

November 2026; 

• San Luis Obispo County, CA, from 

the Santa Barbara, CA, area of 

application to the Los Angeles, CA, area 

of application based on employment 

interchange measures favoring the Los 

Angeles, CA, wage area; 

• Orange and Ventura Counties, CA, 

to the Los Angeles, CA, survey area 

effective for local wage surveys 

beginning in November 2026 because 

more than 100 FWS employees work in 

each county. 

Sacramento, CA, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would change the 

name of the Sacramento, CA, wage area 

to the Sacramento-Roseville, CA, wage 

area. This proposed rule would redefine 

the following counties away from the 

Sacramento, CA, wage area based on the 

application of the new criteria: 

• Alpine County, CA, from the 

Sacramento, CA, area of application to 

the Reno, NV, area of application. 

Alpine County is part of the RenoCarson City-Gardnerville Ranchos, NVCA, CSA; 

• Del Norte County, CA, from the 

Sacramento, CA, area of application to 

the Southwestern Oregon area of 

application. Del Norte County is part of 

the Brookings-Crescent City, OR-CA, 

CSA, and employment interchange 

measures for this CSA favor the 

Southwestern Oregon wage area over 

the Sacramento-Roseville, CA, wage 

area. 

Salinas-Monterey, CA, Wage Area 

With the redefinition of Monterey 

County, CA, to the San Jose-San 

Francisco-Oakland, CA, wage area, the 

Salinas-Monterey, CA, wage area would 

lose the entirety of its survey area. This 

proposed rule would abolish the 

Salinas-Monterey wage area, which 

contains no additional counties. 

San Bernardino-Riverside-Ontario, CA, 

Wage Area 

With the redefinition of Riverside 

County (does not include the Joshua 

Tree National Monument portion) and 

San Bernardino County (only that 

portion occupied by, and south and 

west of, the Angeles and San Bernardino 

National Forests), CA, the San 

Bernardino-Riverside-Ontario, CA, wage 

area would lose the entirety of its survey 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 82881 

area. This proposed rule would abolish 

the San Bernardino-Riverside-Ontario, 

CA, wage area, which contains no 

additional counties. 

San Diego, CA, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would redefine 

the following county within the San 

Diego, CA, wage area based on 

application of the new criteria: 

• Yuma County, AZ, to the San Diego, 

CA, survey area effective for local wage 

surveys beginning in September 2027 

because more than 100 FWS employees 

work in Yuma County. 

San Francisco, CA, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would change the 

name of the San Francisco, CA, wage 

area to the San Jose-San FranciscoOakland, CA, wage area. This proposed 

rule would redefine the following 

counties to the San Jose-San FranciscoOakland, CA, wage area based on the 

application of the new criteria: 

• Monterey County, CA, from the 

Salinas-Monterey, CA, survey area to 

the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, 

CA, area of application based on 

employment interchange measures 

favoring the San Jose-San FranciscoOakland, CA, wage area. This county 

would subsequently be moved to the 

San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA, 

survey area effective for local wage 

surveys beginning in October 2027; 

• San Joaquin County, CA, from the 

Stockton, CA, survey area to the San 

Jose-San Francisco-Oakland area of 

application because San Joaquin County 

is part of the San Jose-San FranciscoOakland, CA, CSA. This county would 

subsequently be moved to the San JoseSan Francisco-Oakland, CA, survey area 

effective for local wage surveys 

beginning in October 2027; 

• Merced and Stanislaus Counties, 

CA, from the Stockton, CA, area of 

application to the San Jose-San 

Francisco-Oakland, CA, area of 

application because these counties are 

part of the San Jose-San FranciscoOakland, CA, CSA; 

• Tuolumne (not including Yosemite 

National Park portion) and Calaveras 

Counties, CA, from the Stockton, CA, 

area of application to the San Jose-San 

Francisco-Oakland, CA, area of 

application based on employment 

interchange measures favoring the San 

Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA, wage 

area over the Fresno, CA, wage area. 

Santa Barbara, CA, Wage Area 

With the redefinition of Santa Barbara 

County, CA, to the Los Angeles, CA, 

wage area, the Santa Barbara, CA, wage 

area would lose the entirety of its survey 

area. This proposed rule would abolish 

the Santa Barbara wage area and 

redefine Santa Barbara and San Luis 

Obispo Counties, CA, to the Los 

Angeles, CA, wage area. 

Stockton, CA, Wage Area 

With the redefinition of San Joaquin 

County, CA, to the San Jose-San 

Francisco-Oakland, CA, wage area, the 

Stockton, CA, wage area would lose the 

entirety of its survey area. This 

proposed rule would abolish the 

Stockton, CA, wage area and redefine its 

remaining counties to either the Fresno 

or San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA, 

wage areas. 

Denver, CO, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would redefine 

the following county to the Denver, CO, 

wage area based on application of the 

new criteria: 

• Lincoln County, CO, from the 

Southern Colorado area of application to 

the Denver, CO, area of application 

based on employment interchange 

measures favoring the Denver, CO, wage 

area. 

Southern Colorado, CO, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would redefine 

the following county away from the 

Southern Colorado wage area based on 

application of the new criteria: 

• Lincoln County, CO, from the 

Southern Colorado area of application to 

the Denver, CO, area of application 

based on employment interchange 

measures favoring the Denver, CO, wage 

area over the Southern Colorado wage 

area. 

New Haven-Hartford, CT, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would move the 

following counties to and away from the 

New Haven-Hartford, CT, wage area 

based on application of the new criteria: 

• The entirety of the SpringfieldAmherst Town-Northampton, MA, CSA, 

would be defined to the New HavenHartford, CT, wage area based on 

employment interchange measures 

favoring the New Haven-Hartford, CT, 

wage area. To effectuate this change, the 

following towns, cities, and counties 

that are part of the Springfield-Amherst 

Town-Northampton CSA would be 

redefined in the following manner: 

Æ Hampden County, MA (the portion 

that contains the cities and towns of 

Agawam, Chicopee, East Longmeadow, 

Feeding Hills, Hampden, Holyoke, 

Longmeadow, Ludlow, Monson, Palmer, 

Southwick, Springfield, Three Rivers, 

Westfield, West Springfield, and 

Wilbraham, MA), from the Central and 

Western Massachusetts survey area to 

the New Haven-Hartford, CT, area of 

application; 

Æ Hampden County, MA (the portion 

that contains the cities and towns of 

Blandford, Brimfield, Chester, Granville, 

Holland, Montgomery, Russell, Tolland, 

and Wales, MA), from the Central and 

Western Massachusetts area of 

application to the New Haven-Hartford, 

CT, area of application; 

Æ Hampden County, MA (entire 

county), to the New Haven-Hartford, CT, 

survey area effective for local wage 

surveys beginning in April 2027; 

Æ Hampshire County, MA (the 

portion that contains the cities and 

towns of Easthampton, Granby, Hadley, 

Northampton, and South Hadley, MA), 

from the Central and Western 

Massachusetts survey area to the New 

Haven-Hartford, CT, area of application; 

Æ Hampshire County, MA (the 

portion that contains the cities and 

towns of Amherst, Belchertown, 

Chesterfield, Cummington, Goshen, 

Hatfield, Huntington, Middlefield, 

Pelham, Plainfield, Southampton, Ware, 

Westhampton, Williamsburg, and 

Worthington, MA), from the Central and 

Western Massachusetts area of 

application to the New Haven-Hartford, 

CT, area of application; 

Æ Hampshire County, MA (entire 

county), to the New Haven-Hartford 

survey area effective for local wage 

surveys beginning in April 2027; 

Æ Franklin County, MA, from the 

Central and Western Massachusetts area 

of application to the New HavenHartford, CT, area of application; 

• Fairfield County, CT, from the New 

Haven-Hartford, CT, area of application 

to the New York-Newark, NY, area of 

application because all FWS employees 

who work in Fairfield County are 

located in the New York-Newark, NYNJ-CT-PA, CSA; 

• New London County, CT, from the 

New London, CT, survey area to the 

New Haven-Hartford, CT, area of 

application because New London 

County is part of the New HavenHartford-Waterbury, CT, CSA. This 

county would subsequently be moved to 

the New Haven-Hartford, CT, survey 

area effective for local wage surveys 

beginning in April 2027. 

• Windham County, CT, from the 

Central and Western Massachusetts area 

of application to the New HavenHartford, CT, area of application. 

New London, CT, Wage Area 

With the redefinition of New London 

County, CT, to the New Haven-Hartford, 

CT, survey area, the New London, CT, 

wage area would lose the entirety of its 

survey area. This proposed rule would 

abolish the New London, CT, wage area, 

which contains no additional counties. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
82882 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Washington, DC, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would change the 

name of the Washington, DC, wage area 

to the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington 

wage area listed under the District of 

Columbia. This proposed rule would 

redefine the following cities and 

counties to the Washington-BaltimoreArlington wage area based on 

application of the new criteria: 

• The entirety of the WashingtonBaltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WVPA, CSA, would be defined to the 

Washington-Baltimore-Arlington wage 

area. To effectuate this change, the 

following cities and counties that are 

part of the Washington-BaltimoreArlington CSA would be redefined in 

the following manner: 

Æ Baltimore (city), MD, and Anne 

Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, 

and Howard Counties, MD, from the 

Baltimore, MD, survey area to the 

Washington-Baltimore-Arlington area of 

application. This city and these counties 

would subsequently be moved to the 

Washington-Baltimore-Arlington survey 

area effective for local wage surveys 

beginning in July 2027; 

Æ Queen Anne’s County, MD, from 

the Baltimore, MD, area of application 

to the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington 

area of application; 

Æ Washington County, MD, from the 

Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg, 

MD, survey area to the WashingtonBaltimore-Arlington area of application. 

This county would subsequently be 

moved to the Washington-BaltimoreArlington survey area effective for local 

wage surveys beginning in July 2027; 

Æ Franklin County, PA, from the 

Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg, 

MD, survey area to the WashingtonBaltimore-Arlington area of application. 

This county would subsequently be 

moved to the Washington-BaltimoreArlington survey area effective for local 

wage surveys beginning in July 2027; 

Æ Berkeley County, WV, from the 

Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg, 

MD, survey area to the WashingtonBaltimore-Arlington area of application. 

This county would subsequently be 

moved to the Washington-BaltimoreArlington survey area effective for local 

wage surveys beginning in July 2027; 

Æ Winchester (city), VA, and 

Frederick County, VA, from the 

Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg, 

MD, area of application to the 

Washington-Baltimore-Arlington area of 

application; 

Æ Hampshire and Morgan Counties, 

WV, from the Hagerstown-MartinsburgChambersburg, MD, area of application 

to the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington 

area of application; 

Æ Orange County, VA, from the 

Richmond, VA, area of application to 

the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington 

area of application; 

Æ Dorchester and Talbot Counties, 

MD, from the Wilmington, DE, area of 

application to the WashingtonBaltimore-Arlington area of application; 

• The entirety of the HarrisonburgStaunton-Stuarts Draft, VA, CSA, would 

be defined to the Washington-BaltimoreArlington wage area based on 

employment interchange measures 

favoring the Washington-BaltimoreArlington wage area. To effectuate this 

change, the following cities and 

counties that are part of the 

Harrisonburg-Staunton-Stuarts Draft 

CSA would be redefined in the 

following manner: 

Æ Harrisonburg (city) and 

Rockingham (does not include the 

Shenandoah National Park portion) 

County, VA, from the HagerstownMartinsburg-Chambersburg, MD, area of 

application to the WashingtonBaltimore-Arlington area of application; 

Æ Staunton and Waynesboro (cities), 

VA, and Augusta (does not include the 

Shenandoah National Park portion) 

County, VA, from the Roanoke, VA, area 

of application to the WashingtonBaltimore-Arlington area of application; 

• Allegany and Garrett Counties, MD, 

would be defined from the HagerstownMartinsburg-Chambersburg, MD, area of 

application to the WashingtonBaltimore-Arlington area of application 

based on employment interchange rates 

favoring the Washington-BaltimoreArlington wage area; 

• Fulton County, PA, would be 

defined from the HagerstownMartinsburg-Chambersburg, MD, area of 

application to the WashingtonBaltimore-Arlington area of application 

based on employment interchange 

measures favoring the WashingtonBaltimore-Arlington wage area; 

• Page (does not include the 

Shenandoah National Park portion) and 

Shenandoah Counties, VA, would be 

defined from the HagerstownMartinsburg-Chambersburg, MD, area of 

application to the WashingtonBaltimore-Arlington area of application 

based on employment interchange 

measures favoring the WashingtonBaltimore-Arlington wage area; 

• Hardy and Mineral Counties, WV, 

would be defined from the HagerstownMartinsburg-Chambersburg, MD, area of 

application to the WashingtonBaltimore-Arlington area of application 

based on employment interchange 

measures favoring the WashingtonBaltimore-Arlington wage area; 

• Caroline and Westmoreland 

Counties, VA, would be defined from 

the Richmond, VA, area of application 

to the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington 

area of application based on 

employment interchange measures 

favoring the Washington-BaltimoreArlington wage area over the Richmond 

wage area; 

• Caroline and Kent Counties, MD, 

would be defined from the Wilmington, 

DE, area of application to the 

Washington-Baltimore-Arlington area of 

application based on employment 

interchange measures favoring the 

Washington-Baltimore-Arlington wage 

area; 

• King George County, VA, would be 

defined to the Washington-BaltimoreArlington survey area because more 

than 100 FWS employees work in King 

George County, effective for local wage 

surveys beginning in July 2027. 

Cocoa Beach-Melbourne, FL, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would redefine 

Indian River County, FL, from the Cocoa 

Beach area of application to the MiamiPort St. Lucie-Fort Lauderdale area of 

application because Indian River 

County is part of the Miami-Port St. 

Lucie-Fort Lauderdale, FL, CSA. 

Jacksonville, FL, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would redefine 

the following counties to and within the 

Jacksonville, FL, wage area based on the 

application of the new criteria: 

• Polk County, FL, from the TampaSt. Petersburg, FL, area of application to 

the Jacksonville, FL, area of application; 

• Columbia, Orange, and Sumter 

Counties, FL, to the Jacksonville, FL, 

survey area because more than 100 FWS 

employees work in each of these 

counties, effective for local wage 

surveys beginning in January 2027; 

• Camden County, GA, to the 

Jacksonville, FL, survey area because 

more than 100 FWS employees work in 

Camden County, effective for local wage 

surveys beginning in January 2027. 

Miami, FL, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would change the 

name of the Miami, FL, wage area to the 

Miami-Port St. Lucie-Fort Lauderdale, 

FL, wage area. This proposed rule 

would redefine the following counties 

to and within the Miami, FL, wage area 

based on the application of the new 

criteria: 

• Indian River County, FL, from the 

Cocoa Beach-Melbourne, FL, area of 

application to the Miami-Port St. LucieFort Lauderdale, FL, area of application 

because Indian River County is part of 

the Miami-Port St. Lucie-Fort 

Lauderdale, FL, CSA; 

• Lee County, FL, from the Tampa-St. 

Petersburg, FL, area of application to the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 82883 

Miami-Port St. Lucie-Fort Lauderdale, 

FL, area of application. Lee County is 

part of the Cape Coral-Fort MyersNaples, FL, CSA, and employment 

interchange measures for this CSA favor 

the Miami-Port St. Lucie-Fort 

Lauderdale, FL, wage area over the 

Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL, wage area; 

• Palm Beach County, FL,to the 

Miami-Port St. Lucie-Fort Lauderdale, 

FL, survey area because it has over 100 

FWS employees, effective for local wage 

surveys beginning in January 2027. 

Panama City, FL, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would redefine 

the following county to the Panama 

City, FL, wage area based on the 

application of the new criteria: 

• Decatur County, GA, from the 

Albany, GA, area of application to the 

Panama City, FL, area of application. 

Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would redefine 

the following counties away from the 

Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL, wage area 

based on the application of the new 

criteria: 

• Lee County, FL, from the Tampa-St. 

Petersburg, FL, area of application to the 

Miami-Port St. Lucie-Fort Lauderdale, 

FL, area of application. Lee County is 

part of the Cape Coral-Fort MyersNaples, FL, CSA, and employment 

interchange measures for this CSA favor 

the Miami-Port St. Lucie-Fort 

Lauderdale, FL, wage area over the 

Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL, wage area; 

• Polk County, FL, from the TampaSt. Petersburg, FL, area of application to 

the Jacksonville, FL, area of application. 

Albany, GA, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would redefine 

the following counties to and away from 

the Albany, GA, wage area based on the 

application of the new criteria: 

• Quitman, Schley, and Webster 

Counties, GA, from the Columbus, GA, 

area of application to the Albany, GA, 

wage area based on employment 

interchange measures being most 

favorable to the Albany, GA, wage area; 

• Decatur County, GA, from the 

Albany, GA, area of application to the 

Panama City, FL, area of application. 

Atlanta, GA, Wage Area 

The proposed rule would redefine the 

following counties to and away from the 

Atlanta, GA, wage area based on the 

application of the new criteria: 

• Cherokee, Cleburne, and Randolph 

Counties, AL, from the AnnistonGadsden, AL, area of application to the 

Atlanta, GA, area of application based 

on employment interchange measures 

favoring the Atlanta wage area; 

• Elbert, Hart, and Taliaferro 

Counties, GA, from the Augusta, GA, 

area of application to the Atlanta, GA, 

area of application based on 

employment interchange measures 

favoring the Atlanta, GA, wage area over 

the Augusta, GA, wage area; 

• Putnam County, GA, from the 

Macon, GA, area of application to the 

Atlanta, GA, area of application based 

on employment interchange measures 

favoring the Atlanta, GA, wage area over 

the Macon, GA, wage area; 

• Upson County, GA, from the 

Macon, GA, area of application to the 

Atlanta, GA, area of application because 

Upson County is part of the AtlantaAthens-Clarke County-Sandy Springs, 

GA-AL, CSA; 

• Chambers County, AL, from the 

Columbus, GA, area of application to 

the Atlanta, GA, area of application 

because Chambers County is part of the 

Atlanta-Athens-Clarke County-Sandy 

Springs, GA-AL, CSA; 

• Troup County, GA, from the 

Columbus, GA, area of application to 

the Atlanta, GA, area of application 

because Troup County is part of the 

Atlanta-Athens-Clarke County-Sandy 

Springs, GA-AL, CSA; 

• The entirety of the ColumbusAuburn-Opelika, GA-AL, CSA, from the 

Columbus, GA, wage area to the Atlanta, 

GA, wage area based on employment 

interchange measures favoring the 

Atlanta, GA, wage area over the 

Montgomery-Selma, AL, wage area. To 

effectuate this change, the following 

counties, which comprise the 

Columbus-Auburn-Opelika CSA, would 

be redefined in the following manner: 

Æ Lee, Macon, and Russell Counties, 

AL, from the Columbus, GA, survey area 

to the Atlanta, GA, area of application. 

These counties would subsequently be 

moved to the Atlanta, GA, survey area 

effective for local wage surveys 

beginning in May 2027; 

Æ Chattahoochee and Muscogee 

Counties, GA, from the Columbus, GA, 

survey area to the Atlanta, GA, area of 

application. (Muscogee County, GA, 

includes the area referred to as 

Columbus County, GA, in previous 

wage area definitions.) These counties 

would subsequently be moved to the 

Atlanta, GA, survey area effective for 

local wage surveys beginning in May 

2027; 

Æ Tallapoosa County, AL, from the 

Columbus, GA, area of application to 

the Atlanta, GA, area of application; 

Æ Harris, Marion, Stewart, and Talbot 

Counties, GA, from the Columbus, GA, 

area of application to the Atlanta, GA, 

area of application; 

• Chattooga, Murray, and Whitfield 

Counties, GA, from the Atlanta, GA, 

area of application to the Nashville, TN, 

area of application. 

Augusta, GA, Wage Area 

The proposed rule would redefine the 

following counties to and away from the 

Augusta GA, wage area based on 

application of the new criteria: 

• Elbert, Hart, and Taliaferro 

Counties, GA, from the Augusta, GA, 

area of application to the Atlanta, GA, 

area of application based on 

employment interchange measures 

favoring the Atlanta, GA, wage area over 

the Augusta, GA, wage area. 

Columbus, GA, Wage Area 

This wage area is being decreased in 

size under this proposed rule and would 

be renamed the Montgomery-Selma, AL, 

wage area and move the wage area 

listing alphabetically under the State of 

Alabama. This proposed rule would 

redefine the following counties away 

from the Columbus, GA, wage area 

based on the application of the new 

criteria: 

• Quitman, Schley, and Webster 

Counties, GA, from the Columbus, GA, 

area of application to the Albany, GA, 

wage area based on employment 

interchange measures favoring the 

Albany wage area; 

• Chambers County, AL, from the 

Columbus, GA, area of application to 

the Atlanta, GA, area of application 

because Chambers County is part of the 

Atlanta-Athens-Clarke County-Sandy 

Springs, GA-AL, CSA; 

• Troup County, GA, from the 

Columbus, GA, area of application to 

the Atlanta, GA, area of application 

because Troup County is part of the 

Atlanta-Athens-Clarke County-Sandy 

Springs, GA-AL, CSA; 

• The entirety of the ColumbusAuburn-Opelika, GA-AL, CSA, from the 

Columbus, GA, wage area to the Atlanta, 

GA, wage area based on employment 

interchange measures favoring the 

Atlanta wage area over the MontgomerySelma, AL, wage area. To effectuate this 

change, the following counties, which 

comprise the Columbus-AuburnOpelika CSA, would be redefined in the 

following manner: 

Æ Lee, Macon, and Russell Counties, 

AL, from the Columbus, GA, survey area 

to the Atlanta, GA, area of application. 

These counties would subsequently be 

moved to the Atlanta, GA, survey area 

effective for local wage surveys 

beginning in May 2027; 

Æ Chattahoochee and Muscogee 

Counties, GA, from the Columbus, GA, 

survey area to the Atlanta, GA, area of 

application. (Muscogee County, GA, 

includes the area referred to as 

Columbus County, GA, in previous 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
82884 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

wage area definitions.) These counties 

would subsequently be moved to the 

Atlanta, GA, survey area effective for 

local wage surveys beginning in May 

2027; 

Æ Tallapoosa County, AL, from the 

Columbus, GA, area of application to 

the Atlanta, GA, area of application; 

Æ Harris, Marion, Stewart, and Talbot 

Counties, GA, from the Columbus, GA, 

area of application to the Atlanta, GA, 

area of application; 

• Coosa County, AL, from the 

Columbus, GA, area of application to 

the Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, 

AL, area of application because Coosa 

County is part of the BirminghamCullman-Talladega, AL, CSA; 

• Taylor County, GA, from the 

Columbus, GA, area of application to 

the Macon, GA, area of application 

based on employment interchange 

measures favoring the Macon, GA, wage 

area. 

Macon, GA, Wage Area 

The proposed rule would redefine the 

following county to the Macon, GA, 

wage area based on application of the 

new criteria: 

• Taylor County, GA, from the 

Columbus, GA, area of application to 

the Macon, GA, area of application 

based on employment interchange 

measures favoring the Macon, GA, wage 

area. 

Savannah, GA, Wage Area 

The proposed rule would redefine the 

following counties to and within the 

Savannah, GA, wage area based on 

application of the new criteria: 

• Beaufort County, SC (the portion 

north of Broad River), from the 

Charleston, SC, area of application to 

the Savannah, GA, area of application. 

Beaufort County is part of the Hilton 

Head Island-Bluffton-Port Royal, SC, 

MSA, and employment interchange 

measures for this MSA favor the 

Savannah, GA, wage area over the 

Charleston, SC, wage area; 

• Beaufort County, SC, to the 

Savannah, GA, survey area effective for 

local wage surveys beginning in May 

2027 because more than 100 FWS 

employees work in Beaufort County. 

Bloomington-Bedford-Washington, IN, 

Wage Area 

This proposed rule would change the 

name of the Bloomington-BedfordWashington, IN, wage area to the 

Evansville-Henderson, IN, wage area. 

This proposed rule would redefine the 

following counties away from the 

Bloomington-Bedford-Washington, IN 

wage area based on application of the 

new criteria: 

• Jackson County, IN, from the 

Bloomington-Bedford-Washington, IN, 

area of application to the IndianapolisCarmel-Muncie, IN, area of application 

because Jackson County is part of the 

Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, CSA; 

• Lawrence and Monroe Counties, IN, 

from the Bloomington-BedfordWashington, IN, survey area to the 

Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, area of 

application. Lawrence and Monroe 

Counties are in the BloomingtonBedford, IN, CSA, and employment 

interchange measures for this CSA favor 

the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, 

wage area over the EvansvilleHenderson, IN, wage area. These 

counties would subsequently be moved 

from tto the Indianapolis-CarmelMuncie, IN, survey area effective for 

local wage surveys beginning in October 

2026; 

• Owen County, IN, from the 

Bloomington-Bedford-Washington, IN, 

area of application to the IndianapolisCarmel-Muncie, IN, area of application. 

Owen County is in the BloomingtonBedford, IN, CSA, and employment 

interchange measures for this CSA favor 

the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, 

wage area over the EvansvilleHenderson, IN, wage area; 

• Livingston County, KY, from the 

Bloomington-Bedford-Washington, IN, 

area of application to the Nashville, TN, 

area of application. Livingston County is 

part of the Paducah-Mayfield, KY-IL, 

CSA, and employment interchange 

measures for this CSA favor the 

Nashville, TN, wage area over the 

Evansville-Henderson, IN, wage area. 

Central Illinois, IL, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would change the 

name of the Central Illinois wage area to 

the Bloomington-Pontiac, IL, wage area. 

This proposed rule would redefine the 

following counties to and away from the 

Central Illinois wage area based on 

application of the new criteria: 

• Livingston County, IL, from the 

Chicago, IL, area of application to the 

Bloomington-Pontiac, IL, area of 

application because Livingston County 

is part of the Bloomington-Pontiac, IL, 

CSA; 

• Morgan and Scott Counties, IL, from 

the St. Louis, MO, area of application to 

the Bloomington-Pontiac, IL, area of 

application. Morgan and Scott Counties 

area part of the Springfield-JacksonvilleLincoln, IL, CSA, and employment 

interchange measures for this CSA favor 

the Bloomington-Pontiac, IL, wage area 

over the St. Louis, MO, wage area. 

Chicago, IL, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would change the 

name of the Chicago, IL, wage area to 

the Chicago-Naperville, IL, wage area. 

This proposed rule would redefine the 

following counties to and away from the 

Chicago, IL, wage area based on the 

application of the new criteria: 

• Bureau and Putnam Counties, IL, 

from the Davenport-Rock Island-Moline, 

IA, area of application to the ChicagoNaperville, IL, area of application 

because these counties are part of the 

Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI, CSA; 

• Livingston County, IL, from the 

Chicago area of application to the 

Bloomington-Pontiac, IL, area of 

application because Livingston County 

is part of the Bloomington-Pontiac CSA; 

• Lee County, IL from the Chicago 

area of application to the DavenportMoline, IA, area of application. Lee 

County is part of the Dixon-Sterling, IL, 

CSA, and employment interchange 

measures for this CSA favor the 

Davenport-Moline wage area over the 

Chicago-Naperville wage area. 

Ft. Wayne-Marion, IN, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would define the 

following counties away from the Ft. 

Wayne-Marion, IN, wage area based on 

application of the new criteria: 

• Allen, Mercer, and Van Wert 

Counties, OH, from the Ft. WayneMarion, IN, area of application to the 

Dayton, OH, area of application. Allen, 

Mercer, and Van Wert Counties are part 

of the Lima-Van Wert-Celina, OH, CSA, 

and employment interchange measures 

for this CSA favor the Dayton, OH, wage 

area over the Ft. Wayne-Marion, IN, 

wage area; 

• Grant County, IN, from the Ft. 

Wayne-Marion, IN, survey area to the 

Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, area of 

application based on employment 

interchange measures favoring the 

Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, wage 

area over the Ft. Wayne-Marion, IN, 

wage area. The county would 

subsequently be moved to the 

Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, survey 

area effective for local wage surveys 

beginning in October 2026; 

• Miami County, IN, from the Ft. 

Wayne-Marion, IN, area of application 

to the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, 

area of application because Miami 

county is part of the IndianapolisCarmel-Muncie, IN, CSA. Over 100 FWS 

employees work in Miami County, and 

the county would subsequently be 

moved to the Indianapolis-CarmelMuncie, IN, survey area effective for 

local wage surveys beginning in October 

2026; 

• White County, IN, from the Ft. 

Wayne-Marion, IN, area of application 

to the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, 

area of application. White County is part 

of the Lafayette-West LafayetteVerDate Sep<11>2014 19:52 Oct 10, 2024 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP2.SGM 11OCP2

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 82885 

Frankfort, IN, CSA, and employment 

interchange measures for this CSA favor 

the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, 

wage area over the Ft. Wayne-Marion, 

IN, wage area; 

• Blackford County, IN, from the Ft. 

Wayne-Marion, IN, area of application 

to the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, 

area of application based on 

employment interchange measures 

favoring the Indianapolis-CarmelMuncie, IN, wage area over the Ft. 

Wayne-Marion, IN, wage area. 

Indianapolis, IN, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would change the 

name of the Indianapolis, IN, wage area 

to the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, 

wage area. This proposed rule would 

define the following counties to and 

within the Indianapolis, IN, wage area 

based on application of the new criteria: 

• Randolph County, IN, from the 

Dayton, OH, area of application to the 

Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, area of 

application based on employment 

interchange measures favoring the 

Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, wage 

area over the Dayton, OH, wage area; 

• Wayne County, IN, from the 

Dayton, OH, area of application to the 

Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, area of 

application. Wayne County is part of the 

Richmond-Connersville, IN, CSA, and 

employment interchange measures for 

this CSA favor the Indianapolis-CarmelMuncie, IN, wage area over the Dayton, 

OH, wage area; 

• Lawrence and Monroe Counties, IN, 

from the Bloomington-BedfordWashington, IN, survey area to the 

Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, area of 

application. Lawrence and Monroe 

Counties are in the BloomingtonBedford, IN, CSA, and employment 

interchange measures for this CSA favor 

the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, 

wage area over the EvansvilleHenderson, IN, wage area. These 

counties would subsequently be moved 

fto the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, 

survey area effective for local wage 

surveys beginning in October 2026; 

• Owen County, IN, from the 

Bloomington-Bedford-Washington, IN, 

area of application to the IndianapolisCarmel-Muncie, IN, area of application. 

Owen County is in the BloomingtonBedford, IN, CSA, and employment 

interchange measures for this CSA favor 

the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, 

wage area over the EvansvilleHenderson, IN, wage area; 

• Jackson County, IN, from the 

Bloomington-Bedford-Washington, IN, 

area of application to the IndianapolisCarmel-Muncie, IN, area of application 

because Jackson County is part of the 

Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, CSA; 

• Grant County, IN, from the Ft. 

Wayne-Marion, IN, survey area to the 

Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, area of 

application based on employment 

interchange measures favoring the 

Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, wage 

area over the Ft. Wayne-Marion, IN, 

wage area. Grant County would 

subsequently be moved to the 

Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, survey 

area effective for local wage surveys 

beginning in October 2026; 

• Miami County, IN, from the Ft. 

Wayne-Marion, IN, area of application 

to the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, 

area of application because Miami 

County is part of the IndianapolisCarmel-Muncie, IN, CSA. Because more 

than 100 FWS employees work in 

Miami County, the county would 

subsequently be moved to the 

Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, survey 

area effective for local wage surveys 

beginning in October 2026; 

• White County, IN, from the Ft. 

Wayne-Marion, IN, area of application 

to the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, 

area of application. White County is part 

of the Lafayette-West LafayetteFrankfort, IN, CSA, and employment 

interchange measures for this CSA favor 

the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, 

wage area over the Ft. Wayne-Marion, 

IN, wage area; 

• Blackford County, IN, from the Ft. 

Wayne-Marion, IN, area of application 

to the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, 

area of application based on 

employment interchange measures 

favoring the Indianapolis-CarmelMuncie, IN, wage area over the Ft. 

Wayne-Marion, IN, wage area; 

• Jennings County, IN, from the 

Louisville, KY, area of application to the 

Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, area of 

application based on employment 

interchange measures favoring the 

Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, wage 

area over the Louisville, KY, wage area. 

• Vigo County, IN, to the 

Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, survey 

area because the county has over 100 

FWS employees effective for local wage 

surveys beginning in October 2026. 

Davenport-Rock Island-Moline, IA, 

Wage Area 

This proposed rule would change the 

name of the Davenport-Rock IslandMoline, IA, wage area to the DavenportMoline, IA, wage area. This proposed 

rule would define the following 

counties to and away from the 

Davenport-Rock Island-Moline, IA, wage 

area based on application of the new 

criteria: 

• Lee County, IL from the Chicago, IL, 

area of application to the DavenportMoline, IA, area of application. Lee 

County is part of the Dixon-Sterling, IL, 

CSA, and employment interchange 

measures for this CSA favor the 

Davenport-Moline, IA, wage area over 

the Chicago-Naperville, IL, wage area; 

• Bureau and Putnam Counties, IL, 

from the Davenport-Rock Island-Moline, 

IA, area of application to the ChicagoNaperville, IL, area of application 

because these counties are part of the 

Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI, CSA; 

• Adams County, IL, from the 

Davenport-Rock Island-Moline, IA, area 

of application to the St. Louis, MO, area 

of application. Adams County is part of 

the Quincy-Hannibal, IL-MO, CSA, and 

employment interchange measures for 

this CSA favor the St. Louis, MO, wage 

area over the Davenport-Moline, IA, 

wage area. 

Topeka, KS, Wage Area 

The current Topeka, KS, wage area 

would become smaller under this 

proposed rule and would be renamed as 

the Manhattan, KS, wage area. This 

proposed rule would redefine the 

following counties away from and 

within the Topeka, KS, wage area based 

on application of the new criteria: 

• Jefferson, Osage, and Shawnee 

Counties, KS, from the Topeka, KS, 

survey area to the Kansas City, MO, area 

of application. Jefferson, Osage, and 

Shawnee Counties are part of the 

Topeka, KS, MSA, and employment 

interchange measures for this MSA 

favor the Kansas City wage area. These 

counties would subsequently be moved 

to the Kansas City, MO, survey area 

effective for local wage surveys 

beginning in October 2026; 

• Jackson and Wabaunsee Counties, 

KS, from the Topeka, KS, area of 

application to the Kansas City, MO, area 

of application. Jackson and Wabaunsee 

Counties are part of the Topeka, KS, 

MSA, and employment interchange 

measures for this MSA favor the Kansas 

City, MO, wage area; 

• Riley County, KS, to the Manhattan, 

KS, survey area effective for local wage 

surveys beginning in November 2027 

because the county has over 100 FWS 

employees. 

Lexington, KY, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would redefine 

the following counties away from the 

Lexington, KY, wage area based on 

application of the new criteria: 

• Owen and Robertson Counties, KY, 

from the Lexington area of application 

to the Cincinnati-Wilmington, OH, area 

of application based on employment 

interchange measures favoring the 

Cincinnati-Wilmington, OH, wage area 

over the Lexington, KY, wage area. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
82886 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Louisville, KY, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would define the 

following county away from the 

Louisville, KY, wage area based on 

application of the new criteria: 

• Jennings County, IN, from the 

Louisville, KY, area of application to the 

Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, area of 

application based on employment 

interchange measures favoring the 

Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, wage 

area over the Louisville, KY, wage area. 

Shreveport, LA, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would redefine 

the following county away from the 

Shreveport, LA, wage area based on 

application of the new criteria: 

• Cherokee County, TX, from the 

Shreveport, LA, area of application to 

the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, area of 

application. Cherokee County is part of 

the Tyler-Jacksonville, TX, CSA, and 

employment interchange measures for 

this CSA favor the Dallas-Fort Worth, 

TX, wage area over the Shreveport, LA, 

wage area. 

Baltimore, MD, Wage Area 

With the redefinition of Baltimore 

(city) and Anne Arundel, Baltimore, 

Carroll, Harford, and Howard Counties, 

MD, to the Washington-BaltimoreArlington survey area, the Baltimore 

wage area would lose the entirety of its 

survey area. This proposed rule would 

abolish the Baltimore wage area and 

redefine its remaining counties to the 

Washington-Baltimore-Arlington wage 

area. 

Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg, 

MD, Wage Area 

With the redefinition of Washington 

County, MD; Franklin County, PA; and 

Berkeley County, WV, to the 

Washington-Baltimore-Arlington survey 

area, the Hagerstown-MartinsburgChambersburg, MD, wage area would 

lose the entirety of its survey area. This 

proposed rule would abolish the 

Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg, 

MD, wage area and redefine its 

remaining counties to the WashingtonBaltimore-Arlington wage area. 

Boston, MA, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would change the 

name of the Boston, MA, wage area to 

the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, 

wage area. The Boston wage area is 

currently defined primarily by New 

England cities and towns rather than by 

counties with some counties divided 

between wage areas. This proposed rule 

would redefine the following counties 

to and within the Boston, MA, wage 

area based on the application of the new 

criteria: 

• Coos County, NH, from the 

Portsmouth, NH, area of application to 

the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, 

area of application due to employment 

interchange measures favoring the 

Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, 

wage area; 

• Rockingham County, NH, would be 

part of the Boston-WorcesterProvidence, MA, wage area because 

Rockingham County is part of the 

Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA–RI– 

NH, CSA. To effectuate this change, the 

cities and towns that comprise 

Rockingham County, NH, would be 

redefined in the following manner: 

Æ Rockingham County, NH (all cities 

and towns except Newton, Plaistow, 

Salem, and Westville, NH), would be 

redefined from the Portsmouth, NH, 

survey area to the Boston-WorcesterProvidence, MA, area of application; 

Æ Rockingham County, NH (the 

portion that contains the cities and 

towns of Newton, Plaistow, Salem, and 

Westville, NH), would be redefined 

from the Portsmouth, NH, area of 

application to the Boston-WorcesterProvidence, MA, area of application; 

Æ Rockingham County, NH, in its 

entirety would subsequently be moved 

to the Boston-Worcester-Providence, 

MA, survey area effective for local wage 

surveys beginning in August 2026; 

• Strafford County, NH, would be 

redefined from the Portsmouth, NH, 

survey area to the Boston-WorcesterProvidence, MA, area of application 

because Strafford County is part of the 

Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA–RI– 

NH, CSA. Strafford County would 

subsequently be moved to the BostonWorcester-Providence survey area 

effective for local wage surveys 

beginning in August 2026; 

• Belknap, Hillsborough, and 

Merrimack Counties, NH, would be 

redefined from the Central and Western 

Massachusetts area of application to the 

Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, area 

of application because these counties 

are part of the Boston-WorcesterProvidence, MA–RI–NH, CSA; 

• Cheshire County, NH, would be 

redefined from the Central and Western 

Massachusetts area of application to the 

Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, area 

of application. Cheshire County is part 

of the Keene-Brattleboro, NH–VT, CSA, 

and employment interchange measures 

for this CSA favor the Boston-WorcesterProvidence, MA, wage area; 

• Carroll, Grafton, and Sullivan 

Counties, NH, would be redefined from 

the Central and Western Massachusetts 

area of application to the BostonWorcester-Providence, MA, area of 

application based on employment 

interchange measures favoring the 

Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, 

wage area; 

• Androscoggin, Cumberland, 

Sagadahoc, and York Counties, ME, 

would be redefined from the 

Portsmouth, NH, survey area to the 

Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, area 

of application area. Androscoggin, 

Cumberland, Sagadahoc, and York 

Counties, ME, are part of the PortlandLewiston-South Portland, ME, CSA, and 

employment interchange measures for 

this CSA favors defining it to the 

Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, 

wage area. These counties would 

subsequently be moved to the BostonWorcester-Providence, MA, survey area 

effective for local wage surveys 

beginning in August 2026; 

• Franklin and Oxford Counties, ME, 

would be redefined from the 

Portsmouth, NH, area of application to 

the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, 

area of application based on 

employment interchange measures 

favoring the Boston-WorcesterProvidence, MA, wage area; 

• Barnstable County, MA, would be 

defined to the Boston-WorcesterProvidence, MA, survey area effective 

for local wage surveys beginning in 

August 2026 because the county has 

over 100 FWS employees; 

• Bristol County, MA, would be 

defined in its entirety to the BostonWorcester-Providence, MA, wage area 

because it is part of the BostonWorcester-Providence, MA–RI–NH, 

CSA. To effectuate this change, the 

following cities and towns in Bristol 

County would be redefined in the 

following manner: 

Æ Bristol County, MA (the portion 

that contains the town the cities and 

towns of Attleboro, Fall River, North 

Attleboro, Rehoboth, Seekonk, 

Somerset, Swansea, and Westport, MA), 

would be redefined from the 

Narragansett Bay, RI, survey area to the 

Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, area 

of application; 

Æ Bristol County, MA (the portion 

that contains the cities and towns of 

Acushnet, Berkley, Dartmouth, Dighton, 

Fairhaven, Freetown, Mansfield, New 

Bedford, Norton, Raynham, and 

Taunton, MA), from the Narragansett 

Bay, RI, area of application to the 

Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, area 

of application; 

Æ Bristol County, MA, would 

subsequently be moved to the BostonWorcester-Providence, MA, survey area 

effective for local wage surveys 

beginning in August 2026. 

• Essex County, MA, in its entirety 

would be part of the Boston-WorcesterProvidence, MA, survey area because 

the county is part of the BostonVerDate Sep<11>2014 19:52 Oct 10, 2024 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP2.SGM 11OCP2

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 82887 

Worcester-Providence, MA–RI–NH, 

CSA, and portions of the county are 

currently included the Boston and 

Portsmouth survey areas. To effectuate 

this change, the following cities and 

towns in Essex County would be 

redefined: 

Æ Essex County, MA (the portion that 

contains the cities and towns of 

Andover, Essex, Gloucester, Ipswich, 

Lawrence, Methuen, Rockport, and 

Rowley, MA), would be moved to the 

Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, 

survey area effective for local wage 

surveys beginning in August 2026; 

Æ Essex County, MA (the portion that 

contains the cities and towns of 

Amesbury, Georgetown, Groveland, 

Haverhill, Merrimac, Newbury, 

Newburyport, North Andover, 

Salisbury, South Byfield, and West 

Newbury, MA), would be redefined 

from the Portsmouth, NH, survey area to 

the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, 

area of application. Essex County, MA 

(the portion that contains the cities and 

towns of Amesbury, Georgetown, 

Groveland, Haverhill, Merrimac, 

Newbury, Newburyport, North Andover, 

Salisbury, South Byfield, and West 

Newbury, MA), would subsequently be 

moved to the Boston-WorcesterProvidence, MA, survey area effective 

for local wage surveys beginning in 

August 2026. 

• Middlesex County, MA, in its 

entirety would be part of the BostonWorcester-Providence, MA, survey area 

because the county is part of the BostonWorcester-Providence, MA–RI–NH, 

CSA, and portions of the county are 

included in a survey area. To effectuate 

this change, the following cities and 

towns in Middlesex County would be 

redefined: 

Æ Middlesex County, MA (the portion 

that contains the cities and towns of 

Ayer, Billerica, Chelmsford, Dracut, 

Dunstable, Groton, Hopkinton, Hudson, 

Littleton, Lowell, Marlborough, 

Maynard, Pepperell, Stow, Tewksbury, 

Tyngsborough, and Westford, MA), 

would subsequently be moved to the 

Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, 

survey area effective for local wage 

surveys beginning in August 2026; 

Æ Middlesex County, MA (the portion 

that contains the cities and towns of 

Ashby, Shirley, and Townsend, MA), 

would be redefined from the Central 

and Western Massachusetts area of 

application to the Boston-WorcesterProvidence, MA, area of application. 

Middlesex County, MA (the portion that 

contains the cities and towns of Ashby, 

Shirley, and Townsend, MA), would be 

subsequently moved to the BostonWorcester-Providence, MA, survey area 

effective for local wage surveys 

beginning in August 2026. 

• Norfolk County, MA, in its entirety 

would be part of the Boston-WorcesterProvidence, MA, survey area because 

the county is part of the BostonWorcester-Providence, MA–RI–NH, 

CSA, and portions of the county are 

included in a survey area. To effectuate 

this change, the following cities and 

towns in Norfolk County would be 

redefined: 

Æ Norfolk County, MA (the portion 

that contains the town of Avon, MA) 

would be defined to the BostonWorcester-Providence, MA, survey area 

effective for local wage surveys 

beginning in August 2026; 

Æ Norfolk County, MA (the portion 

that contains the cities and towns of 

Caryville, Plainville, and South 

Bellingham, MA) from the Narragansett 

Bay, RI, survey area to the BostonWorcester-Providence, MA, area of 

application. Norfolk County, MA (the 

portion that contains the cities and 

towns of Caryville, Plainville, and South 

Bellingham, MA) would subsequently 

be defined to the Boston-WorcesterProvidence, MA, survey area effective 

for local wage surveys beginning in 

August 2026. 

• Plymouth County, MA (nonsurvey 

area part), would be moved to the 

Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, 

survey area effective for local wage 

surveys beginning in August 2026 

because the county has more than 100 

FWS workers; 

• Worcester County, MA, in its 

entirety would be part of the BostonWorcester-Providence, MA, survey area 

because the county is part of the BostonWorcester-Providence, MA–RI–NH, 

CSA, and portions of the county are 

included in a survey area. To effectuate 

this change, the following cities and 

towns in Worcester County would be 

redefined: 

Æ Worcester County, MA (the portion 

that contains the cities and towns of 

Blackstone and Millville, MA) would be 

redefined from the Narragansett Bay, RI, 

survey area to the Boston-WorcesterProvidence, MA, area of application. 

Worcester County, MA (the portion that 

contains the cities and towns of 

Blackstone and Millville, MA) would 

subsequently be moved to the BostonWorcester-Providence, MA, survey area 

effective for local wage surveys 

beginning in August 2026; 

Æ Worcester County, MA (the portion 

that contains the cities and towns of 

Warren and West Warren, MA) would 

be redefined from the Central and 

Western Massachusetts survey area to 

the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, 

area of application. Worcester County, 

MA (the portion that contains the cities 

and towns of Warren and West Warren, 

MA) would subsequently be moved to 

the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, 

survey area effective for local wage 

surveys beginning in August 2026; 

Æ Worcester County, MA (all cities 

and towns except Blackstone, Millville, 

Warren, and West Warren, MA) would 

be redefined from the Central and 

Western Massachusetts area of 

application to the Boston-WorcesterProvidence, MA, area of application. 

Worcester County, MA (all cities and 

towns except Blackstone, Millville, 

Warren, and West Warren, MA) would 

subsequently be moved to the BostonWorcester-Providence, MA, survey area 

effective for local wage surveys 

beginning in August 2026. 

• Bristol County, RI, from the 

Narragansett Bay, RI, survey area to the 

Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, area 

of application because Bristol County, 

RI, is part of the Boston-WorcesterProvidence, MA–RI–NH, CSA. Bristol 

County, RI, would subsequently be 

moved to the Boston-WorcesterProvidence, MA, survey area effective 

for local wage surveys beginning in 

August 2026. 

• Kent County, RI, would be part of 

the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, 

wage area because the county is part of 

the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA– 

RI–NH, CSA. To effectuate this change, 

the cities and towns that comprise Kent 

County, RI, would be redefined in the 

following manner: 

Æ Kent County, RI (the portion that 

contains the cities and towns of 

Anthony, Coventry, East Greenwich, 

Greene, Warwick, and West Warwick, 

RI), would be redefined from the 

Narragansett Bay, RI, survey area to the 

Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, area 

of application; 

Æ Kent County, RI (the portion that 

contains the town of West Greenwich, 

RI), would be redefined from the 

Narragansett Bay, RI, area of application 

to the Boston-Worcester-Providence, 

MA, area of application; 

Æ Kent County, RI, would 

subsequently be moved to the BostonWorcester-Providence, MA, survey area 

effective for local wage surveys 

beginning in August 2026. 

• Newport County, RI, would be 

redefined from the Narragansett Bay, RI, 

survey area to the Boston-WorcesterProvidence, MA, area of application 

because the county is part of the BostonWorcester-Providence, MA–RI–NH, 

CSA. Newport County, RI, would 

subsequently be moved to the BostonWorcester-Providence, MA, survey area 

effective for local wage surveys 

beginning in August 2026; 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
82888 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

• Providence County, RI, would be 

part of the Boston-WorcesterProvidence, MA, wage area because the 

county is part of the Boston-WorcesterProvidence, MA–RI–NH, CSA. To 

effectuate this change, the cities and 

towns that comprise Providence County 

would be redefined in the following 

manner: 

Æ Providence County, RI (the portion 

that contains the cities and towns of 

Ashton, Burrillville, Central Falls, 

Cranston, Cumberland, Cumberland 

Hill, East Providence, Esmond, 

Forestdale, Greenville, Harrisville, 

Johnston, Lincoln, Manville, Mapleville, 

North Providence, North Smithfield, 

Oakland, Pascoag, Pawtucket, 

Providence, Saylesville, Slatersville, 

Smithfield, Valley Falls, Wallum Lake, 

and Woonsocket, RI), would be 

redefined from the Narragansett Bay, RI, 

survey area to the Boston-WorcesterProvidence, MA, area of application; 

Æ Providence County, RI (the portion 

that contains the cities and towns of 

Foster, Glocester, and Scituate, RI), 

would be redefined from the 

Narragansett Bay, RI, area of application 

to the Boston-Worcester-Providence, 

MA, area of application; 

Æ Providence County, RI, would 

subsequently be moved in its entirety to 

the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, 

survey area effective for local wage 

surveys beginning in August 2026. 

• Washington County, RI, would be 

part of the Boston-WorcesterProvidence, MA, wage area because the 

county is part of the Boston-WorcesterProvidence, MA–RI–NH, CSA. To 

effectuate this change, the cities and 

towns that comprise Washington 

County would be redefined in the 

following manner: 

Æ Washington County, RI (the portion 

that contains the cities and towns of 

Davisville, Galilee, Lafayette, 

Narragansett, North Kingstown, Point 

Judith, Quonset Point, Saunderstown, 

and Slocum, RI), would be redefined 

from the Narragansett Bay, RI, survey 

area to the Boston-WorcesterProvidence, MA, area of application; 

Æ Washington County, RI (the portion 

that contains the cities and towns of 

Charlestown, Exeter, Hopkinton, New 

Shoreham, Richmond, South 

Kingstown, and Westerly, RI), would be 

redefined from the Narragansett Bay, RI, 

area of application to the BostonWorcester-Providence, MA, area of 

application; 

Æ Washington County, RI, would 

subsequently be moved in its entirety to 

the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, 

survey area effective for local wage 

surveys beginning in August 2026. 

• Windham County, VT, would be 

redefined from the Central and Western 

Massachusetts area of application to the 

Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, area 

of application. Windham County is part 

of the Keene-Brattleboro, NH-VT, CSA, 

and employment interchange measures 

for this CSA favor the Boston-WorcesterProvidence, MA, wage area; 

• Orange and Windsor Counties, VT, 

would be redefined from the Central 

and Western Massachusetts area of 

application to the Boston-WorcesterProvidence, MA, area of application 

based on employment interchange 

measures favoring the BostonWorcester-Providence, MA, wage area. 

Central and Western Massachusetts, 

MA, Wage Area 

With the redefinition of Hampden and 

Hampshire Counties, MA, to the New 

Haven-Hartford, CT, wage area and 

Worcester County, MA, to the BostonWorcester-Providence, MA, wage area, 

the Central and Western Massachusetts 

wage area would lose the entirety of its 

survey area. This proposed rule would 

abolish the Central and Western 

Massachusetts wage area and redefine 

its remaining counties to neighboring 

wage areas. 

Detroit, MI, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would change the 

name of the Detroit, MI, wage area to the 

Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, MI, wage 

area. This proposed rule would redefine 

the following counties to, away from, 

and within the Detroit, MI, wage area 

based on application of the new criteria: 

• Jackson County, MI, from the 

Southwestern Michigan area of 

application to the Detroit-Warren-Ann 

Arbor, MI, area of application based on 

employment interchange measures 

favoring the Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, 

MI, wage area; 

• Ottawa County, OH, from the 

Detroit, MI, area of application to the 

Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH, area of 

application because Ottawa County is 

part of the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, 

OH, CSA; 

• Lucas County, OH, and Washtenaw 

County, MI, to the Detroit-Warren-Ann 

Arbor, MI, survey area effective for local 

wage surveys beginning in January 2027 

because more than 100 FWS employees 

work in each county. 

Northwestern Michigan Wage Area 

This proposed rule would redefine 

the following counties to the 

Northwestern Michigan wage area based 

on application of the new criteria: 

• Florence and Marinette Counties, 

WI, from the Southwestern Wisconsin 

area of application to the Northwestern 

Michigan area of application. Florence 

and Marinette Counties are part of the 

Marinette-Iron Mountain, WI-MI, CSA, 

and distance criteria for this CSA favor 

the Northwestern Michigan wage area 

over the Southwestern Wisconsin wage 

area. 

Southwestern Michigan Wage Area 

This proposed rule would define the 

following county away from the 

Southwestern Michigan wage area based 

on application of the new criteria: 

• Jackson County, MI, from the 

Southwestern Michigan area of 

application to the Detroit-Warren-Ann 

Arbor, MI, area of application based on 

employment interchange measures 

favoring the Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, 

MI, wage area. 

Duluth, MN, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would redefine 

the follow county away from the 

Duluth, MN, wage area based on 

application of the new criteria: 

• Pine County, MN, from the Duluth, 

MN, area of application to the 

Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN, area of 

application based on employment 

interchange measures favoring the 

Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN, wage area 

over the Duluth, MN, wage area. 

Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would redefine 

the following counties to and within the 

Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN, wage area 

based on application of the new criteria: 

• Pine County, MN, from the Duluth, 

MN, area of application to the 

Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN, area of 

application based on employment 

interchange measures favoring the 

Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN, wage area 

over the Duluth, MN, wage area; 

• Winona County, MN, from the 

Southwestern Wisconsin area of 

application to the Minneapolis-St. Paul, 

MN, area of application. Winona County 

is part of the Rochester-Austin-Winona, 

MN, CSA, and employment interchange 

measures for this CSA favor the 

Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN, wage area 

over the Southwestern Wisconsin wage 

area; 

• Morrison and Stearns Counties, 

MN, to the Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN, 

survey area effective for local wage 

surveys beginning in April 2027 because 

more than 100 FWS employees work in 

each county. 

Kansas City, MO, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would redefine 

the following counties to, away from, 

and within the Kansas City, MO, wage 

area based on application of the new 

criteria: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 82889 

• Jefferson, Osage, and Shawnee 

Counties, KS, from the Topeka, KS, 

survey area to the Kansas City, MO, area 

of application. Jefferson, Osage, and 

Shawnee Counties are part of the 

Topeka, KS, MSA, and employment 

interchange measures for this MSA 

favor the Kansas City wage area. These 

counties would subsequently be moved 

to the Kansas City, MO, survey area 

effective for local wage surveys 

beginning in October 2026; 

• Jackson and Wabaunsee Counties, 

KS, from the Topeka, KS, area of 

application to the Kansas City, MO, area 

of application. Jackson and Wabaunsee 

Counties are part of the Topeka, KS, 

MSA, and employment interchange 

measures for this MSA favor the Kansas 

City, MO, wage area; 

• Cooper and Howard Counties, MO, 

from the Kansas City, MO, area of 

application to the St. Louis, MO, area of 

application. Cooper and Howard 

Counties are part of the ColumbiaJefferson City-Moberly, MO, CSA, and 

employment interchange measures for 

this CSA favor the St. Louis, MO, wage 

area over the Kansas City, MO, wage 

area; 

• Johnson County, MO, to the Kansas 

City, MO, survey area effective for local 

wage surveys beginning in October 2026 

because more than 100 FWS employees 

work in Johnson County. 

St. Louis, MO, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would redefine 

the following counties to, away from, 

and within the St. Louis, MO, wage area 

based on application of the new criteria: 

• Adams County, IL, from the 

Davenport-Rock Island-Moline, IA, area 

of application to the St. Louis, MO, area 

of application. Adams County is part of 

the Quincy-Hannibal, IL-MO, CSA, and 

employment interchange measures for 

this CSA favor the St. Louis, MO, wage 

area over the Davenport-Moline, IA, 

wage area. 

• Cooper and Howard Counties, MO, 

from the Kansas City, MO, area of 

application to the St. Louis, MO, area of 

application. Cooper and Howard 

Counties are part of the ColumbiaJefferson City-Moberly, MO, CSA, and 

employment interchange measures for 

this CSA favor the St. Louis, MO, wage 

area over the Kansas City, MO, wage 

area; 

• Mississippi and Scott Counties, 

MO, from the Southern Missouri area of 

application to the St. Louis, MO, area of 

application. Mississippi and Scott 

Counties are part of the Cape GirardeauSikeston, MO-IL, CSA, and employment 

interchange measures for this CSA favor 

the St. Louis, MO, wage area over the 

Southern Missouri wage area; 

• Iron and Madison Counties, MO, 

from the Southern Missouri area of 

application to the St. Louis, MO, area of 

application based on employment 

interchange measures favoring the St. 

Louis, MO, wage area over the Southern 

Missouri wage area; 

• Morgan and Scott Counties, IL, from 

the St. Louis, MO, area of application to 

the Bloomington-Pontiac, IL, area of 

application. Morgan and Scott counties 

are part of the Springfield-JacksonvilleLincoln, IL, CSA, and employment 

interchange measures for this CSA favor 

the Bloomington-Pontiac, IL, wage area 

over the St. Louis, MO, wage area; 

• Massac County, IL, from the St. 

Louis, MO, area of application to the 

Nashville, TN, area of application. 

Massac County is part of the PaducahMayfield, KY-IL, CSA, and employment 

interchange measures for this CSA favor 

the Nashville, TN, wage area over the St. 

Louis, MO, wage area; 

• Boone County, MO, to the St. Louis, 

MO, survey area effective for local wage 

surveys beginning in October 2026 

because more than 100 FWS employees 

work in Boone County; 

• Williamson County, IL, to the St. 

Louis, MO, survey area effective for 

local wage surveys beginning in October 

2026 because more than 100 FWS 

employees work in Williamson County. 

Southern Missouri Wage Area 

This proposed rule would redefine 

the following counties away from the 

Southern Missouri wage area based on 

application of the new criteria: 

• Mississippi and Scott Counties, 

MO, from the Southern Missouri area of 

application to the St. Louis, MO, area of 

application. Mississippi and Scott 

Counties are part of the Cape GirardeauSikeston, MO-IL, CSA, and employment 

interchange measures for this CSA favor 

the St. Louis, MO, wage area over the 

Southern Missouri wage area; 

• Iron and Madison Counties, MO, 

from the Southern Missouri area of 

application to the St. Louis, MO, area of 

application based on employment 

interchange measures favoring the St. 

Louis, MO, wage area over the Southern 

Missouri wage area. 

Reno, NV, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would redefine 

the following counties to, away from, 

and within the Reno, NV, wage area 

based on application of the new criteria: 

• Alpine County, CA, from the 

Sacramento, CA, area of application to 

the Reno, NV area of application 

because Alpine County is part of the 

Reno-Carson City-Gardnerville Ranchos, 

NV-CA, CSA; 

• Madera County, CA (Devils Postpile 

National Monument portion) from the 

Reno, NV, area of application to the 

Fresno, CA, area of application because 

Madera County is part of the FresnoHanford-Corcoran, CA, CSA; 

• Lassen County, CA, to the Reno, 

NV, survey area effective for local wage 

surveys beginning in March 2026 

because more than 100 FWS employees 

work in Lassen County. 

Portsmouth, NH, Wage Area 

With the redefinition of 

Androscoggin, Cumberland, Sagadahoc, 

and York Counties, ME; Essex County, 

MA; and Rockingham and Stafford 

Counties, NH, to the Boston-WorcesterProvidence, MA, survey area, the 

Portsmouth, NH, wage area would lose 

the entirety of its survey area. This 

proposed rule would abolish the 

Portsmouth, NH, wage area and redefine 

its remaining counties to neighboring 

wage areas. 

Albuquerque, NM, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would change the 

name from the Albuquerque, NM, wage 

area to the Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Los 

Alamos, NM, wage area. This proposed 

rule would also redefine the following 

county to the Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Los 

Alamos wage area based on the 

application of the new criteria: 

• McKinley County, NM, from the 

Northeastern Arizona survey area to the 

Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Los Alamos, NM, 

area of application based on 

employment interchange measures 

being more favorable to the 

Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Los Alamos, NM, 

than to the Northeastern Arizona wage 

area. This county would subsequently 

be moved to the Albuquerque-Santa FeLos Alamos, NM, survey area effective 

for local wage surveys beginning in 

April 2027. 

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY, Wage 

Area 

This proposed rule would change the 

name of the Albany-Schenectady-Troy, 

NY, wage area to the AlbanySchenectady, NY, wage area. The 

proposed rule would redefine the 

following counties to and from the 

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY, wage 

area based on the application of the new 

criteria: 

• Berkshire County, MA, from the 

Central and Western Massachusetts area 

of application to the AlbanySchenectady, NY, area of application 

based on employment interchange 

measures favoring the AlbanySchenectady, NY, wage area; 

• Bennington and Rutland Counties, 

VT, from the Central and Western 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
82890 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Massachusetts area of application to the 

Albany-Schenectady, NY, area of 

application based on employment 

interchange measures favoring the 

Albany-Schenectady, NY, wage area; 

• Hamilton County, NY, from the 

Syracuse-Utica-Rome, NY, area of 

application to the Albany-Schenectady, 

NY, area of application based on 

employment interchange measures 

favoring the Albany-Schenectady, NY, 

wage area over the Syracuse-UticaRome, NY, wage area; 

• Ulster County, NY, from the 

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY, area of 

application to the New York-Newark, 

NY, area of application because Ulster 

County is part of the New York-Newark, 

NY-NJ-CT-PA, CSA. 

Buffalo, NY, Wage Area 

The proposed rule would redefine the 

following counties to the Buffalo, NY, 

wage area based on application of the 

new criteria: 

• Allegany and Wyoming Counties, 

NY, from the Rochester, NY, area of 

application to the Buffalo area of 

application based on employment 

interchange measures favoring the 

Buffalo wage area over the Rochester 

wage area. 

New York, NY, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would change the 

name of the New York, NY, wage area 

to the New York-Newark, NY, wage 

area. This proposed rule would redefine 

the following counties to and within the 

New York-Newark, NY, wage area based 

on application of the new criteria: 

• Fairfield County, CT, from the New 

Haven-Hartford, CT, area of application 

to the New York-Newark, NY, area of 

application because all FWS employees 

who work in Fairfield County are 

located in the New York-Newark, NYNJ-CT-PA, CSA; 

• Mercer County, NJ, from the 

Philadelphia, PA, area of application to 

the New York-Newark, NY, area of 

application because Mercer County is 

part of the New York-Newark, NY-NJCT-PA, CSA; 

• Warren County, NJ, from the 

Philadelphia, PA, area of application to 

the New York-Newark, NY, area of 

application. Warren County is part of 

the Allentown-Bethlehem-East 

Stroudsburg, PA-NJ, CSA and 

employment interchange measures for 

this CSA favor the New York-Newark, 

NY, wage area; 

• Sullivan County, NY, from the 

Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA, area of 

application to the New York-Newark, 

NY, area of application because Sullivan 

County is part of the New York-Newark, 

NY-NJ-CT-PA, CSA; 

• Ulster County, NY, from the 

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY, area of 

application to the New York-Newark, 

NY, area of application because Ulster 

County is part of the New York-Newark, 

NY-NJ-CT-PA, CSA; 

• Carbon, Lehigh, and Northampton 

Counties, PA, from the Philadelphia, 

PA, area of application to the New YorkNewark, NY, area of application. 

Carbon, Lehigh, and Northampton 

Counties are part of the AllentownBethlehem-East Stroudsburg, PA-NJ, 

CSA and employment interchange 

measures for this CSA favor the New 

York-Newark, NY, wage area; 

• Monroe County, PA, from the 

Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA, survey area 

to the New York-Newark, NY, area of 

application. Monroe County is part of 

the Allentown-Bethlehem-East 

Stroudsburg, PA-NJ, CSA and 

employment interchange measures for 

this CSA favor the New York-Newark, 

NY, wage area. This county would 

subsequently be moved to the New 

York-Newark, NY, survey area effective 

for local wage surveys beginning in 

January 2028; 

• Wayne County, PA, from the 

Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA, area of 

application to the New York-Newark, 

NY, area of application. Although 

analysis of some of the wage area 

criteria, such as distance, for Wayne 

County favors defining it to the 

Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA, wage area 

the United States Penitentiary Canaan, 

in Wayne County, is just 36 miles away 

from Tobyhanna Army Depot, the 

largest Federal employer in 

Northeastern Pennsylvania which will 

be defined to the New York-Newark, 

NY, wage area. GS employees at USP 

Canaan and Tobyhanna Army Depot are 

in the New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA 

GS locality pay area based on 

employment interchange measures. 

OPM is therefore making a decision to 

move Wayne County to the New YorkNewark, NY, wage area’s area of 

application based on an analysis of all 

of revised wage area criteria; 

• Monmouth and Ocean Counties, NJ, 

to the New York-Newark, NY, survey 

area effective for local wage surveys 

beginning in January 2028 because more 

than 100 FWS employees work in each 

county; 

• Dutchess County, NY, to the New 

York-Newark, NY, survey area effective 

for local wage surveys beginning in 

January 2028 because more than 100 

FWS employees work in Dutchess 

County. 

Northern New York Wage Area 

This proposed rule would redefine 

the following counties to the Northern 

New York wage area based on 

application of the new criteria: 

• Washington County, VT, from the 

Central and Western Massachusetts area 

of application to the Northern New York 

area of application. Washington County 

is part of the Burlington-South 

Burlington-Barre, VT, CSA, and 

employment interchange measures for 

this CSA favor the Northern New York 

wage area; 

• Addison, Caledonia, Essex, 

Lamoille, and Orleans Counties, VT, 

from the Central and Western 

Massachusetts area of application to the 

Northern New York area of application 

because employment interchange 

measures favor the Northern New York 

wage area. 

Rochester, NY, Wage Area 

The proposed rule would redefine the 

following counties away from the 

Rochester, NY, wage area based on 

application of the new criteria: 

• Allegany and Wyoming Counties, 

NY, from the Rochester, NY, area of 

application to the Buffalo, NY, area of 

application based on employment 

interchange measures favoring the 

Buffalo, NY, wage area over the 

Rochester, NY, wage area. 

Syracuse-Utica-Rome, NY, Wage Area 

The proposed rule would redefine the 

following county away from the 

Syracuse-Utica-Rome, NY, wage area 

based on application of the new criteria: 

• Hamilton County, NY, from the 

Syracuse-Utica-Rome, NY, wage area to 

the Albany-Schenectady, NY, wage area 

based on employment interchange 

measures favoring the AlbanySchenectady, NY, wage area over the 

Syracuse-Utica-Rome, NY, wage area. 

Asheville, NC, Wage Area 

The proposed rule would redefine the 

following counties away from the 

Asheville, NC, wage area based on 

application of the new criteria: 

• Alexander, Burke, Caldwell, 

Catawba, and McDowell Counties, NC, 

from the Asheville area of application to 

the Charlotte-Concord, NC, area of 

application because these counties are 

part of the Charlotte-Concord, NC-SC, 

CSA. 

Charlotte, NC, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would change the 

name of the Charlotte, NC, wage area to 

the Charlotte-Concord, NC, wage area. 

The proposed rule would redefine the 

following counties to the CharlotteConcord, NC, wage area based on 

application of the new criteria: 

• Alexander, Burke, Caldwell, 

Catawba, and McDowell Counties, NC, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 82891 

from the Asheville, NC, area of 

application to the Charlotte-Concord, 

NC, area of application because these 

counties are part of the CharlotteConcord, NC-SC, CSA. 

Southeastern North Carolina Wage Area 

This proposed rule would redefine 

the following counties away from the 

Southeastern North Carolina wage area 

based on application of the new criteria: 

• Horry County, SC from the 

Southeastern North Carolina area of 

application to the Charleston, SC, area 

of application. Horry County is part of 

the Myrtle Beach-Conway, SC, CSA, and 

employment interchange measures for 

this CSA favor the Charleston, SC, wage 

area over the Southeastern North 

Carolina wage area; 

• Dare County, NC, from the 

Southeastern North Carolina area of 

application to the Virginia BeachChesapeake, VA, area of application 

because Dare County is part of the 

Virginia Beach-Chesapeake, VA-NC, 

CSA; 

• Hertford and Tyrrell Counties, NC, 

from the Southeastern North Carolina 

area of application to the Virginia 

Beach-Chesapeake, VA, area of 

application based on employment 

interchange measures favoring the 

Virginia Beach-Chesapeake, VA, wage 

area over the Southeastern North 

Carolina wage area. 

Cincinnati, OH, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would change the 

name of the Cincinnati, OH, wage area 

to the Cincinnati-Wilmington, OH, wage 

area. This proposed rule would redefine 

the following counties to the CincinnatiWilmington, OH, wage area based on 

application of the new criteria: 

• Clinton County, OH, from the 

Dayton, OH, area of application to the 

Cincinnati-Wilmington, OH, area of 

application because Clinton County is 

part of the Cincinnati-Wilmington, OHKY-IN, CSA; 

• Owen and Robertson Counties, KY, 

from the Lexington, KY, area of 

application to the CincinnatiWilmington, OH, area of application 

based on employment interchange 

measures favoring the CincinnatiWilmington, OH, wage area over the 

Lexington, KY, wage area; 

• Lewis County, KY, from the West 

Virginia area of application to the 

Cincinnati-Wilmington, OH, area of 

application based on employment 

interchange measures favoring the 

Cincinnati-Wilmington, OH, wage area. 

Cleveland, OH, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would change the 

name of the Cleveland, OH, wage area 

to the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH, 

wage area. The proposed rule would 

redefine the following counties to, away 

from, and within the Cleveland, OH, 

wage area based on application of the 

new criteria: 

• Coshocton County, OH, from the 

Columbus, OH, area of application to 

the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH, area 

of application because Coshocton 

County is part of the Cleveland-AkronCanton, OH, CSA; 

• Ottawa County, OH, from the 

Detroit, MI, area of application to the 

Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH, area of 

application because Ottawa County is 

part of the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, 

OH, CSA; 

• Tuscarawas County, OH, from the 

Pittsburgh, PA, area of application to the 

Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH, area of 

application because Tuscarawas County 

is part of the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, 

OH, CSA; 

• Crawford and Richland Counties, 

OH, from the Columbus, OH, area of 

application to the Cleveland-AkronCanton, OH, area of application. 

Crawford and Richland Counties are 

part of the Mansfield-Ashland-Bucyrus, 

OH, CSA, and employment interchange 

measures for this CSA favor the 

Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH, wage area 

over the Columbus-Marion-Zanesville 

wage area; 

• Holmes County, OH, from the 

Columbus, OH, area of application to 

the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH, area 

of application based on employment 

interchange measures favoring the 

Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH, wage area 

over the Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, 

OH, wage area; 

• Seneca County, OH, from the 

Cleveland, OH, area of application to 

the Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, OH, 

area of application. Seneca County is 

part of the Findlay-Tiffin, OH, CSA, and 

employment interchange measures for 

this CSA favor the Columbus-MarionZanesville, OH, wage area over the 

Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH, wage 

area; 

• Mercer County, PA, from the 

Cleveland, OH, area of application to 

the Pittsburgh, PA, area of application 

because Mercer County is part of the 

Pittsburgh-Weirton-Steubenville, PAOH-WV, CSA; 

• Mahoning County, OH, to the 

Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH, survey 

area effective for local wage surveys 

beginning in April 2027 because the 

county has over 100 FWS employees. 

Columbus, OH, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would change the 

name of the Columbus, OH, wage area 

to the Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, 

OH, wage area. The proposed rule 

would redefine the following counties 

to, away from, and within the 

Columbus, OH, wage area based on 

application of the new criteria: 

• Athens County, OH, from the West 

Virginia area of application to the 

Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, OH, area 

of application because Athens County is 

part of the Columbus-Marion-Zanesville 

CSA; 

• Logan County, OH, from the 

Dayton, OH, area of application to the 

Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, OH, area 

of application because Logan County is 

part of the Columbus-MarionZanesville, OH, CSA; 

• Seneca County, OH, from the 

Cleveland, OH, area of application to 

the Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, OH, 

area of application. Seneca County is 

part of the Findlay-Tiffin, OH, CSA, and 

employment interchange measures for 

this CSA favor the Columbus-MarionZanesville, OH, wage area over the 

Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH, wage 

area; 

• Morgan, Noble, Pike, and Vinton 

Counties, OH, from the West Virginia 

area of application to the ColumbusMarion-Zanesville, OH, area of 

application based on employment 

interchange measures favoring the 

Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, OH, wage 

area; 

• Coshocton County, OH, from the 

Columbus, OH, area of application to 

the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH, area 

of application because Coshocton 

County is part of the Cleveland-AkronCanton, OH, CSA; 

• Crawford and Richland Counties, 

OH, from the Columbus, OH, area of 

application to the Cleveland-AkronCanton, OH, area of application. 

Crawford and Richland Counties are 

part of the Mansfield-Ashland-Bucyrus, 

OH, CSA, and employment interchange 

measures for this CSA favor the 

Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH, wage area 

over the Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, 

OH, wage area; 

• Holmes County, OH, from the 

Columbus, OH, area of application to 

the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH, area 

of application based on employment 

interchange measures favoring the 

Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH, wage area 

over the Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, 

OH, wage area; 

• Ross County, OH, to the ColumbusMarion-Zanesville OH, survey area 

effective for local wage surveys 

beginning in January 2027 because the 

county has over 100 FWS employees. 

Dayton, OH, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would redefine 

the following counties to and away from 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
82892 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

the Dayton, OH, wage area based on 

application of the new criteria: 

• Allen, Mercer, and Van Wert 

Counties, OH, from the Ft. WayneMarion, IN, area of application to the 

Dayton, OH, area of application. Allen, 

Mercer, and Van Wert Counties are part 

of the Lima-Van Wert-Celina, OH, CSA, 

and employment interchange measures 

for this CSA favor the Dayton, OH, wage 

area over the Ft. Wayne-Marion, IN, 

wage area; 

• Clinton County, OH, from the 

Dayton, OH, area of application to the 

Cincinnati-Wilmington, OH, area of 

application because Clinton County is 

part of the Cincinnati-Wilmington, OHKY-IN, CSA; 

• Logan County, OH, from the 

Dayton, OH, area of application to the 

Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, OH, area 

of application because Logan County is 

part of the Columbus-Marion-Zanesville 

CSA; 

• Wayne County, IN, from the 

Dayton, OH, area of application to the 

Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, area of 

application. Wayne County is part of the 

Richmond-Connersville, IN, CSA, and 

employment interchange measures for 

this CSA favor the Indianapolis-CarmelMuncie, IN, wage area over the Dayton, 

OH, wage area; 

• Randolph County, IN, from the 

Dayton, OH, area of application to the 

Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, area of 

application based on employment 

interchange measures favoring the 

Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, wage 

area over the Dayton, OH, wage area. 

Oklahoma City, OK, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would redefine 

the following counties away from the 

Oklahoma City, OK, wage area based on 

application of the new criteria: 

• Bryan County, OK, from the 

Oklahoma City, OK, area of application 

to the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, area of 

application because Bryan County is 

part of the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK, 

CSA; 

• Carter and Love Counties, OK, from 

the Oklahoma City, OK, area of 

application to the Dallas-Fort Worth, 

TX, area of application based on 

employment interchange measures 

favoring the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, 

wage area over the Oklahoma City, OK, 

wage area. 

Portland, OR, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would change the 

name of the Portland, OR, wage area to 

the Portland-Vancouver-Salem, OR, 

wage area. The proposed rule would 

redefine the following counties to and 

away from the Portland, OR, wage area 

based on application of the new criteria: 

• Linn and Benton Counties, OR, 

from the Southwestern Oregon area of 

application to the Portland-VancouverSalem, OR, area of application because 

these counties are part of the PortlandVancouver-Salem, OR, CSA; 

• Pacific County, WA, from the 

Portland, OR area of application to the 

Seattle-Tacoma, WA, area of application 

based on employment interchange 

measures favoring the Seattle-Tacoma, 

WA, wage area over the PortlandVancouver-Salem, OR, wage area. 

Southwestern Oregon, OR, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would redefine 

the following counties to and away from 

the Southwestern Oregon wage area 

based on application of the new criteria: 

• Del Norte County, CA, from the 

Sacramento, CA, area of application to 

the Southwestern Oregon area of 

application. Del Norte County is part of 

the Brookings-Crescent City, OR-CA, 

CSA, and employment interchange 

measures for this CSA favor the 

Southwestern Oregon wage area over 

the Sacramento-Roseville, CA, wage 

area; 

• Linn and Benton Counties, OR, 

from the Southwestern Oregon area of 

application to the Portland-VancouverSalem, OR, area of application because 

these counties are part of the PortlandVancouver-Salem CSA. 

Harrisburg, PA, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would change the 

name of the Harrisburg, PA, wage area 

to the Harrisburg-York-Lebanon, PA, 

wage area. Because Adams and York 

Counties, PA, are part of the HarrisburgYork-Lebanon, PA, CSA they would be 

defined to this wage area rather than to 

the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, 

DC, wage area to avoid splitting the 

CSA. Adams and York Counties are 

defined to the Washington-BaltimoreArlington GS locality pay area based on 

a Federal Salary Council 

recommendation and Pay Agent 

decision to keep the counties defined to 

that locality pay area after a new GS 

locality pay area was established for 

Harrisburg. The proposed rule would 

redefine the following counties to, away 

from, and within the Harrisburg, PA, 

wage area based on application of the 

new criteria: 

• Northumberland, Snyder, and 

Union Counties, PA, from the 

Harrisburg, PA, area of application to 

the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA, area of 

application. Northumberland, Snyder, 

and Union Counties are part of the 

Bloomsburg-Berwick-Sunbury, PA, 

CSA, and employment interchange 

measures for this CSA favor the 

Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA, wage area; 

• Clinton County, PA, from the 

Pittsburgh, PA, area of application to the 

Harrisburg-York-Lebanon, PA, area of 

application. Clinton County is part of 

the Williamsport-Lock Haven, PA, CSA, 

and employment interchange measures 

for this CSA favor the Harrisburg-YorkLebanon, PA, wage area; 

• Lycoming County (does not include 

the Allenwood Federal Prison Camp 

portion) from the Scranton-WilkesBarre, PA, area of application to the 

Harrisburg-York-Lebanon, PA, area of 

application. Lycoming County is part of 

the Williamsport-Lock Haven, PA, CSA, 

and employment interchange measures 

for this CSA favor the Harrisburg-YorkLebanon, PA, wage area; 

• Berks County, PA, from the 

Harrisburg-, PA, area of application to 

the Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA, 

area of application because Berks 

County is part of the PhiladelphiaReading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD, CSA; 

• Schuylkill County, PA, from the 

Harrisburg, PA, area of application to 

the Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA, 

area of application based on 

employment interchange measures 

favoring the Philadelphia-ReadingCamden, PA, wage area over the 

Harrisburg-York-Lebanon, PA, wage 

area; 

• Union County, PA, to the 

Harrisburg-Lebanon-York, PA, survey 

area effective for local wage surveys 

beginning in May 2026 because the 

county has over 100 FWS employees. 

Philadelphia, PA, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would change the 

name of the Philadelphia, PA, wage area 

to the Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, 

PA, wage area. This proposed rule 

would redefine the following counties 

to and away from the Philadelphia, PA, 

wage area based on application of the 

new criteria: 

• Kent and New Castle Counties, DE, 

from the Wilmington, DE, survey area to 

the Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA, 

area of application because Kent and 

New Castle Counties are part of the 

Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJDE-MD, CSA. These counties would 

subsequently be moved to the 

Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA, 

survey area effective for local wage 

surveys beginning in October 2027; 

• Sussex County, DE, from the 

Wilmington, DE, area of application to 

the Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA, 

area of application because employment 

interchange measures favor the 

Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA, 

wage area; 

• Cecil County, MD, from the 

Wilmington, DE, survey area to the 

Philadelphia-Camden-Reading, PA, area 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 82893 

of application because Cecil County is 

part of the Philadelphia-ReadingCamden, PA-NJ-DE-MD, CSA. This 

county would subsequently be moved to 

the Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA, 

survey area effective for local wage 

surveys beginning in October 2027; 

• Somerset, Wicomico, and Worcester 

(does not include the Assateague Island 

portion) Counties, MD, from the 

Wilmington, DE, area of application to 

the Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA, 

area of application. Somerset, 

Wicomico, and Worcester Counties, MD, 

are part of the Salisbury-Ocean Pines, 

MD, CSA; 

• Salem County, NJ, from the 

Wilmington, DE, survey area to the 

Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA, area 

of application because Salem County is 

part of the Philadelphia-ReadingCamden, PA-NJ-DE-MD, CSA. This 

county would subsequently be moved to 

the Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA, 

survey area effective for local wage 

surveys beginning in October 2027; 

• Berks County, PA, from the 

Harrisburg, PA, area of application to 

the Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA, 

area of application because Berks 

County is part of the PhiladelphiaReading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD, CSA; 

• Schuylkill County, PA, from the 

Harrisburg, PA, area of application to 

the Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA, 

area of application because employment 

interchange measures favor the 

Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA, 

wage area; 

• Mercer County, NJ, from the 

Philadelphia, PA, area of application to 

the New York-Newark, NY, area of 

application because Mercer County is 

part of the New York-Newark, NY-NJCT-PA, CSA; 

• Warren County, NJ, from the 

Philadelphia, PA, area of application to 

the New York-Newark, NY, area of 

application. Warren County is part of 

the Allentown-Bethlehem-East 

Stroudsburg, PA-NJ, and employment 

interchange measures for this CSA favor 

the New York-Newark, NY, wage area; 

• Carbon, Lehigh, and Northampton 

Counties, PA, from the Philadelphia, 

PA, area of application to the New YorkNewark, NY, area of application. 

Carbon, Lehigh, and Northampton 

Counties are part of the AllentownBethlehem-East Stroudsburg, PA-NJ, 

and employment interchange measures 

for this CSA favor the New YorkNewark, NY, wage area. 

Pittsburgh, PA, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would redefine 

the following counties to, away from, 

and within the Pittsburgh, PA, wage 

area based on application of the new 

criteria: 

• Mercer County, PA, from the 

Cleveland, OH, area of application to 

the Pittsburgh, PA, area of application 

because Mercer County is part of the 

Pittsburgh-Weirton-Steubenville, PAOH-WV, CSA; 

• Tuscarawas Counties, OH, from the 

Pittsburgh, PA, area of application to the 

Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH, area of 

application because Tuscarawas County 

is part of the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, 

OH, CSA; 

• Clinton County, PA, from the 

Pittsburgh, PA, area of application to the 

Harrisburg-York-Lebanon, PA, area of 

application. Clinton County is part of 

the Williamsport-Lock Haven, PA, CSA, 

and employment interchange measures 

for this CSA favor the Harrisburg-YorkLebanon, PA, wage area; 

• Cambria County, PA, to the 

Pittsburgh, PA, survey area effective for 

local wage surveys beginning in July 

2027 because more than 100 FWS 

employees work in Cambria County. 

Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would redefine 

the following counties away from the 

Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA, wage area 

based on application of the new criteria: 

• Sullivan County, NY, from the 

Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA, area of 

application to the New York-Newark, 

NY, area of application because Sullivan 

County is part of the New York-Newark, 

NY-NJ-CT-PA, CSA; 

• Lycoming County (does not include 

the Allenwood Federal Prison Camp 

portion) from the Scranton-WilkesBarre, PA, area of application to the 

Harrisburg-York-Lebanon, PA, area of 

application. Lycoming County is part of 

the Williamsport-Lock Haven, PA, CSA, 

and employment interchange measures 

for this CSA favor the Harrisburg-YorkLebanon, PA, wage area; 

• Monroe County, PA, from the 

Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA, survey area 

to the New York-Newark, NY, area of 

application. Monroe County is part of 

the Allentown-Bethlehem-East 

Stroudsburg, PA-NJ, CSA and 

employment interchange measures for 

this CSA favor the New York-Newark, 

NY, wage area. This county would 

subsequently be moved to the New 

York-Newark, NY, survey area effective 

for local wage surveys beginning in 

January 2028; 

• Northumberland, Snyder, and 

Union Counties, PA, from the 

Harrisburg, PA, area of application to 

the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA, area of 

application. Northumberland, Snyder, 

and Union Counties are part of the 

Bloomsburg-Berwick-Sunbury, PA, 

CSA, and employment interchange 

measures for this CSA favor the 

Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA, wage area; 

• Wayne County, PA, from the 

Scranton-Wilkes-Barre area of 

application to the New York-Newark 

area of application as explained for the 

New York-Newark wage area definition 

above. 

Narragansett Bay, RI, Wage Area 

With the redefinition of Bristol, 

Norfolk, and Worcester Counties, MA; 

and Bristol, Kent, Newport, Providence 

and Washington Counties, RI, to the 

Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, 

survey area, the Narragansett Bay, RI, 

wage area would lose the entirety of its 

survey area. This proposed rule would 

abolish the Narragansett Bay, RI, wage 

area and redefine its remaining counties 

to the Boston-Worcester-Providence, 

MA, wage area. 

Charleston, SC, Wage Area 

The proposed rule would redefine the 

following counties to and away from the 

Charleston, SC, wage area based on 

application of the new criteria: 

• Horry County, SC from the 

Southeastern North Carolina area of 

application to the Charleston, SC, area 

of application. Horry County is part of 

the Myrtle Beach-Conway, SC, CSA, and 

employment interchange measures for 

this CSA favor the Charleston, SC, wage 

area over the Southeastern North 

Carolina wage area; 

• Beaufort County, SC (the portion 

north of Broad River), from the 

Charleston, SC, area of application to 

the Savannah, GA, area of application. 

Beaufort County is part of the Hilton 

Head Island-Bluffton-Port Royal, SC, 

MSA, and employment interchange 

measures for this MSA favor the 

Savannah, GA, wage area over the 

Charleston, SC, wage area. Beaufort 

County would subsequently be moved 

to the Savannah, GA, survey area 

effective for local wage surveys 

beginning in May 2027 because more 

than 100 FWS employees work in 

Beaufort County. 

Nashville, TN, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would redefine 

the following counties to the Nashville, 

TN, wage area based on the application 

of the new criteria: 

• Jackson County, AL, from the 

Huntsville, AL, area of application to 

the Nashville, TN, area of application. 

Jackson County is part of the 

Chattanooga-Cleveland-Dalton, TN-GAAL, CSA. Most of this CSA is currently 

defined to the Nashville wage area; 

• Chattooga, Murray, and Whitfield 

Counties, GA, from the Atlanta-, GA, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
82894 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

area of application to the Nashville, TN, 

area of application; 

• Massac County, IL, from the St. 

Louis, MO, area of application to the 

Nashville, TN, area of application. 

Massac County is part of the PaducahMayfield, KY-IL, CSA, and employment 

interchange measures for this CSA favor 

the Nashville, TN, wage area over the St. 

Louis, MO, wage area; 

• Livingston County, KY, from the 

Bloomington-Bedford-Washington, IN, 

area of application to the Nashville, TN, 

area of application. Livingston County is 

part of the Paducah-Mayfield, KY-IL, 

CSA, and employment interchange 

measures for this CSA favor the 

Nashville, TN, wage area over the 

Evansville-Henderson, IN, wage area. 

• Franklin, Lawrence, and Moore 

Counties, TN, from the Huntsville, AL, 

area of application to the Nashville, TN, 

area of application because these 

counties are part of the NashvilleDavidson-Murfreesboro, TN, CSA. 

Corpus Christi, TX, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would change the 

name of the Corpus Christi, TX, wage 

area to the Corpus Christi-KingsvilleAlice, TX, wage area. The proposed rule 

would redefine the following counties 

to and within the Corpus Christi, TX, 

wage area based on application of the 

new criteria: 

• Duval County, TX, from the San 

Antonio, TX, area of application to the 

Corpus Christi-Kingsville-Alice, TX, 

area of application based on 

employment interchange measures 

favoring the Corpus Christi-KingsvilleAlice, TX, wage area over the San 

Antonio, TX, wage area; 

• Hidalgo County, TX, to the Corpus 

Christi-Kingsville-Alice, TX, survey area 

effective for local wage surveys 

beginning in June 2026 because the 

county has over 100 FWS employees. 

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Wage Area 

The proposed rule would redefine the 

following counties to the Dallas-Fort 

Worth, TX, wage area based on 

application of the new criteria: 

• Bryan County, OK, from the 

Oklahoma City, OK, area of application 

to the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, area of 

application because Bryan County is 

part of the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK, 

CSA; 

• Carter and Love Counties, OK, from 

the Oklahoma City, OK, area of 

application to the Dallas-Fort Worth, 

TX, area of application based on 

employment interchange measures 

favoring the Dallas-Fort Worth wage 

area over the Oklahoma City, OK, wage 

area; 

• Cherokee County, TX, from the 

Shreveport, LA, area of application to 

the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, area of 

application. Cherokee County is part of 

the Tyler-Jacksonville, TX, CSA, and 

employment interchange measures for 

this CSA favor the Dallas-Fort Worth, 

TX, wage area over the Shreveport, LA, 

wage area; 

• Hill County, TX, from the Waco, 

TX, area of application to the DallasFort Worth, TX, area of application 

based on employment interchange 

measures favoring the Dallas-Fort 

Worth, TX, wage area over the Waco, 

TX, wage area. 

San Antonio, TX, Wage Area 

The proposed rule would redefine the 

following counties away from the San 

Antonio, TX, wage area based on 

application of the new criteria: 

• Duval County, TX, from the San 

Antonio, TX, area of application to the 

Corpus Christi-Kingsville-Alice, TX, 

area of application based on 

employment interchange measures 

favoring the Corpus Christi-KingsvilleAlice, TX, wage area over the San 

Antonio, TX, wage area. 

Waco, TX, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would redefine 

the following county away from the 

Waco, TX, wage area based on 

application of the new criteria: 

• Hill County, TX, from the Waco, 

TX, area of application to the DallasFort Worth, TX, area of application 

based on employment interchange 

measures favoring the Dallas-Fort 

Worth, TX, wage area over the Waco, 

TX, wage area. 

Norfolk-Portsmouth-Newport NewsHampton, VA, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would change the 

name of the Norfolk-PortsmouthNewport News-Hampton, VA, wage area 

to the Virginia Beach-Chesapeake, VA, 

wage area. This proposed rule would 

redefine the following counties to and 

within the Norfolk-Portsmouth-Newport 

News-Hampton, VA, wage area based on 

application of the new criteria: 

• Dare County, NC, from the 

Southeastern North Carolina area of 

application to the Virginia BeachChesapeake, VA, area of application 

because Dare County is part of the 

Virginia Beach-Chesapeake, VA-NC, 

CSA; 

• Hertford and Tyrrell Counties, NC, 

from the Southeastern North Carolina 

area of application to the Virginia 

Beach-Chesapeake, VA, area of 

application based on employment 

interchange measures favoring the 

Virginia Beach-Chesapeake, VA, wage 

area over the Southeastern North 

Carolina wage area; 

• Middlesex County, VA, from the 

Richmond, VA, area of application to 

the Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA, wage 

area because employment interchange 

measures favor the Virginia BeachNorfolk, VA, wage area over the 

Richmond, VA, wage area; 

• Pasquotank County, NC, to the 

Virginia Beach-Chesapeake, VA, survey 

area effective for local wage surveys 

beginning in May 2026 because more 

than 100 FWS employees work in 

Pasquotank County. 

Richmond, VA, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would redefine 

the following counties away from the 

Richmond, VA, wage area based on 

application of the new criteria: 

• Orange County, VA, from the 

Richmond, VA, area of application to 

the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington 

area of application because Orange 

County is part of the WashingtonBaltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WVPA, CSA; 

• Caroline and Westmoreland 

Counties, VA, from the Richmond, VA, 

area of application to the WashingtonBaltimore-Arlington area of application 

because employment interchange 

measures favor the WashingtonBaltimore-Arlington wage area over the 

Richmond, VA, wage area; 

• Middlesex County, VA, from the 

Richmond, VA, area of application to 

the Virginia Beach-Chesapeake, VA, 

wage area because employment 

interchange measures favor the Virginia 

Beach-Chesapeake, VA, wage area over 

the Richmond, VA, wage area. 

Roanoke, VA, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would redefine 

the following counties away from the 

Roanoke, VA, wage area based on 

application of the new criteria: 

• Staunton and Waynesboro (cities), 

VA, and Augusta (does not include the 

Shenandoah National Park portion) 

County, VA, from the Roanoke, VA, area 

of application to the WashingtonBaltimore-Arlington area of application. 

Staunton and Waynesboro (cities) and 

Augusta County are in the HarrisonburgStaunton-Stuarts Draft, VA, CSA, and 

employment interchange measures for 

this CSA favor the WashingtonBaltimore-Arlington wage area. 

Seattle-Everett-Tacoma, WA, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would change the 

name of the Seattle-Everett-Tacoma, 

WA, wage area to the Seattle-Tacoma, 

WA, wage area. This proposed rule 

would redefine the following counties 

to and within the Seattle-EverettVerDate Sep<11>2014 19:52 Oct 10, 2024 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP2.SGM 11OCP2

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 82895 

Tacoma, WA, wage area based on 

application of the new criteria: 

• Pacific County, WA, from the 

Portland, OR, area of application to the 

Seattle-Tacoma, WA, area of application 

based on employment interchange 

measures favoring the Seattle-Tacoma, 

WA, wage area over the PortlandVancouver-Salem, OR, wage area; 

• Island County, WA, to the SeattleTacoma, WA, survey area effective for 

local wage surveys beginning in 

September 2026 because more than 100 

FWS employees work in Island County. 

West Virginia, WV, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would redefine 

the following counties away from the 

West Virginia, WV, wage area based on 

application of the new criteria: 

• Lewis County, KY, from the West 

Virginia area of application to the 

Cincinnati-Wilmington, OH, area of 

application based on employment 

interchange measures favoring the 

Cincinnati-Wilmington, OH, wage area; 

• Athens County, OH, from the West 

Virginia area of application to the 

Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, OH, area 

of application because Athens County is 

part of the Columbus-Marion-Zanesville 

CSA; 

• Morgan, Noble, Pike, and Vinton 

Counties, OH, from the West Virginia 

area of application to the ColumbusMarion-Zanesville, OH, area of 

application based on employment 

interchange measures favoring the 

Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, OH, wage 

area. 

Madison, WI, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would redefine 

the following counties away from the 

Madison, WI, wage area based on 

application of the new criteria: 

• Dodge and Jefferson Counties, WI, 

from the Madison, WI, area of 

application to the Milwaukee-RacineWaukesha, WI, area of application 

because Dodge and Jefferson Counties 

are part of the Milwaukee-RacineWaukesha, WI, CSA. 

Milwaukee, WI, Wage Area 

This proposed rule would change the 

name of the Milwaukee, WI, wage area 

to the Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI, 

wage area. This proposed rule would 

redefine the following counties to the 

Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI, wage 

area based on application of the new 

criteria: 

• Dodge and Jefferson Counties, WI, 

from the Madison, WI, area of 

application to the Milwaukee-RacineWaukesha area of application because 

Dodge and Jefferson Counties are part of 

the Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI, 

CSA; 

• Menominee and Shawano Counties, 

WI, from the Southwestern Wisconsin 

area of application to the MilwaukeeRacine-Waukesha, WI, area of 

application. Menominee and Shawano 

Counties are part of the Green BayShawano, WI, CSA, and employment 

interchange measures for this CSA favor 

the Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI, 

wage area over the Southwestern 

Wisconsin wage area. 

Southwestern Wisconsin Wage Area 

This proposed rule would redefine 

the following counties away from the 

Southwestern Wisconsin wage area 

based on application of the new criteria: 

• Menominee and Shawano Counties, 

WI, from the Southwestern Wisconsin 

area of application to the MilwaukeeRacine-Waukesha, WI, area of 

application. Menominee and Shawano 

Counties are part of the Green BayShawano, WI, CSA, and employment 

interchange measures for this CSA favor 

the Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI, 

wage area over the Southwestern 

Wisconsin wage area; 

• Winona County, MN, from the 

Southwestern Wisconsin area of 

application to the Minneapolis-St. Paul, 

MN, area of application. Winona County 

is part of the Rochester-Austin-Winona, 

MN, CSA, and employment interchange 

measures for this CSA favor the 

Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN, wage area 

over the Southwestern Wisconsin wage 

area; 

• Florence and Marinette Counties, 

WI, from the Southwestern Wisconsin 

area of application to the Northwestern 

Michigan area of application. Florence 

and Marinette Counties are part of the 

Marinette-Iron Mountain, WI-MI, CSA, 

and distance criteria for this CSA favor 

the Northwestern Michigan wage area 

over the Southwestern Wisconsin wage 

area. 

Miscellaneous Corrections 

In addition, this proposed rule would 

make the following minor corrections to 

the spellings of certain names in current 

wage area listings: 

• Revise the name of ‘‘Case’’ County, 

IN, in the Fort-Wayne-Marion, IN, wage 

area to read ‘‘Cass.’’ 

• Revise the name of ‘‘Lagrange’’ 

County, IN, in the Fort-Wayne-Marion, 

IN, wage area to read ‘‘LaGrange.’’ 

• Revise the name of ‘‘Holly Spring’’ 

National Forest portion of the Pontotoc 

County, MS, in the Northern Mississippi 

wage area to read ‘‘Holly Springs.’’ 

• Revise the name of ‘‘La Moure’’ 

County, ND, in the North Dakota wage 

area to read ‘‘LaMoure.’’ 

• Revise the name of ‘‘Leflore’’ 

County, OK, in the Tulsa, OK, wage area 

to read ‘‘Le Flore.’’ 

• Revise the name of ‘‘De Witt’’ 

County, TX, in the San Antonio, TX, 

wage area to read ‘‘DeWitt.’’ 

• Revise the name of ‘‘Lunenberg’’ 

County, VA, in the Richmond, VA, wage 

area to read ‘‘Lunenburg.’’ 

• Delete the name of ‘‘South Boston’’, 

VA, from the list of area of application 

cities in the Roanoke, VA, FWS wage 

area. In 1995, South Boston, VA, 

changed from city status to town status 

and was incorporated into Halifax 

County, VA. 

• Delete the name of ‘‘Clifton Forge,’’ 

VA, from the list of area of application 

cities in the Roanoke, VA, FWS wage 

area. In 2001, Clifton Forge, VA, 

changed from city status to town status 

and was incorporated into Halifax 

County, VA. 

• Delete the name of ‘‘Bedford,’’ VA, 

from the list of area of application cities 

in the Roanoke, VA, FWS wage area. In 

2013, Bedford, VA, reverted from city 

status to town status and was 

incorporated into Bedford County, VA. 

• Delete the entry ‘‘Assateague Island 

Part of Worcester County’’ from the list 

of area of application counties in the 

Virginia Beach-Chesapeake, VA, wage 

area and replace it with ‘‘Worchester 

(Only includes the Assateague Island 

portion)’’ to be consistent with how we 

list other counties. 

• Revise the name of ‘‘Shannon 

County’’, SD, in the Wyoming, WY, 

FWS wage area because the name of 

Shannon County is now Oglala Lakota 

County. 

Expected Impact of This Rulemaking 

1. Statement of Need 

OPM is issuing this proposed rule 

pursuant to its authority to issue 

regulations governing the FWS in 5 

U.S.C. 5343. The purpose of these 

proposed 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. In limited 

circumstances, such as with Adams and 

York Counties, PA, ‘‘this proposed rule 

would not result in all non-RUS locality 

pay areas no longer including more than 

one FWS wage area. The Harrisburg, PA, 

wage area, would continue to coincide 

with the Washington-BaltimoreArlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA and the 

Harrisburg-Lebanon, PA GS locality pay 

areas. As stated previously, Adams and 

York Counties, PA, are currently part of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
82896 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

8Attachment 1 is available in the online docket 

for this rulemaking at [insert link]. 

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 would 

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 would 

be required by the proposed regulatory 

criteria. 

2. Impact 

Per available data, OPM expects such 

a change would impact approximately 

17,000 FWS employees nationwide or 

about 10 percent of the appropriated 

fund FWS workforce. The proposed 

amendments to current regulatory 

criteria used to define and maintain 

FWS wage areas would result in 

numerous changes in the composition of 

many of these wage areas. As a result, 

several FWS wage areas would no 

longer be viable separately, and the 

counties in those abolished wage areas 

would have to be defined to another 

wage area. 

Most employees affected by this 

approach would receive increases in 

pay, but some would be placed on pay 

retention if moved to a lower wage 

schedule. As such, about 85 percent of 

the affected employees (roughly 14,500 

employees) would receive pay 

increases, about 11 percent (roughly 

1,800 employees) would be placed on 

pay retention, around 3 percent (about 

500 employees) would be placed at a 

lower wage level, and around 1 (less 

than 200 employees) percent would see 

no change in their wage level. 

This proposed rule would primarily 

affect FWS employees of DOD and its 

components, although employees of 

many other agencies, including the VA, 

would be impacted. For example, the 

Anniston-Gadsden, AL, wage area 

would be abolished and most of its 

counties would be added to the 

Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, AL 

wage area. FWS employees working in 

these counties would see their pay 

increased at most grades. For example, 

at grades WG–01 through WG–04 there 

would be no change in pay while at 

grades WG–05 through WG–15, pay 

increases would vary from $.72 per hour 

to $5.99 per hour. Likewise, based on 

these proposed changes, Monroe 

County, PA, would be moved to the 

New York, NY wage area. As such, pay 

increases for FWS employees in Monroe 

County would vary from $.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-MartinsburgChambersburg, MD, wage areas would 

be combined into a revised Washington, 

DC, based wage area. If this proposed 

rule is finalized, FWS employees would 

be moved to the existing Washington, 

DC, wage schedule, which would result 

in placement on a wage schedule with 

lower rates than in the current 

Baltimore and Hagerstown wage areas at 

lower grade levels, principally at the VA 

Medical Centers in these 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 

would be around a $6 an hour decrease 

once a final rule would go into effect. 

Nonetheless, most employees would 

retain their current wage rates if they are 

not under temporary or term 

appointments. There are around 35 

employees at the Baltimore VA Medical 

Center under temporary appointments 

who would see an actual reduction in 

pay if their appointments were not 

changed to be permanent. At higher 

wage grades, employees would receive 

higher rates under a Washington, DC, 

based wage schedule. 

The Department of the Army, the only 

FPRAC member voting against the 

majority recommendation, filed a 

minority report (Attachment 1 8), as 

permitted by the Committee rules. 

According to the minority report, the 

FPRAC recommendation would cause 

‘‘profound changes to the FWS pays 

system.’’ In fact, as previously stated, 

the proposed change affects about 10 

percent of FWS appropriated fund 

workers, and there would still 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. 

According to the minority report, no 

‘‘business case’’ for implementing the 

recommendation has been presented. 

FPRAC heard testimony from local 

Federal managers, local union 

representatives, and employees from 

across the country who made a strong 

case over the course of several years for 

implementation based on perceived 

disparate treatment impacting business 

operations at Federal installations. In 

addition, numerous Members of 

Congress have expressed their views in 

support of addressing the different pay 

treatment between their constituents 

under the FWS and GS pay systems. A 

majority of the committee members 

argued more than a decade ago that the 

perceived disparate treatment of 

employees between the GS and FWS 

was corrosive to morale and presented 

a strong business-based reason to 

address the inequities. OPM has also 

continued recently to receive bipartisan 

letters of support for implementing 

these changes. 

According to the minority report, the 

proposed changes would have major 

budgetary impacts, and therefore would 

reduce training funds and lead to the 

potential loss of approximately 300 

civilian employees. OPM acknowledges 

that this proposed rule has potential 

budgetary impacts affecting three major 

Army Depots, in particular, that would 

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 proposed rule 

equates to about $141 million per year— 

only around 1 percent of the current 

base payroll for the FWS appropriated 

fund workforce as a whole. 

According to the minority report, the 

proposed changes to the criteria used to 

define and maintain wage areas ‘‘would 

create inequitable pay situations and the 

perception of loss of future earnings for 

employees placed on pay retention, 

which could result in recruitment and 

retention issues.’’ As mentioned above, 

14 percent of the affected employees 

would be placed on retained pay status 

but this is not a strong argument against 

implementation of this proposed rule, 

intended to equalize geographic pay 

area treatment across the Federal 

government’s two main pay systems, 

since a vast majority—about 85 

percent—would receive a pay increase. 

The pay retention law exists to alleviate 

potential decreases in wage rates caused 

by management actions such as changes 

in wage area boundaries. We 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 http:// 

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

pay-leave/pay-and-leave-flexibilitiesfor-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. However, OPM is 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 82897 

9For 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), Pub. L. 118–47. 

10Local 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. 

requesting comment in this rule 

regarding the impact. OPM will 

continue to study the implications of 

such impacts in this or future rules as 

needed, as this and future changes in 

wage area definitions may impact higher 

volumes of employees in geographical 

areas and could rise to the level of 

impacting local labor markets. 

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. 

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 PhiladelphiaReading-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 YorkNewark, NY-NJ-CT GS locality pay area, 

the minimum prevailing rate adjustment 

was 5.53 percent and in the part 

coinciding with the PhiladelphiaReading-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-year2024-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 rulemaking would address 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 would align FWS wage areas and GS 

locality pay areas and address 

observable geographic pay disparities 

between FWS and GS employees that 

are 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 cost is annualized 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, DCMD-VA-WV-PA locality pay area. We do 

not anticipate an increase in 

administrative costs for OPM if the 

proposed changes are implemented. 

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 

would also be fewer wage surveys to 

conduct each year because 12 wage 

areas would 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 

would 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 with six new 

employees potentially increasing 

government costs by around $840,000 

per year. OPM invites comments on this 

aspect of the costs of wage survey 

administration. 

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 

proposed 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 would 

remain very similar to those included in 

current survey areas. OPM invites 

public comment on this matter. 

This proposed rule would affect the 

FWS employees of up to 30 Federal 

agencies—ranging from cabinet-level 

departments to small independent 

agencies—affecting around 17,000 FWS 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
82898 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

11 DOD provides annual costs for civilian 

personnel fringe benefits at https://comptroller.

defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/rates/fy2024/ 

2024_d.pdf. 

12The 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. 

employees. The estimated first-year base 

payroll cost of this proposal, including 

36.70 percent fringe benefits,11 would 

be annualized at around $141 million 

and its cumulative 10-year cost would 

be 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 

would 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 would be affected 

by the proposed changes is concentrated 

at these large federal installations. 

Attachment 1 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 

a result of the proposed rule and 

identifies the counties being added. 

To calculate the estimated first year 

cost of around $141 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 would be defined under by this 

proposed rule. The overall costs were 

further adjusted based on the average 

step rate for FWS employees being 

above step 2.12 The ten cells to the right 

of each county provide the costs for the 

first ten years of implementation. 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 the 

proposed 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. 

Future wage schedules would be 

based on local wage surveys that would 

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 JoseSan 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 FranciscoOakland 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 

would be surveyed, it is not certain 

what, if any, impact would occur on 

wage survey results until a full-scale 

wage survey would be 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 

would result in somewhat lower wage 

survey findings overall and lower wage 

schedules absent the existence of the 

floor increase provision that has been 

included in appropriations law each 

year since FY 2004. 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 case, 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 FranciscoOakland wage schedule that are higher 

than wage rates applicable in their 

current wage areas. 

If this rulemaking is finalized, agency 

payroll providers would 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 would be affected by the 

proposed changes in wage area 

boundaries, there are far fewer official 

duty station codes that would 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 invites public comment 

on this estimate. 

5. Benefits 

This proposed 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. 

These proposed changes would 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 82899 

of only around 1 percent. FPRAC 

acknowledged that, although around 

2,000 FWS employees would be placed 

on lower wage schedules as a result of 

these actions, around 1,870 of these 

employees would 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 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 the proposed 

changes to the criteria used to define 

and maintain FWS wage areas, in 

particular adopting the use of 

employment interchange measures and 

CSA definitions, would 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 present proposal 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 would 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 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 result in 

automatically moving some of the most 

contentious counties under FPRAC 

discussion to match the definitions of 

GS locality pay areas. For example, the 

2023 OMB definitions moved Monroe 

County, PA, from the New YorkNewark, 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 AllentownBethlehem-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 proposed criteria, Monroe 

County is to 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. GS 

employees have different employment 

distributions as the FWS workforce is 

primarily found at DOD and VA while 

the GS workforce is found 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. This method 

would not be 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 

proposed 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. 

The proposed regulations would not 

immediately expand survey areas for 

continuing but enlarged wage areas. 

Instead, abolished wage areas would 

first be merged into the areas of 

application of continuing wage areas 

and subsequently added to the survey 

areas for the next full wage surveys 

beginning in FY 2026, FY 2027, and FY 

2028. This would provide DOD time to 

allocate and train appropriate additional 

staff, if needed. OPM invites 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. 

Request for Comments 

OPM requests public comments from 

local businesses on the implementation 

and impacts of moving the small 

number of FWS employees affected by 

this proposed rule to different wage 

schedules and whether these changes 

would be likely to affect them. Such 

information will be useful for better 

understanding the effect of FWS paysetting on private businesses in local 

wage areas. 

Regulatory Review 

OPM has examined the impact of this 

rule as required by Executive Orders 

12866, 13563, and 14094, which direct 

agencies to assess all costs and benefits 

of available regulatory alternatives and, 

if regulation is necessary, to select 

regulatory approaches that maximize 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
82900 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

net benefits (including potential 

economic, environmental, public, 

health, and safety effects, distributive 

impacts, and equity). OMB has 

designated this rule a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, as amended by 

Executive Order 14094. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Director of OPM certifies that this 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities because the 

rule will apply only to Federal agencies 

and employees. 

Federalism 

OPM has examined this rule in 

accordance with Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, and has determined that 

this rule will not have any negative 

impact on the rights, roles and 

responsibilities of State, local, or tribal 

governments. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This regulation meets the applicable 

standard set forth in Executive Order 

12988. 

Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 

This rule will not result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

in any year and it will not significantly 

or uniquely affect small governments. 

Therefore, no actions were deemed 

necessary under the provisions of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. 

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. 

This proposed rule involves, but does 

not make any changes to, an OMB 

approved collection of information 

subject to the PRA for the FWS Program, 

OMB No. 3206–0036, Establishment 

Information Form, Wage Data Collection 

Form, and Wage Data Collection 

Continuation Form. The public 

reporting burden for this collection is 

estimated to average 1.5 hours per 

response, including time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

The total burden hour estimate for this 

collection is 32,640 hours. 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. 

Accordingly, OPM is proposing to 

amend 5 CFR part 532 as follows: 

PART 532—PREVAILING RATE 

SYSTEMS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 532 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5343, 5346; § 532.707 

also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552. 

■ 2. Revise § 532.211 to read as follows: 

§ 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 

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 

would otherwise overlap two separate 

wage areas shall be included in only a 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 82901 

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. 

■ 3. Revise and republish Appendix A 

to subpart B 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. 

State Wage area Lead 

agency 

Beginning 

month of survey 

Fiscal 

year of 

full-scale 

survey 

odd or 

even 

Alabama ...................................... Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega ...................................................... DoD ........ January ............ Even. 

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-Oakland .................................................. DoD ........ October ............ Even. 

Colorado ...................................... Denver ............................................................................................. DoD ........ January ............ Odd. 

Southern Colorado .......................................................................... DoD ........ January ............ Even. 

District of Columbia ..................... Washington-Baltimore-Arlington ...................................................... DoD ........ July ................... Odd. 

Florida ......................................... Cocoa Beach ................................................................................... DoD ........ October ............ Even. 

Jacksonville ..................................................................................... DoD ........ January ............ Odd. 

Miami-Port St. Lucie-Fort Lauderdale ............................................. DoD ........ May .................. Odd. 

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-Muncie ............................................................ DoD ........ October ............ Odd. 

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-Alexandria ................................................................. DoD ........ April .................. Even. 

New Orleans .................................................................................... DoD ........ June ................. Even. 

Shreveport ....................................................................................... DoD ........ May .................. Even. 

Maine .......................................... Augusta ........................................................................................... DoD ........ May .................. Even. 

Central and Northern Maine ............................................................ DoD ........ June ................. Even. 

Massachusetts ............................ Boston-Worcester-Providence ......................................................... DoD ........ August .............. Even. 

Michigan ...................................... Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor ............................................................... DoD ........ January ............ Odd. 

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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
82902 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

State Wage area Lead 

agency 

Beginning 

month of survey 

Fiscal 

year of 

full-scale 

survey 

odd or 

even 

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-Los Alamos ................................................ DoD ........ April .................. Odd. 

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. 

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 Carolina ........................................................... DoD ........ January ............ Odd. 

North Dakota ............................... North Dakota ................................................................................... DoD ........ March ............... Even. 

Ohio ............................................. Cincinnati ......................................................................................... DoD ........ January ............ Odd. 

Cleveland-Akron-Canton ................................................................. DoD ........ April .................. Odd. 

Columbus-Marion-Zanesville ........................................................... DoD ........ January ............ Odd. 

Dayton ............................................................................................. DoD ........ January ............ Even. 

Oklahoma .................................... Oklahoma City ................................................................................. DoD ........ August .............. Odd. 

Tulsa ................................................................................................ DoD ........ August .............. Odd. 

Oregon ........................................ Portland-Vancouver-Salem ............................................................. DoD ........ July ................... Even. 

Southwestern Oregon ..................................................................... DoD ........ June ................. Even. 

Pennsylvania ............................... Harrisburg-York-Lebanon ................................................................ DoD ........ May .................. Even. 

Philadelphia-Reading-Camden ........................................................ DoD ........ October ............ Even. 

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-Kingsville-Alice ........................................................ DoD ........ June ................. Even. 

Dallas-Fort Worth ............................................................................ DoD ........ October ............ Odd.

El Paso ............................................................................................ DoD ........ April .................. Even. 

Houston-Galveston-Texas City ....................................................... DoD ........ March ............... Even. 

San Antonio ..................................................................................... DoD ........ June ................. Odd. 

Texarkana ........................................................................................ DoD ........ April .................. Odd. 

Waco ............................................................................................... DoD ........ May .................. Odd. 

Western Texas ................................................................................ DoD ........ May .................. Odd. 

Wichita Falls, Texas-Southwestern Oklahoma ............................... DoD ........ July ................... Even. 

Utah ............................................. Utah ................................................................................................. DoD ........ July ................... Odd. 

Virginia ........................................ Richmond ........................................................................................ DoD ........ November ........ Odd. 

Roanoke .......................................................................................... DoD ........ November ........ Even. 

Virginia Beach-Chesapeake ............................................................ DoD ........ May .................. Even. 

Washington ................................. Seattle-Everett ................................................................................. DoD ........ September ....... Even. 

Southeastern Washington-Eastern Oregon .................................... DoD ........ June ................. Odd. 

Spokane .......................................................................................... DoD ........ July ................... Odd. 

West Virginia ............................... West Virginia ................................................................................... DoD ........ March ............... Odd. 

Wisconsin .................................... Madison ........................................................................................... DoD ........ July ................... Even. 

Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha ......................................................... DoD ........ June ................. Odd. 

Southwestern Wisconsin ................................................................. DoD ........ June ................. Even. 

Wyoming ..................................... Wyoming .......................................................................................... DoD ........ January ............ Even. 

■ 4. Revise and republish Appendix C 

to subpart B of Part 532 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 82903 

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) 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
82904 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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) 

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: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 82905 

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 

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 January 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
82906 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 82907 

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 

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) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
82908 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 82909 

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 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
82910 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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) 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 82911 

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 

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) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
82912 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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 Application. 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 82913 

Wheatland 

Wibaux 

Wyoming: 

Big Horn 

Park 

Teton 

NEBRASKA 

Omaha 

Survey Area 

Iowa: 

Pottawattamie 

Nebraska: 

Douglas 

Lancaster 

Sarpy 

Area of Application. 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 

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 Application. 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 Application. 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 Application. Survey area plus: 

Massachusetts: 

Berkshire 

New York: 

Columbia 

Delaware 

Fulton 

Greene 

Hamilton 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
82914 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 82915 

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 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
82916 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 82917 

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 

Ohio 

Scranton-Wilkes-Barre 

Survey Area 

Pennsylvania: 

Lackawanna 

Luzerne 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Pennsylvania: 

Bradford 

Columbia 

Montour 

Northumberland 

Snyder 

Sullivan 

Susquehanna 

Union 

Wayne 

Wyoming 

PUERTO RICO 

Puerto Rico 

Survey Area 

Puerto Rico (Municipios): 

Bayamo ́n 

Cano ́vanas 

Carolina 

Catan ̃ o 

Guaynabo 

Humacao 

Loı ́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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
82918 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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) 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 82919 

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 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
82920 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 82921 

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 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
82922 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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. 2024–22933 Filed 10–7–24; 8:45 a.m.] 

BILLING CODE 6325–39–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2