7428 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

1The 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). 

2House Report 117–79 can be found at https://

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

pdf/CRPT-117hrpt79.pdf. 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT 

5 CFR Part 532 

[Docket ID: OPM–2024–0016] 

RIN 3206–AO69 

Prevailing Rate Systems; Change in 

Criteria for Defining Appropriated Fund 

Federal Wage System Wage Areas 

AGENCY: Office of Personnel 

Management. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) is issuing a final 

rule to change the regulatory criteria 

used to define Federal Wage System 

(FWS) wage area boundaries and make 

changes in certain wage areas. The 

purpose of this change, which will 

affect around ten percent of the FWS 

workforce, is to make the FWS wage 

area criteria more similar to the General 

Schedule (GS) locality pay area criteria. 

This change is based on a December 

2023 majority recommendation of the 

Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory 

Committee (FPRAC), the statutory 

national-level labor-management 

committee that advises OPM on the 

administration of the FWS. 

DATES: 

Effective date: This rule is effective 

October 1, 2025. 

Applicability date: Changes to wage 

schedules resulting from the revised 

wage areas of application in appendix C 

to subpart B of 5 CFR part 532 apply on 

the first day of the first applicable pay 

period beginning on or after October 1, 

2025. Changes to wage survey areas 

apply at various times beginning on or 

after October 1, 2025, based on the 

annual schedule of wage surveys, as 

listed in appendix A to subpart B of 5 

CFR part 532, and with the timing of 

survey area expansions for affected 

wage areas as noted in the wage area 

listings in appendix C to subpart B of 5 

CFR part 532. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ana 

Paunoiu, by telephone at (202) 606– 

2858 or by email at paypolicy@opm.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Overview 

There are two major job classification 

and pay systems in use by the Federal 

Government: the GS and the FWS. The 

GS covers around 1.5 million 

employees, and the FWS covers around 

200,000 employees with around 170,000 

in the appropriated fund system. On 

October 11, 2024, OPM issued a 

proposed rule (89 FR 82874) to change 

the regulatory criteria used to define 

FWS wage area boundaries for the 

appropriated fund system and make 

changes in certain wage areas. 

Specifically, OPM proposed to amend 5 

CFR 532.211 to make the criteria OPM 

uses to define the geographic 

boundaries of FWS wage areas more 

similar to the GS locality pay area 

criteria and to define revised wage area 

boundaries in accordance with those 

revised criteria. 

The 60-day comment period ended on 

December 10, 2024. OPM received 585 

comments from Members of Congress, 

labor organizations, several hundred 

Federal employees, and one agency. 

Public comments, with one exception, 

strongly supported changing the 

regulatory criteria in 5 CFR 532.211. 

After consideration of public comments 

about the proposed rule, OPM is issuing 

a final rule that amends the regulatory 

criteria in 5 CFR 532.211, pursuant to its 

authority to issue regulations governing 

the FWS in 5 U.S.C. chapter 53, 

subchapter IV. In general, this final rule 

implements changes to certain wage 

areas, as identified in the proposed rule. 

This final rule also reflects a few 

corrections, which are described in 

detail after the discussion of comments, 

and it makes nonsubstantive changes to 

the authority citations for part 532 by 

amending the existing authority 

citations to comply with 1 CFR part 21, 

subpart B. 

Background 

During the period GS locality pay was 

being introduced in the early 1990s, 

FPRAC1 examined the differences in 

criteria between the GS and FWS, and 

by consensus, recommended that OPM 

not change the FWS criteria just for the 

sake of changing the criteria to make the 

systems look more similar. Locality pay 

for GS employees was a new and 

unproven concept at that time. Since 

then, however, the differences in 

geographic pay area boundaries for the 

GS and FWS have increasingly raised 

concerns among employees, their 

unions, local management officials, and 

consequently Members of Congress. 

As stated in the proposed rule, since 

around 2006 the labor and employing 

agency representative members of 

FPRAC have discussed the possibility of 

making FWS wage areas more similar to 

GS locality pay areas, but there was not 

a consensus for change. The labor 

organization members expressed views 

that the difference in geographic 

treatment between the FWS and GS 

systems is inequitable. The management 

members expressed views that the 

differences best meet the intent of the 

relevant laws that established the two 

systems. 

In House Report 117–79 2

accompanying the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 

2022, Congress encouraged OPM ‘‘to 

explore limiting the number of local 

wage areas defined within a GS Pay 

Locality to a single wage area.’’ Given 

the magnitude of the potential change in 

policy, FPRAC established a labormanagement working group to study 

various issues concerning the FWS, 

including options on how to make the 

geographic wage area boundaries of 

FWS and GS pay areas more similar. At 

its 649th meeting, on December 21, 

2023, based on working group 

discussions, FPRAC recommended by a 

9 to 1 majority vote that OPM revise the 

regulatory criteria for defining wage 

areas so that wage area criteria approved 

by the Director of OPM will be more 

similar to GS locality pay area criteria 

approved by the President’s Pay Agent. 

OPM examined FPRAC’s arguments 

and concluded that the amendments to 

5 CFR 532.211 constitute an 

improvement to the FWS. OPM 

determined that the changes to the 

regulatory criteria used to define and 

maintain FWS wage areas will address 

the lack of equity that arises when FWS 

workers within a given GS locality pay 

area are paid from two, three, or more 

different wage schedules, while the GS 

employees who work alongside them 

are all paid from the same salary 

schedule. Implementation of the 

amendments to 5 CFR 532.211 will 

resolve equitably several of the thorniest 

issues on FPRAC’s agenda related to 

specific geographic areas, such as the 

Tobyhanna Army Depot and other longstanding areas of interest, such as 

folding in the Narragansett Bay, Rhode 

Island, FWS wage area with the Boston 

wage area, redefining Monterey County, 

California, to the San Francisco, CA, 

wage area, and redefining Shawnee 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 7429 

3A reference at the end of a comment summary 

provides the location of the item in the public 

record. (i.e., the three-digit number associated with 

the location in the docket). Comments filed in 

response to the proposed rule are available at OPM– 

2024–0016–0nnn, where ‘‘nnn’’ is the comment 

number. Note that the number must be three digits, 

so insert preceding zeroes as appropriate. 

4The ‘‘Special rates’’ section later in this rule 

provides more information about the role of special 

rates. 5The ‘‘Achieving a $15 Per Hour Minimum Pay 

Rate for Federal Employees’’ memorandum may be 

found at https://chcoc.gov/content/achieving-15- 

hour-minimum-pay-rate-federal-employees. 

County, Kansas to the Kansas City, 

Missouri, wage area. 

Comments Received on the Proposed 

Rule 

Implementation Timeline 

OPM invited comments on the 

implementation timeline and requested 

input regarding any alternative 

implementation plans. OPM received 

over 100 comments regarding the 

implementation timeline from 

employees, many of whom requested 

that the final rule be implemented ‘‘as 

soon as possible.’’ See, e.g., Comments 

008, 174, and 492.3

In addition, several commenters 

questioned the effective date of the 

proposed change recommending 

retroactive applicability. See, e.g., 

Comments 176, 187, 224, 227, and 414. 

OPM defines wage areas through 

regulations in 5 CFR part 532. Changes 

in OPM’s FWS regulations are 

prospective, not retroactive. OPM lacks 

authority to implement this change on 

a retroactive basis. 

As OPM discussed in the proposed 

rule, many of the operational aspects of 

this rule could be achieved relatively 

quickly following publication of the 

final rule; however, one potential 

approach that OPM highlighted was to 

delay the effective date of the final rule 

to address budgetary constraints. OPM 

noted that, although the overall 

budgetary impact of the rule is relatively 

small, the impact at the local level could 

be considerable, making it difficult for 

local units to manage sudden, 

unexpected increases in payroll. Given 

that this final rule is publishing in the 

middle of FY 2025 and while agencies 

are operating under a continuing 

resolution, OPM has concluded that 

imposing the unplanned-for payroll 

costs 30 days after publication, in the 

middle of the fiscal year, would place 

undue burdens and potentially 

unmanageable costs on multiple 

agencies. OPM recognizes that the 

delayed implementation date has real 

impacts on individual employees, but 

this rule will result in long-term 

structural changes that will increase 

equity between FWS and GS employees 

within defined geographic areas. OPM 

expects that, by delaying the effective 

date until the beginning of the next FY, 

agencies will be able to better plan for 

and manage increased payroll expenses, 

leading to a more effective 

implementation of this change. OPM 

recognizes that a longer lead time (e.g., 

FY 2027) would further ease the 

transition for agencies; however, OPM 

believes that organizational interests 

need to be balanced with the impact 

that further delays may have on 

employees. Accordingly, balancing the 

governmental interests and the interests 

of employees, this final rule will be 

effective on October 1, 2025, the first 

day of FY 2026. Changes in pay based 

on the updated wage area boundaries 

will be effective the first day of the first 

pay period following October 1, 2025. 

Several commenters mentioned that 

the affected counties will be moved to 

the new wage areas after the new fullscale surveys. See, e.g., Comments 93, 

236, 238, and 287. We note that only 

changes to the survey areas will be 

staggered across FYs 2026 to 2028 as 

reflected in the amended survey 

schedule in appendix A to subpart B of 

5 CFR part 532 and appendix C to 

subpart B of part 532. These schedule 

changes will allow the Department of 

Defense (DOD) sufficient time to plan 

for conducting full-scale wage surveys 

in survey areas that will expand 

significantly, in some cases doubling, in 

geographic size. As described in the 

proposed rule, a survey area county that 

is removed from a current wage area 

that is being eliminated and defined to 

a different wage area that is being 

continued but revised in this rule would 

initially be added to the area of 

application of the gaining wage area 

rather than being defined directly to the 

survey area. The county would 

subsequently be incorporated into the 

relevant wage area’s survey area based 

on the timing of full-scale local wage 

surveys. For example, Calhoun County, 

AL, is currently part of the AnnistonGadsden, AL, survey area. Under this 

rule, Calhoun County will be moved to 

the Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, 

AL, area of application, effective the 

first day of the first pay period following 

October 1, 2025, until January 2028. 

Calhoun County will subsequently be 

moved from the Birmingham-CullmanTalladega, AL, area of application to the 

Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, AL, 

survey area, effective for wage surveys 

beginning in January 2028, coinciding 

with the survey cycle for this wage area. 

Under this final rule, there will be an 

initial implementation resulting in wage 

rate increases for most affected 

employees. Once surveys have been 

conducted in the expanded survey 

areas, wage schedules will be adjusted. 

However, OPM anticipates that the longstanding pay cap and floor increase 

provisions will control subsequent wage 

schedule adjustments. (See 89 FR 82875 

for discussion of the pay cap and floor 

increase provisions.) 

Impact on Local Businesses 

OPM requested public comments 

from local businesses on the 

implementation and impacts of moving 

the small number of FWS employees 

who would be affected by the proposed 

rule to different wage schedules and the 

likelihood that the changes would affect 

those businesses. We only received one 

comment—from a Federal employee 

who also owns a plumbing business— 

stating that ‘‘the private sector pays so 

much more than the government would 

ever be willing to’’ and that he would 

not be able to hire anyone if his 

business paid rates as low as the FWS. 

Comment 343. As explained in the 

proposed rule and further detailed in 

this final rule, over the years, the FWS 

goal of setting pay in line with 

prevailing private sector rates has been 

diminished by appropriations 

legislation provisions that have capped 

FWS wage schedule adjustments 

regardless of local market conditions. 

On January 27, 2022, OPM approved 

DOD requests to establish special rates 4

to establish a minimum pay rate of $15 

per hour for Appropriated Fund and 

Nonappropriated Fund FWS employees, 

in accordance with Compensation 

Policy Memorandum (CPM) 2022–02, 

‘‘Achieving a $15 Per Hour Minimum 

Pay Rate for Federal Employees.’’ 5 This 

policy helped address the gap between 

FWS and private sector wage levels 

overall, but pay gaps are still substantial 

in different parts of the country as a 

result of the wage schedule adjustment 

cap. 

FWS vs GS 

Locality Pay 

OPM received numerous comments 

from employees supporting FWS 

employees receiving ‘‘locality pay.’’ As 

stated in the proposed rule, FWS and 

GS employees are paid under separate 

pay systems. The pay systems differ 

because they are governed by separate 

laws and regulations authorizing 

different types of surveys, occupational 

and geographic coverage, pay 

adjustment cycles, and pay ranges. The 

Federal Employees Pay Comparability 

Act of 1990 was enacted to provide 

locality pay to GS employees. FWS 

employees are specifically excluded 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
7430 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

6OPM provides information regarding the 

classification process and job grading criteria for GS 

employees in Classifying General Schedule 

Positions available at https://www.opm.gov/policydata-oversight/classification-qualifications/ 

classifying-general-schedule-positions/ 

#url=Standards; and for FWS employees in 

Classifying Federal Wage System Positions 

(available at https://www.opm.gov/policy-dataoversight/classification-qualifications/classifyingfederal-wage-system-positions/#url=Standards) and 

Introduction to the Federal Wage System Job 

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

policy-data-oversight/classification-qualifications/ 

classifying-federal-wage-system-positions/ 

fwsintro.pdf). 

7 Information on EDP may be found in Subchapter 

S8 Pay Administration in the Federal Wage System 

Appropriated Fund Operating Manual at https://

www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/paysystems/federal-wage-system/#url=AppropriatedFund. The Schedule of Environmental Differentials 

Paid for Exposure to Various Degrees of Hazards, 

Physical Hardships, and Working Conditions of an 

from coverage under the locality pay 

system for GS employees because FWS 

employees have their own statutory 

local prevailing rate pay system. As 

such, GS locality pay percentages, 

which are add-ons to the base GS pay 

table, by law do not apply to the FWS. 

Instead, through annual appropriations 

legislation, employees in the FWS 

receive at least the same annual 

percentage pay adjustment as GS 

employees based on where they work. 

Likewise, there were several 

comments from FWS employees 

reflecting a misunderstanding of the 

intent of this rule, with some comments 

suggesting that FWS employees will be 

moved to the GS pay scale. That is not 

what this rule does. We reiterate that the 

FWS and GS are different statutory pay 

systems, and this rule is focused to 

address the major issue identified for 

administrative resolution by FPRAC, 

which is to change the regulatory 

criteria for wage areas such that wage 

area definitions will, in almost all cases, 

follow the same labor market definitions 

and consider the same economically 

integrated regions as used for GS nonRest of U.S. (RUS) locality pay areas. 

The FWS and GS will continue to be 

distinct and separate job classification 

and pay systems. 

Cost of Living 

Numerous employees argued that 

amending the regulatory criteria used to 

define and maintain FWS wage areas is 

necessary because of a high cost of 

living. See, e.g., Comments 17, 112, 329, 

459. OPM notes that, by law, the cost of 

labor within a wage area, rather than the 

cost of living, determines FWS pay 

rates. Similarly, GS locality payments 

are not based on living costs but on 

salary surveys done by the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, as required by law. 

Annual Pay Adjustments Timing 

Other commenters indicated that 

annual pay increases for FWS and GS 

employees do not coincide and that 

FWS employees receive their pay 

adjustments several months after GS 

employees. Both GS and FWS workers 

receive only one annual pay adjustment 

each year. FWS employees do not 

necessarily receive pay adjustments 

after GS employees; they are just on a 

different annual cycle than GS 

employees. Pay adjustments for the GS 

and FWS have separate effective dates. 

The annual adjustments for GS 

employees are made in January of each 

year (see 5 U.S.C. 5303(a)). Because 

FWS employees are paid according to 

local prevailing rates, FWS pay rates are 

adjusted each year based on prevailing 

private sector wage levels for similar 

work in a local wage area subject to pay 

cap and floor increase provisions. DOD 

obtains the rates paid by local private 

sector employers by conducting annual 

local wage surveys. The wage surveys 

are scheduled throughout the year and, 

consequently, the pay increases are 

effective based on when wage surveys 

are completed throughout the year (see 

5 U.S.C. 5344(a)). For example, FWS 

employees in the Boston, MA, wage area 

receive pay adjustments that are 

effective in October each year, three 

months earlier in the FY than GS 

employees receive their pay 

adjustments. (Pay increases for FWS 

employees typically occur in October, 

whereas GS increases typically take 

effect in January.) 

Grade and Steps Structure 

A few commenters also expressed 

concerns regarding the FWS and GS 

grades and steps structure. For example, 

one commenter said that FWS and GS 

grades do not align and another asserted 

that, while FWS grades are divided into 

5 steps, GS grades are divided into 10 

steps. See, e.g., Comments 221 and 312. 

As already stated, differences between 

the FWS and GS pay systems include 

occupational coverage and pay ranges.6

The FWS pay system covers most trade, 

craft, and laboring employees (bluecollar workers) in the Executive Branch 

and has existed in various forms based 

on local prevailing wage levels since 

1862. The FWS has a multi-level jobgrading system that includes the full 

range of trade, craft, and laboring jobs. 

Occupations often cover more than one 

grade level, and many occupations are 

typically represented at each grade. 

Regardless of occupation, the pay range 

for all regular schedule jobs at a 

particular grade level in a specific wage 

area is the same. 

The FWS pay structure is primarily 

divided into wage grade nonsupervisory 

(WG), wage leader (WL), and wage 

supervisor (WS) hourly wage schedules. 

The WG and WL schedules have 15 

levels or grades each, and the WS 

schedule has 19 grades. Generally, each 

grade represents progressively more 

difficult levels of work requiring higher 

levels of skills and/or experience. 

Employees are paid the full prevailing 

rate at step 2 of each grade level. Step 

5, the highest step in the FWS, is 112 

percent above the prevailing rate of pay. 

The FWS grade structure is established 

under 5 U.S.C. 5343(e)(1). The FWS 

regular wage schedule regulations can 

be found at 5 CFR 532.203. 

The GS pay system covers most 

white-collar civilian Federal employees. 

The GS has 15 grades (GS–1 through 

GS–15). Again, each grade represents 

progressively more difficult levels of 

work requiring higher levels of 

knowledge and/or experience. Each 

grade has a range of salary divided into 

10 steps. The GS grade structure is 

established under 5 U.S.C. 5332(a)(2). 

Hazard Pay 

One commenter noted that FWS 

employees ‘‘make less money for 

equivalent work’’ and ‘‘only get hazard 

pay for the hours (. . .) in a hazard 

zone.’’ Comment 48. Other commenters 

suggested that their work duties are 

more hazardous than those of GS 

employees. See, e.g., Comments 79, 295, 

481. Hazardous duty pay (HDP) is paid 

to qualifying GS employees and 

Environmental Differential Pay (EDP) is 

paid to qualifying FWS employees. HDP 

and EDP have separate legal authorities. 

The legal authority for HDP is found in 

5 U.S.C. 5545(d). The legal authority for 

EDP is found in 5 U.S.C. 5343(c)(4). The 

regulations for GS HDP are in 5 CFR 

550.901. The regulations for FWS EDP 

are in 5 CFR 532.511. 

Under 5 CFR 532.511, an FWS 

employee must be paid an 

environmental differential when 

exposed to a working condition or 

hazard that falls within one of the 

categories approved by OPM. Although 

OPM issues EDP regulations, each 

agency is responsible for evaluating 

local situations to determine if it should 

pay EDP. This responsibility was given 

to the agencies because each local 

agency and installation can best 

determine the nature of the work 

performed by its employees. In order to 

receive a differential, there must be 

actual exposure to the environmental 

condition. An environmental 

differential is paid either on the basis of 

actual exposure or on the basis of hours 

in pay status.7


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 7431 

Unusual Nature is listed under Appendix J of this 

manual (available at https://www.opm.gov/policydata-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/federal-wagesystem/appropriated-fund-operating-manual/ 

appendixj.pdf). Appendix J lists all the FWS EDP 

categories either as actual exposure categories or as 

hours in a pay status categories. 

GS Supervisory Differential 

One commenter stated that special 

rates established for FWS employees in 

their area led to some GS employees 

making less than FWS employees they 

are supervising. Comment 330. GS 

supervisors may receive a supervisory 

differential when they have a higher 

paid subordinate that is not covered by 

the GS pay system. OPM encourages GS 

employees to discuss such matters with 

their employing agency’s human 

resources office for any policy guidance 

their agency uses in similar situations. 

We note that there is no authority to pay 

a supervisory differential to an FWS 

employee supervising a higher paid 

subordinate who is under a different 

pay system. 

Pay Increases for FWS Employees 

Impacted by This Rule 

OPM received various comments from 

FWS employees reflecting a 

misunderstanding of the expected 

impact on wages for FWS employees as 

a result of implementing this rule, with 

some comments indicating a ‘‘12 

percent across-the-board pay increase.’’ 

See, e.g., Comments 70, 83, 137, 257, 

and 499. As explained in the ‘‘Impact’’ 

section of the proposed rule, the pay 

increases will vary considerably, based 

on wage area and grades. For example, 

pay increases for FWS employees in 

Monroe County, PA, who will be moved 

to the New York, NY, wage area, will 

vary from around $0.49 per hour at 

grade WG–01 to $7.85 per hour at grade 

WG–15 based on current wage levels. In 

some wage areas employees will be 

placed on lower wage schedules and 

either be covered by pay retention rules 

or experience a reduction in pay if they 

are not eligible to retain a rate of pay. 

Recruitment and Retention Issues 

Many commenters indicated that the 

changes to the regulatory criteria in 5 

CFR 532.211 are necessary because of 

recruitment and retention issues. For 

example, several commenters stated that 

placing FWS employees in the same 

geographic area as GS employees for pay 

setting purposes would help recruit and 

retain skilled candidates. See, e.g., 

Comments 50, 74, 120, and 284. While 

we acknowledge that pay increases may 

help address some recruitment and 

retention issues, the changes in criteria 

used to define and maintain FWS wage 

areas are not driven by recruitment or 

retention challenges, and FWS area 

definition criteria have never 

considered recruitment and retention 

criteria, just as GS locality pay area 

criteria contain no mention of 

recruitment or retention. This rule seeks 

to make the labor market determinations 

and pay area boundaries more similar, 

as recommended through National 

Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 

language, by using similar criteria in 

both pay systems, and to therefore 

advance greater equity between the two 

systems. 

Comments Regarding Specific Wage 

Areas 

Southern Missouri FWS Wage Area 

OPM received a few comments from 

FWS employees requesting that several 

counties in the Southern Missouri wage 

area be redefined to the St. Louis, MO, 

wage area (see, e.g., Comments 259 and 

296) and one comment requesting that 

Butler County, MO, be redefined to 

either the St. Louis wage area or 

Memphis, TN, wage area (Comment 

264). Some commenters expressed 

concerns that FWS rates of pay in 

Southern Missouri are lower than those 

received by employees who work in the 

St. Louis wage area, by GS employees, 

or by people who work in comparable 

jobs in the private sector. See, e.g., 

Comments 57, 203, 253, 263, 264, 265, 

296, and 395. 

Neither the current regulatory criteria 

nor the new criteria support the 

suggested changes to the Southern 

Missouri wage area. As stated in the 

proposed rule, OPM must receive the 

advice of FPRAC before reviewing and 

making any changes to wage area 

boundaries. Any management or labor 

member of FPRAC may introduce a 

subject for discussion by the Committee. 

For example, for FPRAC to consider a 

proposal to change the definition of a 

county, a member of the Committee 

must introduce the matter for 

discussion. It is the Chair’s 

responsibility to approve items to be 

discussed on the Committee’s agenda. 

FWS employees may wish to consider 

going through the chain of command 

within their employing agency or 

through their labor union representative 

to bring issues to FPRAC’s attention. 

We note that local wage surveys in the 

Southern Missouri wage area continue 

to meet all requirements for determining 

prevailing wage rates in the local labor 

market. The wage schedule for the 

Southern Missouri wage area is based 

on data collected from Christian, 

Greene, Laclede, Phelps, Pulaski, and 

Webster Counties, MO. The difference 

in rates of pay between the Southern 

Missouri wage area and other wage 

areas, including St. Louis, MO, and 

Memphis, TN, reflects the fact that the 

prevailing cost of labor varies by wage 

area. It is not unusual for FWS 

employees who work in different wage 

areas to receive substantially different 

rates of pay even though they may have 

similar grade levels and job duties. For 

example, the wage rate for a WG–10, 

step 2, employee in the Southern 

Missouri wage area is $27.45, while it is 

$34.12 in the St. Louis wage area. These 

rates reflect the prevailing wage levels 

for this level of work in each wage 

survey area subject to annual pay cap 

and floor increase appropriations law 

provisions. 

Puerto Rico Wage Area 

OPM also received two comments 

inquiring if these changes will apply to 

the Puerto Rico wage area and asserting 

that pay rates in this wage area are 

lower than in other wage areas. See 

Comments 246 and 312. As stated in the 

proposed rule, changes to the criteria 

used to define and maintain wage areas 

will not result in any changes to the 

Puerto Rico wage area boundaries or 

pay. Likewise, as explained in response 

to the comments regarding the Missouri 

wage areas, FWS employees are paid 

different wage rates based on their 

location since the cost of labor varies 

from wage area to wage area. The pay 

system is neither designed nor intended 

to ensure all FWS employees receive the 

same wage rates in all regions. 

Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, 

Wage Area 

OPM received several comments 

requesting that Hancock County, ME, 

and Acadia National Park be redefined 

to the new Boston-WorcesterProvidence, MA, wage area. See, e.g., 

Comments 348, 385, and 393. Hancock 

County and Acadia National Park are 

defined to the Central and Northern 

Maine wage area. Neither the current 

nor the new regulatory criteria support 

the redefinition of Hancock County and 

Acadia National Park to the BostonWorcester-Providence wage area. We 

also note that Hancock County is not 

neighboring the Boston wage area with 

the Central and Northern Maine and the 

Boston-Worcester-Providence wage 

areas being separated by the Augusta, 

ME, wage area. 

OPM received several comments 

requesting that Aroostook County, ME, 

be removed from the Central and 

Northern Maine survey area because it 

only has 15 FWS employees and does 

not meet the minimum 100 FWS 

employees working in the county 

requirement and that Hancock County 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
7432 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

be added to this survey area instead. 

See, e.g., Comments 389, 393, and 529. 

As previously mentioned, OPM 

proposes changes to wage areas, 

including changes to existing survey 

areas, based on the advice of FPRAC. 

FWS employees may wish to consider 

going through the chain of command 

within their employing agency or 

through their labor union representative 

to bring issues to FPRAC’s attention. 

OPM received a comment from an 

employee requesting the Kennebec 

County, ME, be redefined from the 

Augusta, ME, wage area to the new 

Boston-Worcester-Providence wage area. 

See Comment 388. Neither the current 

regulatory criteria nor the new criteria 

support this suggested change. 

Mono and Inyo Counties, CA 

OPM received a few comments from 

local government officials in Mono and 

Inyo Counties, CA, requesting that these 

two counties be redefined in their 

entirety to the Los Angeles, CA, wage 

area. See, e.g., Comment 293. Currently, 

Mono County, with the exception of 

locations where the Bridgeport, CA, 

special schedule applies, is defined to 

the Reno, NV, wage area, and Inyo 

County, with the exception of the China 

Lake Naval Weapons Center portion, is 

defined to the Las Vegas, NV, wage area. 

Neither the current nor the new 

regulatory criteria support redefining 

these two counties in their entirety to 

the Los Angeles, CA, wage area. As 

mentioned previously, OPM proposes 

any changes to wage area definitions 

after FPRAC review and 

recommendation. 

Yuma County, AZ 

One agency recommended that Yuma 

County, AZ, be redefined from the San 

Diego County, CA, wage area to the 

Phoenix, AZ, wage area because the 

Federal Salary Council recommended 

the inclusion of Yuma County into the 

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ GS 

locality Pay Area, still pending approval 

from the President’s Pay Agent. Changes 

in GS locality pay area definitions will 

not result in automatic changes in FWS 

wage area definitions. Neither the 

current nor the new regulatory criteria 

support redefining Yuma County to the 

Phoenix, AZ, wage area. As already 

mentioned, OPM proposes any changes 

to wage area definitions after FPRAC 

review and recommendation. 

San Diego, CA, Survey Area 

OPM received a comment from an 

FWS employee in the San Diego, CA, 

wage area opposing the redefinition of 

Yuma County, AZ, from the San Diego 

area of application to the San Diego 

survey area. The commenter argued that 

the cost of living is lower in Yuma 

County than in San Diego County and 

adding survey data from Yuma County 

to the San Diego wage area would lead 

to overall lower pay in the wage area. 

Comment 394. As stated in the proposed 

rule, OPM is moving Yuma County to 

the San Diego survey area beginning in 

September 2027 because more than 100 

FWS employees work in this county. 

This move is necessary to comply with 

the requirement that OPM include in 

survey areas all counties with 100 or 

more FWS employees. A future wage 

survey will determine the impact, if 

any, on wage levels that apply in the 

San Diego wage area and that would 

likely continue to be subject to annual 

appropriations legislation setting a cap 

and floor on wage schedule 

adjustments. 

Southern Colorado Wage Area 

OPM received three comments from 

FWS employees in the City of Colorado 

Springs, CO, expressing concerns that 

FWS rates of pay in the City of Colorado 

Springs are lower than those earned by 

people who work in comparable jobs in 

the private sector and in the 

Consolidated City and County of 

Denver. See, Comments 444, 454, and 

455. The City of Colorado Springs, in El 

Paso County, CO, is defined to the 

Southern Colorado wage area, and the 

Consolidated City and County of Denver 

is defined to the Denver, CO, wage area. 

Local wage surveys in the Southern 

Colorado wage area continue to meet all 

requirements for determining prevailing 

wage rates in the local labor market. The 

wage schedule for the Southern 

Colorado wage area is based on data 

collected from El Paso, Pueblo, and 

Teller Counties, CO. The difference in 

rates of pay between the Southern 

Colorado and Denver wage areas, as 

previously mentioned regarding other 

wage areas, reflects the fact that the 

prevailing cost of labor varies by wage 

area. 

Neither the current regulatory criteria 

nor the new criteria support a 

redefinition of the Southern Colorado 

wage area. 

Gettysburg National Military Park 

OPM received a comment from a labor 

organization local representative at the 

Gettysburg National Military Park 

requesting that this installation be 

defined to the new WashingtonBaltimore-Arlington wage area, and 

pointing out that the cost of living is the 

same for both GS and FWS employees 

and that FWS employees are ‘‘earning 

less than employees at the local Sheetz 

and warehouses.’’ Comment 365. 

The Gettysburg National Military Park 

is located in Adams County, PA, which 

is defined to the Harrisburg, PA, wage 

area, and part of the Harrisburg-YorkLebanon, PA, combined statistical area 

(CSA). The purpose of this rule is not 

to make the FWS system identical to the 

GS locality pay system but to no longer 

allow, in almost all cases, non-RUS 

locality pay areas to be split by FWS 

wage areas. Please see why Adams 

County will continue to be defined to 

the Harrisburg wage area in the 

‘‘Statement of Need’’ subsection below. 

Assateague Island 

Two commenters stated that ‘‘[t]he 

Assateague Island FWS exception needs 

to be eliminated,’’ and argued that 

moving Worcester County, MD, to the 

Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA, 

wage area would lead to FWS 

employees at Assateague Island 

National Seashore being paid a lot less 

than counterparts working in the rest of 

Worcester County. Comments 333 and 

546. OPM has been defining Worcester 

County (excluding the Assateague 

Island part) to the Wilmington, DE, 

wage area and the Assateague Island 

part of Worcester County to the current 

Norfolk-Portsmouth-Newport NewsHampton, VA, wage area. According to 

OPM data, there are 10 FWS employees 

working for the Department of the 

Interior, with a duty station in the Town 

of Chincoteague, Accomack County, VA. 

Since the duty station is located within 

the current Norfolk-PortsmouthNewport News-Hampton wage area, this 

rule will continue to define the 

Assateague Island part of Worcester 

County to the new Virginia BeachChesapeake, VA, wage area. As already 

explained, OPM proposes any changes 

to wage area definitions, other than the 

ones automatically resulting from the 

application of revised regulatory criteria 

defining wage areas, after FPRAC review 

and recommendation. 

Ft. Wayne-Marion, IN, Wage Area 

OPM received one comment from a 

labor organization local representative 

requesting that the J.E. Roush Lake 

Project part of Huntington County and 

Wabash County, IN, be redefined from 

the Ft. Wayne-Marion, IN, wage area to 

the new Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, 

IN wage area. Comment 491. Neither the 

current regulatory criteria nor the new 

criteria support the suggested changes to 

the Ft. Wayne-Marion, IN, wage area. 

FPRAC may consider a proposal to 

review the definition of Huntington and 

Wabash Counties if a committee 

member introduces this issue for 

discussion. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 7433 

8A copy of the October 20th, 2022 FPRAC 

meeting transcript may be found at https://

www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/paysystems/federal-wage-system/federal-prevailingrate-advisory-committee/meeting-number-642- 

october-20-2022.pdf. 

Timing of the Local Wage Surveys 

OPM received one comment from an 

FWS employee in the Central and 

Northern Maine wage area requesting 

that the local wage survey order month 

in this wage area be changed from May 

to August. Comment 393. Under 5 CFR 

532.207, FWS wage surveys are 

scheduled to begin in specific months 

each year based on the following 

criteria: timing of wage surveys in 

relation to wage adjustments in 

principal local private sector 

establishments; reasonable distribution 

of survey workloads for the lead 

agencies; timing of wage surveys in 

nearby wage areas; and scheduling 

relationships with other pay surveys. 

FPRAC may consider a proposal to 

change a survey order month if a 

committee member introduces a 

proposal for discussion. 

Conduct of Local Wage Surveys 

One labor organization stated that the 

way local wage surveys are conducted 

needs reforming because they ‘‘fail to 

accurately reflect the true conditions of 

the labor markets.’’ Comment 543. 

Several other commenters also 

expressed concern about the results of 

the local wage surveys, saying that they 

fail to capture private sector wages. See, 

e.g., Comment 259. One agency stated 

that, in certain survey areas, such as 

Narragansett Bay area, there are 

challenges in identifying private 

establishments with jobs comparable 

with the survey jobs willing to 

participate in surveys. As previously 

stated, the intent of this rule is to make 

the regulatory criteria OPM uses to 

define FWS wage areas more similar to 

GS locality pay areas and make changes 

to certain wage areas based on the 

revised criteria in 5 CFR 532.211. Any 

reforms to the local wage surveys 

collection process need to be reviewed 

by FPRAC. 

Special Rates 

One commenter requested that OPM 

consider special rates for Acadia 

National Park, Bar Harbor, and Mount 

Desert Island, in the Central and 

Northern Maine wage area. Comment 

408. Another commenter requested 

extending special rates currently 

established in the Jacksonville, FL, wage 

area to FWS positions in Polk County, 

FL, which is being redefined to this 

wage area through this rule. Comment 

346. Under 5 CFR 532.251, a lead 

agency with the approval of OPM may 

establish special rates for pay within all 

or part of a wage area for a designated 

occupation or occupational 

specialization and grade, in lieu of rates 

on the regular schedule. OPM may 

authorize special rates to the extent it 

considers necessary to overcome 

existing or likely significant handicaps 

in the recruitment or retention of well 

qualified personnel when these 

handicaps are due to any of the 

following circumstances: rates of pay 

offered by private sector employers for 

an occupation or occupational 

specialization and grade are 

significantly higher than rates paid by 

the Federal Government within the 

competitive labor market; the 

remoteness of the area or location 

involved; or any other circumstance that 

OPM considers appropriate. If an 

employing agency should find it 

necessary to establish special rates for 

FWS employees in the Central and 

Northern Maine or Jacksonville, FL, 

wage areas, it must submit data to DOD 

demonstrating staffing problems and 

certify the availability of sufficient 

funds to support a special rates request 

for specific occupations, grades, 

installations, and/or locations. If DOD 

concurs that special rates are necessary 

for those occupations, grades, 

installations, and/or locations, the 

request will be forwarded to OPM for 

review. 

One agency asked how the changes in 

wage areas resulting from amending the 

regulatory criteria in 5 CFR 532.211 

would affect existing special rates. OPM 

sees no basis for canceling existing 

special rates. Special rates sometimes 

apply wage area wide and sometimes 

apply to a specific Federal installation 

or set of occupations within a wage area. 

If an employee who is paid a special 

rate would be entitled to a higher wage 

rate from a regular wage schedule upon 

movement to a different wage schedule, 

the employee would be entitled to the 

higher wage rate on the regular wage 

schedule. OPM will continue to work 

closely with the lead agency to manage 

appropriate special wage rates to 

address recruitment or retention 

challenges. 

Elimination of the ‘‘Pay Cap’’ Provision 

One labor organization wrote in 

support of the elimination of the yearly 

‘‘pay cap’’ provision from the 

appropriations legislation. Comment 

543. As stated in the proposed rule, 

each year since fiscal year 1979, 

appropriations legislation has limited 

FWS pay adjustments so as not to 

exceed average GS pay adjustments. For 

FY 2024, the FWS pay limitation of 5.26 

percent was in section 737 of division 

B of the Further Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2024. Congress 

originally imposed limits on FWS pay 

adjustments during the high inflation 

era of the late 1970’s for budget 

purposes and to ensure that FWS pay 

rates did not increase more rapidly than 

GS pay rates. In certain high cost of 

labor areas, GS employees were leaving 

white-collar positions to take higher 

paying blue-collar positions. Federal 

employee organizations have strongly 

opposed FWS pay limitations since they 

were first imposed, but agencies were 

concerned about the budget impact of 

lifting the cap system-wide in any one 

fiscal year. At the October 20, 2022, 

FPRAC public meeting,8 the Committee 

recommended by consensus that OPM 

should seek elimination of an annual 

provision placed in the Financial 

Services and General Government 

Appropriations Act that establishes a 

statutory limitation each year on the 

maximum allowable FWS wage 

schedule adjustment. OPM is 

considering available policy options and 

solutions to advance this policy change 

forward. 

GS Locality Pay Areas 

OPM received several comments 

requesting that Lucas County, OH, be 

included in the Detroit-Warren-Ann 

Arbor, MI, GS locality pay area. 

Comments 362, 363, and 356. Two other 

commenters requested that several 

counties in Western Colorado be added 

to the Denver-Aurora, CO, GS locality 

pay area. Comments 151 and 205. The 

purpose of this rule is to change the 

regulatory criteria used to define and 

maintain FWS wage areas and to 

redefine certain FWS wage areas 

established for the FWS pay system 

under 5 U.S.C. 5343. This rulemaking 

does not address boundaries of locality 

pay areas for the GS pay system and 

other pay systems that receive locality 

pay under 5 U.S.C. 5304. 

One commenter wrote against the 

implementation of OPM’s proposal, 

stating that adding outlying counties to 

the core GS locality pay area would lead 

to lower rates of pay for employees 

working within the Metropolitan 

Statistical Area and arguing that the 

FWS wage areas and GS locality pay 

areas should not be aligned until the GS 

system is reformed. Comment 417. This 

commenter also noted that FWS wage 

areas would not fully coincide with GS 

locality pay areas. As explained 

previously, the purpose of this rule is to 

make changes to the criteria used to 

define and maintain FWS wage areas 

and to redefine boundaries of FWS wage 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
7434 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

areas, according to the amended 

regulatory criteria. This rule is not 

meant to make changes to the GS system 

or consider ideas for reforming the GS 

system. Lastly, as stated in the proposed 

rule and reiterated in this final rule, the 

new wage area definitions are not 

intended to mirror GS locality pay areas, 

and some differences between the 

geographical boundaries of wage areas 

and locality pay areas will continue to 

exist. 

Corrections 

The proposed rule contained an error 

where Union County, PA, was listed in 

both the proposed Harrisburg-YorkLebanon (89 FR 82892 and 82916) and 

Scranton-Wilkes-Barre wage areas (89 

FR 82893 and 82917). This error 

occurred because, while drafting the 

proposed rule, Union County was 

identified as one of the four counties of 

the Bloomsburg-Berwick CSA, which is 

within the Harrisburg, PA, wage area. 

Under the new wage area criteria, a CSA 

should not be split between two wage 

areas except in unusual circumstances. 

In this instance, OPM intended to make 

an exception to the metropolitan area 

criterion based on a comprehensive 

analysis of all of the wage area 

definition criteria. 

The Federal Correctional Complex 

Allenwood in Union County has been 

defined to the Harrisburg wage area 

since it opened in the early 1990s, and 

OPM finds no compelling reason based 

on the mixed nature of a comprehensive 

analysis of the regulatory criteria to 

move Union County to a different wage 

area. From an organizational 

relationship perspective, there are other 

Bureau of Prisons institutions 

immediately to the south of Allenwood 

in Lewisburg, PA, that will be defined 

to the Harrisburg-York-Lebanon wage 

area. As correctly noted in the proposed 

rule, OPM’s intent was to first define 

Union County, PA, to the HarrisburgYork-Lebanon area of application and 

then, effective for wage surveys 

beginning in May 2026, Union County 

would become part of the survey area 

for the Harrisburg-York-Lebanon wage 

area because there are more than 100 

FWS employees with official duty 

stations in the county. This decision 

required that the Bloomsburg-Berwick 

CSA remain split between the 

Harrisburg-York-Lebanon and ScrantonWilkes-Barre wage areas as an exception 

to the metropolitan area criteria. The 

Bloomsburg-Berwick CSA is comprised 

of four Micropolitan Statistical Areas 

with some of its counties geographically 

closer to Harrisburg and some closer to 

Scranton and Wilkes-Barre. The 

employment interchange criterion 

indicates that there are only marginal 

differences in commuting rates to and 

from the Bloomsburg-Berwick CSA as a 

whole and the Harrisburg-York-Lebanon 

and Scranton-Wilkes-Barre survey areas. 

After recognizing that Union County 

was erroneously listed in two wage 

areas in the proposed rule, OPM is 

correcting the disposition of the 

following counties for the final rule. 

Columbia, Montour, and 

Northumberland Counties, PA, will be 

defined to the area of application of the 

Scranton-Wilkes-Barre wage area as 

noted in the proposed rule. Union 

County and Snyder County, on the west 

side of the Susquehanna River, will be 

defined to the Harrisburg-York-Lebanon 

wage area. Snyder County is located to 

the south of Union County and both 

counties are closest to Harrisburg. 

Wayne County, PA, was erroneously 

listed as being part of the ScrantonWilkes-Barre, PA, wage area in the 

‘‘Definitions of Wage Areas and Wage 

Area Survey Areas’’ section (see 89 FR 

82917). As correctly stated elsewhere in 

the proposed rule, Wayne County is 

moving to the New York-Newark, NY, 

wage area. (See 89 FR 82890, 82893, and 

82914.) 

The area of application designation 

for Palm Beach County, FL, was 

erroneously listed as January 2027 (see 

89 FR 82883 and 82905); however, the 

proposal correctly identified May 2027 

as the effective date for the survey area 

(see 89 FR 82905). This error occurred 

because currently the wage survey order 

month for the Miami-Dade, FL, wage 

area is January. However, DOD had 

requested certain changes in wage 

survey order months to allow balancing 

of the wage survey workload throughout 

the year, including revising the listing of 

the beginning month of survey from 

‘‘January’’ to ‘‘May’’ for the Miami-Dade 

wage area (see 89 FR 82878). As such, 

OPM is correcting the area of 

application designation for Palm Beach 

County to read ‘‘May.’’ 

Expected Impact of This Final Rule 

1. Statement of Need 

OPM is issuing this rule pursuant to 

its authority in 5 U.S.C. 5343 to issue 

regulations governing the FWS. The 

purpose of these changes is to address 

longstanding inequities between the 

Federal Government’s two main pay 

systems. While the pay systems are 

different in some ways, the concept of 

geographic pay differentials based on 

local labor market conditions is a key 

feature of both systems. The FWS 

regulatory criteria in 5 CFR 532.211 are 

being revised to better align FWS wage 

areas with non-RUS GS locality pay 

areas. The revised FWS criteria include 

CSA and micropolitan statistical area 

(MSA) definitions and employment 

interchange data reported by the Census 

Bureau that reflects social and economic 

integration in a region. Revised FWS 

wage area definitions are based on an 

analysis of these factors by FPRAC’s 

working group and OPM’s analysis of 

the criteria to be consistent with the 

FPRAC majority recommendation to use 

the new criteria. There is no intent that 

FWS wage areas will be identical to GS 

locality pay areas in all cases. In limited 

circumstances, such as with Adams and 

York Counties, PA, this rule will not 

result in all non-RUS locality pay areas 

no longer including more than one FWS 

wage area. The Harrisburg, PA, wage 

area, will continue to coincide with the 

Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DCMD-VA-WV-PA and the HarrisburgLebanon, PA GS locality pay areas. 

Adams and York Counties, PA, are 

currently part of the WashingtonBaltimore-Arlington GS locality pay 

area, based on a Federal Salary Council 

recommendation and Pay Agent 

decision to keep these counties defined 

to that locality pay area after a new GS 

locality pay area was later established 

for Harrisburg. Adams and York 

Counties will continue to be defined to 

the Harrisburg, PA, wage area because 

they are part of the Harrisburg-YorkLebanon, PA, CSA and to avoid splitting 

this CSA as will be required by the new 

regulatory criteria. 

2. Impact 

Per available data, OPM expects these 

changes will impact approximately 

17,000 FWS employees nationwide or 

about 10 percent of the appropriated 

fund FWS workforce. The amendments 

to current regulatory criteria used to 

define and maintain FWS wage areas 

will result in numerous changes in the 

composition of many of these wage 

areas. As a result, several FWS wage 

areas will no longer be viable separately, 

and the counties in those abolished 

wage areas will be defined to another 

wage area. 

Most employees affected by this 

approach will receive increases in pay, 

but some will be placed on pay 

retention if moved to a lower wage 

schedule or experience a reduction in 

pay if not eligible for pay retention. As 

such, about 85 percent of the affected 

employees (roughly 14,500 employees) 

will receive pay increases, about 11 

percent (roughly 1,800 employees) will 

be placed on pay retention, around 3 

percent (about 500 employees) will be 

placed at a lower wage level, and 

around 1 (less than 200 employees) 

percent will see no change in their wage 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 7435 

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), Public Law 118–47. 

level because their current wage rate is 

identical to the wage rate on a wage 

schedule they will be moved to. 

This rule primarily affects FWS 

employees of DOD and its components, 

although employees of many other 

agencies, including the Department of 

Veterans Affairs (VA), are impacted. For 

example, the Anniston-Gadsden, AL, 

wage area will be abolished and most of 

its counties will be added to the 

Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, AL, 

wage area. FWS employees working in 

these counties will see their pay 

increased at most grades. For example, 

based on current wage levels, at grades 

WG–01 through WG–04 there will be no 

change in pay while, at grades WG–05 

through WG–15, pay increases could 

vary from $0.72 per hour to $5.99 per 

hour. Likewise, based on these proposed 

changes, Monroe County, PA, will be 

moved to the New York, NY, wage area. 

As such, based on current pay levels, 

pay increases for FWS employees in 

Monroe County will vary from about 

$0.49 per hour at grade WG–01 to $7.85 

per hour at grade WG–15. However, the 

Washington, DC, Baltimore, MD, and 

parts of the Hagerstown-MartinsburgChambersburg, MD, wage areas will be 

combined into a revised Washington, 

DC, based wage area. FWS employees 

will be moved to the existing 

Washington, DC, wage schedule, which 

will result in placement on a wage 

schedule with lower rates, based on 

current pay levels, than in the current 

Baltimore and Hagerstown wage areas at 

lower grade levels. This will primarily 

affect employees at lower grade levels at 

VA Medical Centers in these wage areas. 

For example, WG–2, step 2, for the 

Washington, DC, wage schedule is 

currently $18.47 per hour whereas it is 

$24.51 per hour for Baltimore, which 

will result in around a $6 an hour 

decrease, based on current wage levels, 

once this final rule goes into effect. 

Nonetheless, most employees will retain 

their current wage rates if they are not 

under temporary or term appointments. 

There are around 35 FWS employees at 

the Baltimore VA Medical Center under 

temporary appointments who will see 

an actual reduction in pay if their 

appointments are not changed to be 

permanent and assuming their 

temporary employment status will 

continue in future. At higher wage 

grades, employees in the Baltimore and 

Hagerstown wage areas will receive 

higher rates under a Washington, DC, 

based wage schedule based on current 

pay levels. 

This final rule affects about 10 

percent of FWS appropriated fund 

workers, and there will be 118 separate 

appropriated fund wage areas versus 

130 today. The changes are limited in 

scope with most FWS employees seeing 

no impact at all on their wage levels. 

This rule has potential budgetary 

impacts affecting three major Army 

Depots, in particular, that will need to 

be managed appropriately and 

effectively by employing agencies. It is 

noteworthy, however, that the overall 

budget impact of revising wage area 

boundaries under this final rule equates 

to about $140 million per year—only 

around 1 percent of the current base 

payroll for the FWS appropriated fund 

workforce as a whole. 

As mentioned previously, 14 percent 

of the affected employees will be placed 

on retained pay status; however, a vast 

majority of the affected employees— 

about 85 percent—will receive a pay 

increase. OPM concludes that the 

benefits of this final rule outweigh the 

negative impacts since this rule will 

better equalize geographic pay area 

treatment across the Federal 

Government’s two main pay systems. 

The pay retention law exists to alleviate 

potential decreases in wage rates caused 

by management actions such as changes 

in wage area boundaries. We also note 

that Federal agencies have considerable 

discretionary authority to provide pay 

and leave flexibilities to address 

significant recruitment and retention 

problems. Pay and leave flexibilities are 

always an option to address recruitment 

or retention challenges at any time. 

Agency headquarters staff may contact 

OPM for assistance with understanding 

and implementing pay and leave 

flexibilities when appropriate. 

Information on those flexibilities is 

available on the OPM website at https:// 

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

pay-leave/pay-and-leave-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. As these and future wage 

area changes may impact higher 

volumes of employees in geographical 

areas and could rise to the level of 

impacting local labor markets, OPM will 

continue to monitor the revised wage 

areas for such impacts. 

As described below, OPM estimates 

the rule results in annualized transfers 

in the form of additional payroll of 

approximately $149.9 million and 

annualized costs of approximately $0.9 

million over ten years at a 2 percent 

discount rate. 

3. Baseline 

The geographic boundaries of FWS 

wage areas and of GS locality pay areas 

are not the same. Around 1.5 million GS 

employees are in 58 locality pay areas 

and around 170,000 appropriated fund 

FWS employees are in 130 wage areas. 

However, since 2004, appropriations 

legislation has required that FWS 

employees receive the same percentage 

adjustment amount that GS employees 

receive where they work.9 This 

provision is known as the floor increase 

provision. Consequently, the floor 

increase provision requires pay 

adjustments each FY that result in 

certain FWS wage areas having more 

than one wage schedule in effect where 

there are multiple wage areas within the 

boundaries of a single non-RUS GS 

locality pay area. Although a majority of 

FWS wage areas coincide only with part 

of the RUS GS locality pay area, many 

FWS wage areas coincide with parts of 

more than one GS locality pay area. In 

each situation where the boundary of a 

prevailing rate wage area coincides with 

the boundary of a single GS locality pay 

area boundary, DOD must establish one 

wage schedule applicable in the wage 

area. For example, the New Orleans, LA, 

FWS wage area coincides with part of 

the RUS GS locality pay area. In this 

case, the minimum prevailing rate 

adjustment for the New Orleans wage 

area in FY 2024 was the same as the 

RUS GS locality pay area adjustment, 

4.99 percent. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
7436 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

11 DOD provides annual costs for civilian 

personnel fringe benefits at https://comptroller.

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

2024_d.pdf. 

12Attachment 1 may be found in the docket 

OPM–2024–0016 on www.regulations.gov. 

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 final rule addresses most of the 

differences in pay among FWS 

employees within the same wage area 

and between FWS employees and GS 

employees working at the same location. 

It revises the wage area criteria for FWS 

to achieve better alignment between 

FWS wage areas and GS locality pay 

areas and addresses observable 

geographic pay disparities between FWS 

and GS employees that have been 

caused by using different sets of rules to 

define FWS wage areas and GS locality 

pay areas. 

4. Costs 

OPM employs four full-time staff, at 

grades GS–12 through GS–15, to 

discharge its responsibilities under the 

FWS. The annual cost is estimated at 

$753,215 based on an average salary of 

$188,304 and includes wages, benefits, 

and overhead. This estimate is based on 

the 2024 GS salary pay rate for the 

Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DCMD-VA-WV-PA locality pay area. We do 

not anticipate an increase in 

administrative costs for OPM under this 

final rule. 

During FPRAC discussions on 

methods to address the House Report 

language, it became apparent that DOD 

might need to hire additional staff 

members to conduct surveys in the 

expanded wage areas. However, there 

will also be fewer wage surveys to 

conduct each year because 12 wage 

areas will be abolished, and their survey 

counties moved to neighboring wage 

areas. Currently, DOD’s operating costs 

for conducting FWS wage surveys and 

issuing wage schedules are estimated at 

$12 million, but it is reasonable to 

expect that additional specialist wage 

survey staff members may be needed to 

complete local wage survey work in the 

wage areas that will become larger in 

the time allotted 10 by statute for local 

wage surveys to be completed. OPM 

estimates that an average wage specialist 

at around the GS–9 level with a $70,000 

a year salary in the Washington, DC, 

area could have a fully burdened cost of 

$140,000 to carry out the additional 

wage survey work. Allowing for six new 

DOD employees would increase 

government costs by around $840,000 

for the first year. OPM requested 

comments regarding the costs of wage 

survey administration. One labor 

organization proposed a change in 

legislation so that wage schedules are 

calculated using data collected by the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics instead. 

Comment 478. As previously stated, this 

rulemaking amends the regulatory 

criteria used to define and maintain 

wage areas and redefine certain wage 

areas accordingly and cannot make 

regulatory changes that would require 

changes in existing law. 

FWS wage surveys are conducted 

under the information collection titled 

‘‘Establishment Information Form,’’ 

‘‘Wage Data Collection Form,’’ and 

‘‘Wage Data Collection Continuation 

Form’’ OMB Control number 3260– 

0036. DOD wage specialist data 

collectors survey about 21,760 

businesses annually. Based on past 

experience with local wage surveys, 

DOD estimates that each survey 

collection requires 1.5 hours of 

respondent burden for collection forms, 

resulting in a total yearly burden of 

32,640 hours. (See the Paperwork 

Reduction Act section below.) The 

changes in wage area boundaries in this 

rule are not expected to affect the public 

reporting burden of the current 

information collection. This is because 

the number of counties included in 

future survey areas will remain very 

similar to those included in current 

survey areas. OPM invited public 

comment on this matter, but no 

comments were submitted. 

This final rule will affect the FWS 

employees of up to 30 Federal 

agencies—ranging from cabinet-level 

departments to small independent 

agencies—affecting around 17,000 FWS 

employees. The estimated payroll cost 

of this final rule, including 36.70 

percent fringe benefits,11 is 

approximately $150 million when 

annualized at a 2 percent rate, and its 

cumulative undiscounted 10-year cost is 

around $1.5 billion for geographic areas 

being moved from one wage area to 

another as a result of amending the 

criteria used to define FWS wage area 

boundaries. The total first year base 

payroll cost represents around 1 percent 

of the $10 billion overall annual base 

FWS payroll. About half the overall cost 

will be incurred by the Department of 

the Army, primarily at Tobyhanna, 

Letterkenny, and Anniston Army Depots 

because a substantial number of the 

FWS employees who will be affected by 

the proposed changes is concentrated at 

these large federal installations. 

Attachment 1 12 provides OPM’s 

estimate of the payroll costs for the first 

10 years of implementation of this rule. 

This document was developed by OPM 

staff who provide technical support to 

FPRAC. The cost estimate lists the wage 

areas that will have counties added as 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 7437 

13The 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. 

a result of the final rule and identifies 

the counties being added. 

To calculate the estimated first year 

cost of around $140 million, we used 

Wage Grade, Wage Leader, and Wage 

Supervisor employment numbers in 

each impacted county and compared the 

difference in pay between the grade’s 

step-2 rate under the county’s current 

wage schedule, the prevailing wage 

grade level, and the wage schedule the 

county will be defined under by this 

final rule. The overall costs were further 

adjusted based on the average step rate 

for FWS employees being above step 

2.13 The ten cells to the right of each 

county provide the costs for the first ten 

years of implementation. In the ‘‘Totals’’ 

worksheet, the ‘‘Totals’’ column 

provides the estimated total cost for the 

increased payroll for the first 10 years 

after implementation. The ‘‘Emps’’ 

column provides the sum of Wage 

Grade, Wage Leader, and Wage 

Supervisor employees in the county. 

The bottom row of each wage area 

section of Attachment 1 provides the 

total payroll costs associated with this 

rule for all counties being moved to the 

wage area listed. Estimated costs for the 

second through tenth years were 

calculated using a 2 percent adjustment 

factor, in line with the President’s 

budget plan for FY 2025 and an 

estimated 36.7 percent fringe benefit 

factor. As these are only estimates, 

actual future costs will vary. 

Future wage schedules will be based 

on local wage surveys that will include 

survey counties that were previously 

survey counties in wage areas with 

different prevailing wage levels. As 

such, the measurable prevailing wage 

levels within a wage area are likely to 

be different than those measured in the 

most recent local wage surveys. For 

instance, starting with new full-scale 

wage surveys beginning in October 

2027, the proposed San Jose-San 

Francisco-Oakland wage area will 

include Monterey and San Joaquin 

Counties, CA, in its wage surveys. It is 

possible that inclusion of these counties 

in an enlarged San Jose-San 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 

will be surveyed, it is not certain what, 

if any, impact will occur on wage survey 

results until a full-scale wage survey has 

been completed in the expanded wage 

area. It is reasonable to anticipate that 

adding counties with lower prevailing 

wage levels to a survey area with higher 

prevailing wage levels will result in 

somewhat lower wage survey findings 

overall and lower wage schedules. 

However, the floor increase provision 

that has been included in 

appropriations law each year since FY 

2004 would offset that impact if the 

provision is continued. As long as a 

floor increase provision provides for a 

minimum annual adjustment amount 

for a wage schedule, the combining of 

counties with lower prevailing wage 

levels into a wage area with higher 

prevailing wage levels will have no 

impact on the payable wage rates in that 

wage area should the floor increase 

amount continue to be higher than the 

pay cap amount. In this scenario, the 

additional payroll costs that agencies 

would incur in Monterey and San 

Joaquin counties would be because 

employees there would be paid wage 

rates from the San Jose-San FranciscoOakland wage schedule that are higher 

than wage rates applicable in their 

current wage areas. 

Agency payroll providers will need to 

properly assign official duty station 

codes within their systems for impacted 

employees by reassigning the codes 

from one FWS wage schedule to 

another. Although around 17,000 FWS 

employees will be affected by these 

changes in wage area boundaries, there 

are far fewer official duty station codes 

that will need to be updated by the four 

major payroll providers in their payroll 

systems. OPM estimates this number of 

impacted official duty station codes to 

be around 254. This is not anticipated 

to be a significant additional cost 

burden or to require additional funding 

as agency payroll systems are often 

updated as a routine business matter as 

pay area boundaries change and as wage 

schedules are updated every year. For 

example, the payroll providers 

implemented changes in GS locality pay 

area affecting around 34,000 employees 

in January 2024. However, OPM 

estimates that implementing payroll 

changes in terms of the time required for 

the 254 official duty station codes across 

the four payroll providers at a cost of 

around $7,800. OPM calculated this 

estimate by allowing for ten minutes to 

manually update each duty station 

change in each of the four payroll 

systems by a mid-range payroll 

processing staff member with an average 

salary and benefits cost of around 

$96,000 per year, which equates to a 

cost of around $7.66 per change per 

provider. OPM invited public comment 

on this estimate, but no comments were 

received. 

5. Benefits 

This rule has important benefits. 

Employees have expressed 

understandable equity concerns since 

the mid-1990s about why there are 

different geographic boundaries defined 

for the Federal Government’s two main 

pay systems. Over the years, Members of 

Congress have expressed interest in this 

issue and written letters in support of 

aligning FWS wage areas and GS 

locality pay areas. FPRAC heard 

testimony from Congressional staff, 

local union and management 

representatives, and employees in 

support of better aligning the geographic 

boundaries of FWS wage areas and GS 

locality pay areas, including testimony 

that a high rate of commuting 

interchange—which, for example, 

triggered Monroe County’s reassignment 

from the Rest of U.S. GS locality pay 

area to the New York-Newark GS 

locality pay area in 2005—should also 

be reflected in the FWS wage areas. This 

final rule will address most of the 

internal equity and fairness concerns 

found across the country that are 

unnecessarily damaging to employee 

morale when an alternative and 

defensible approach is possible. This 

can also be accomplished at a relatively 

low cost of an increase in base payroll 

of only around 1 percent. FPRAC 

acknowledged that, although around 

2,000 FWS employees will be placed on 

lower wage schedules as a result of 

these actions, around 1,870 of these 

employees will be entitled to pay 

retention. Accordingly, FPRAC found 

that the benefits to FWS employees 

overall outweighed the concerns 

regarding the limited number of 

positions negatively impacted. 

Further, FPRAC members, agency and 

union representatives, and employees 

expressed concerns at public FPRAC 

meetings that the FWS no longer reflects 

modern compensation practices for 

prevailing rate tradespeople and 

laborers and that updating the wage area 

definition criteria to be more similar to 

the GS locality pay area criteria will be 

a step in the right direction to begin 

modernizing the prevailing rate system. 

Despite the projection of continuing 

application of the floor and pay cap 

provisions to the FWS wage schedules, 

implementation of these changes to the 

criteria used to define and maintain 

FWS wage areas, in particular adopting 

the use of employment interchange 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
7438 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

measures and CSA definitions, will 

better position the FWS to align with 

regional prevailing wage practices 

because they better reflect current 

commuting, employment, and 

recruitment patterns. 

6. Alternatives 

Over the course of 15 working group 

meetings, at which there was extensive 

discussion, FPRAC considered various 

options to address the FWS and GS pay 

equity concerns expressed in the House 

Report language. These discussions had 

been taking place for many years 

previously without consensus. One 

alternative to the approach adopted in 

this final rule was to make no changes 

to the current FWS wage areas and 

encourage agencies to use pay 

flexibilities when challenged with 

recruitment issues. However, 

maintaining the status quo will not 

resolve employee equity concerns or 

address the interests expressed by 

Congress. 

Another option considered was 

conducting piecemeal reviews of wage 

areas using the existing wage area 

definition criteria (distance, commuting, 

demographic), only when employees or 

other stakeholders raise concerns. This 

has been FPRAC’s approach since 2012, 

but it has not addressed the 

fundamental inequities resulting from 

managing the FWS and GS with 

different sets of rules (i.e., different 

criteria) for defining pay area 

boundaries. The current regulatory 

criteria were not designed to allow for 

changing wage area definitions absent 

factors such as military base closures or 

changes in MSAs. 

FPRAC also considered adding CSA 

definitions alone as a criterion to the 

existing regulatory criteria in 5 CFR 

532.211. OMB published new CSA and 

MSA definitions on July 21, 2023, in 

OMB Bulletin 23–01, and FPRAC has a 

practice of using new MSA definitions 

when they become available. The new 

OMB definitions and an analysis of the 

current FWS regulatory criteria to define 

wage areas did not appear to address 

some of the most contentious counties 

under FPRAC discussion as those 

counties still did not align with the GS 

locality pay areas. For example, the 

2023 OMB definitions moved Monroe 

County, PA, from the New 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 

Allentown-Bethlehem-East Stroudsburg, 

PA-NJ, CSA. Both Monroe County and 

the Allentown CSA are part of the New 

York locality pay area for GS employees. 

Based on the updated OMB Bulletin and 

applying the criteria in this final rule, 

Monroe County will be defined to a 

wage area consistent with the rest of the 

Allentown-Bethlehem-East Stroudsburg, 

PA-NJ, CSA. Applying employment 

interchange analysis to better recognize 

regional commuting patterns helps to 

clarify where best to define the 

Allentown-Bethlehem-East Stroudsburg, 

PA-NJ, CSA and results in the 

Allentown-Bethlehem-East Stroudsburg, 

PA-NJ, CSA, including Monroe County, 

being defined as part of the New York, 

Newark wage area. 

The committee also considered and 

decided against merely adopting and 

applying GS locality pay area 

definitions to FWS wage areas. For GS 

locality pay purposes, pay disparities 

with the non-Federal sector for GS 

employees stationed in a locality pay 

area are based on data for the entire 

locality pay area. The FWS continues 

the concept of using survey areas and 

areas of application because FWS 

employees tend to be employed in 

greater numbers at military installations 

and VA Medical Centers and not 

throughout an entire wage area. In 

contrast, GS employees are widely 

distributed geographically at all 

agencies. 

FPRAC’s members had disparate 

views on how future wage schedules 

based on these geographic changes in 

wage area definitions could best reflect 

prevailing wage levels. One view held 

that combining the survey areas of two 

wage areas together should result in an 

entirely new wage schedule being 

applied to FWS employees in the 

expanded wage area. OPM determined 

that this method was not appropriate 

given that the floor increase provision in 

appropriations law each year requires 

that wage schedules be adjusted 

upwards by the same percentage 

adjustment amount received by GS 

employees in the area. It would also be 

contrary to longstanding precedent to 

ignore statutory pay cap and floor 

increase provisions when wage survey 

areas change. Consequently, in this rule 

OPM first adds counties moving 

between wage areas to the area of 

application of the gaining wage area and 

subsequently adds counties to survey 

areas for the next full-scale wage survey 

in the wage area. 

These regulations will not 

immediately expand survey areas for 

continuing, but enlarged, wage areas. 

Instead, abolished wage areas will first 

be merged into the areas of application 

of continuing wage areas and 

subsequently added to the survey areas 

for the next regularly scheduled full 

wage surveys beginning in FY 2026, FY 

2027, and FY 2028. This will provide 

DOD time to allocate and train 

appropriate additional staff, if needed. 

OPM invited comment on any 

additional alternative approaches that 

could be considered that are in 

accordance with the permanent and 

appropriations laws governing the 

development of FWS wage schedules. 

One labor organization suggested that 

changes to FWS wage areas should be 

automatic based on changes to GS 

locality pay areas. Comment 478. 

Another commenter supported this 

suggestion. Comment 497. FWS wage 

area changes have never been automatic 

and no changes in wage area boundaries 

have ever been made without first 

receiving an FPRAC recommendation. 

This rule will not change this practice. 

FWS wage area boundaries could be 

revised through rulemaking concurrent 

with changes in GS locality pay area 

boundaries after receiving and 

approving an FPRAC recommendation 

and with the opportunity for public 

input. 

Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

Regulatory Review 

OPM has examined the impact of this 

rule as required by Executive Order 

12866 (Sept. 30, 1993), as supplemented 

by Executive Order 13563 (Jan. 18, 

2011) and amended by Executive Order 

14094 (Apr. 6, 2023), which directs 

agencies to assess all costs and benefits 

of available regulatory alternatives and, 

if regulation is necessary, to select 

regulatory approaches that maximize 

net benefits (including potential 

economic, environmental, public, 

health, and safety effects, distributive 

impacts, and equity). A regulatory 

impact analysis must be prepared for 

certain rules with effects of $200 million 

or more in any one year. This rule does 

not reach that threshold but has 

otherwise been designated as a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as 

amended by Executive Order 14094. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Acting Director of OPM certifies 

that this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities because the 

rule will apply only to Federal agencies 

and employees. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 7439 

Federalism 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the National 

Government and the States, or on 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, in 

accordance with Executive Order 13132 

(Aug. 10, 1999), it is determined that 

this final rule does not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant 

preparation of a Federalism Assessment. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets the applicable 

standards set forth in section 3(a) and 

(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Feb. 7, 

1996). 

Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 

requires that agencies assess anticipated 

costs and benefits before issuing any 

rule that would impose spending costs 

on State, local, or Tribal governments in 

the aggregate, or on the private sector, 

in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 

dollars, updated annually for inflation. 

That threshold is currently 

approximately $183 million. This rule 

will not result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or Tribal governments, in 

the aggregate, or by the private sector, in 

excess of the threshold. Thus, no 

written assessment of unfunded 

mandates is required. 

Congressional Review Act 

Subtitle E of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (also known as the Congressional 

Review Act) (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) 

requires rules (as defined in 5 U.S.C. 

804) to be submitted to Congress before 

taking effect. OPM will submit to 

Congress and the Comptroller General of 

the United States a report regarding the 

issuance of this action before its 

effective date, as required by 5 U.S.C. 

801. OMB’s Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs has determined that 

this rule meets the criteria in 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of law, no person is required to respond 

to, nor shall any person be subject to a 

penalty for failure to comply with a 

collection of information subject to the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of 

information displays a currently valid 

OMB Control Number. 

OPM plans to use an existing 

collection, Establishment Information 

Form, Wage Data Collection Form, and 

Wage Data Collection Continuation 

Form approved under OMB control 

number 3206–0036 in association with 

this final rule. OPM does not believe 

this rule will result in a significant 

change to the burden, reporting, 

recordkeeping, and other compliance 

requirements as discussed in the 

preamble of the rule. Additional 

information regarding this collection— 

including all current background 

materials—can be found at Information 

Collection Review (reginfo.gov) by using 

the search function to enter either the 

title of the collection or the OMB 

Control Number. 

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Freedom of information, 

Government employees, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Wages. 

Office of Personnel Management. 

Kayyonne Marston, 

Federal Register Liaison. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, OPM amends 5 CFR part 532 

as follows: 

PART 532—PREVAILING RATE 

SYSTEMS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 532 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5343, 5346. Sec. 

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

■ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
7440 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

levels of wage rates in each of the 

potential survey areas. 

(e) Appropriated fund wage and 

survey area definitions are set out as 

appendix C to this subpart and are 

incorporated in and made part of this 

section. 

(f) A single contiguous military 

installation defined as a Joint Base that 

will otherwise overlap two separate 

wage areas shall be included in only a 

single wage area. The wage area of such 

a Joint Base shall be defined to be the 

wage area with the most favorable 

payline based on an analysis of the 

simple average of the 15 nonsupervisory 

second step rates on each one of the 

regular wage schedules applicable in the 

otherwise overlapped wage areas. 

■ 3. Revise and republish appendix A to 

subpart B to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 532— 

Nationwide Schedule of Appropriated 

Fund Regular Wage Surveys 

This appendix shows the annual 

schedule of wage surveys. It lists all 

States alphabetically, each State being 

followed by an alphabetical listing of all 

wage areas in the State. Information 

given for each wage area includes— 

(1) The lead agency responsible for 

conducting the survey; 

(2) The month in which the survey 

will begin; and 

(3) Whether full-scale surveys will be 

done in odd or even numbered fiscal 

years. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 7441 

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. 

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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
7442 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

State Wage area Lead 

agency 

Beginning 

month of 

survey 

Fiscal year of 

full-scale 

survey odd 

or 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 to read as follows: 

Appendix C to Subpart B of Part 532— 

Appropriated Fund Wage and Survey 

Areas 

This appendix lists the wage area 

definitions for appropriated fund employees. 

With a few exceptions, each area is defined 

in terms of county units, independent cities, 

or a similar geographic entity. Each wage area 

definition consists of: 

(1) Wage area title. Wage areas usually 

carry the title of the principal city in the area. 

Sometimes, however, the area title reflects a 

broader geographic area, such as Combined 

Statistical Area or Metropolitan Statistical 

Area. 

(2) Survey area definition. Lists each 

county, independent city, or a similar 

geographic entity in the survey area. 

(3) Area of application definition. Lists 

each county, independent city, or a similar 

geographic entity which, in addition to the 

survey area, is in the area of application. 

Definitions of Wage Areas and Wage Area 

Survey Areas 

ALABAMA 

Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega 

Survey Area 

Alabama: 

Calhoun (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in January 2028) 

Etowah (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in January 2028) 

Jefferson 

St. Clair 

Shelby 

Talladega (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in January 2028) 

Tuscaloosa 

Walker 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Alabama: 

Bibb 

Blount 

Calhoun (effective until January 2028) 

Chilton 

Clay 

Coosa 

Cullman 

Etowah (effective until January 2028) 

Fayette 

Greene 

Hale 

Lamar 

Marengo 

Perry 

Pickens 

Talladega (effective January 2028) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 7443 

Winston 

Dothan 

Survey Area 

Alabama: 

Dale 

Houston 

Georgia: 

Early 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Alabama: 

Barbour 

Coffee 

Geneva 

Henry 

Georgia: 

Clay 

Miller 

Seminole 

Huntsville 

Survey Area 

Alabama: 

Limestone 

Madison 

Marshall 

Morgan 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Alabama 

Colbert 

DeKalb 

Franklin 

Lauderdale 

Lawrence 

Marion 

Tennessee 

Giles 

Lincoln 

Wayne 

Montgomery-Selma 

Survey Area 

Alabama 

Autauga 

Elmore 

Montgomery 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Alabama 

Bullock 

Butler 

Crenshaw 

Dallas 

Lowndes 

Pike 

Wilcox 

ALASKA 

Anchorage 

Survey Area 

Alaska: (boroughs and the areas within a 24- 

kilometer (15-mile) radius of their corporate 

city limits) 

Anchorage 

Fairbanks 

Juneau 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Alaska: 

State of Alaska (except special area 

schedules) 

ARIZONA 

Northeastern Arizona 

Survey Area 

Arizona: 

Apache 

Coconino 

Navajo 

New Mexico: 

San Juan 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Colorado: 

Dolores 

Gunnison (Only includes the Curecanti 

National Recreation Area portion) 

La Plata 

Montezuma 

Montrose 

Ouray 

San Juan 

San Miguel 

Utah: 

Garfield (Only includes the Bryce Canyon, 

Capitol Reef, and Canyonlands National 

Parks portions) 

Grand (Only includes the Arches and 

Canyonlands National Parks portions) 

Iron (Only includes the Cedar Breaks 

National Monument and Zion National 

Park portions) 

Kane 

San Juan 

Washington 

Wayne (Only includes the Capitol Reef and 

Canyonlands National Parks portions) 

Phoenix 

Survey Area 

Arizona: 

Gila 

Maricopa 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Arizona: 

Pinal 

Yavapai 

Tucson 

Survey Area 

Arizona: 

Pima 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Arizona: 

Cochise 

Graham 

Greenlee 

Santa Cruz 

ARKANSAS 

Little Rock 

Survey Area 

Arkansas: 

Jefferson 

Pulaski 

Saline 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Arkansas: 

Arkansas 

Ashley 

Baxter 

Boone 

Bradley 

Calhoun 

Chicot 

Clark 

Clay 

Cleburne 

Cleveland 

Conway 

Dallas 

Desha 

Drew 

Faulkner 

Franklin (Does not include the Fort Chaffee 

portion) 

Fulton 

Garland 

Grant 

Greene 

Hot Spring 

Independence 

Izard 

Jackson 

Johnson 

Lawrence 

Lincoln 

Logan 

Lonoke 

Marion 

Monroe 

Montgomery 

Newton 

Ouachita 

Perry 

Phillips 

Pike 

Polk 

Pope 

Prairie 

Randolph 

Scott 

Searcy 

Sharp 

Stone 

Union 

Van Buren 

White 

Woodruff 

Yell 

CALIFORNIA 

Fresno 

Survey Area 

California: 

Fresno 

Kings 

Tulare 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

California: 

Madera 

Mariposa 

Tuolumne (Only includes the Yosemite 

National Park portion) 

Los Angeles 

Survey Area 

California: 

Kern (effective for wage surveys beginning 

in November 2026) 

Los Angeles 

Orange (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in November 2026) 

Riverside (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in November 2026) 

San Bernardino (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in November 2026) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
7444 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

Santa Barbara (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in November 2026) 

Ventura (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in November 2026) 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

California: 

Inyo (Only includes the China Lake Naval 

Weapons Center portion) 

Kern (effective until November 2026) 

Orange (effective until November 2026) 

Riverside (effective until November 2026) 

San Bernardino (effective until November 

2026) 

Santa Barbara (effective until November 

2026) 

San Luis Obispo 

Ventura (effective until November 2026) 

Sacramento-Roseville 

Survey Area 

California: 

Placer 

Sacramento 

Sutter 

Yolo 

Yuba 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

California: 

Amador 

Butte 

Colusa 

El Dorado 

Glenn 

Humboldt 

Lake 

Modoc 

Nevada 

Plumas 

Shasta 

Sierra 

Siskiyou 

Tehama 

Trinity 

San Diego 

Survey Area 

California: 

San Diego 

Arizona: 

Yuma (effective for wage surveys beginning 

in September 2027) 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Arizona: 

La Paz 

Yuma (effective until September 2027) 

California: 

Imperial 

San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 

Survey Area 

California: 

Alameda 

Contra Costa 

Marin 

Monterey (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in October 2027) 

Napa 

San Joaquin (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in October 2027) 

San Francisco 

San Mateo 

Santa Clara 

Solano 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

California: 

Calaveras 

Mendocino 

Merced 

Monterey (effective until October 2027) 

San Benito 

San Joaquin (effective until October 2027) 

Santa Cruz 

Sonoma 

Stanislaus 

Tuolumne (Does not include the Yosemite 

National Park portion) 

COLORADO 

Denver 

Survey Area 

Colorado: 

Adams 

Arapahoe 

Boulder 

Broomfield 

Denver 

Douglas 

Gilpin 

Jefferson 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Colorado: 

Clear Creek 

Eagle 

Elbert 

Garfield 

Grand 

Jackson 

Lake 

Larimer 

Lincoln 

Logan 

Morgan 

Park 

Phillips 

Pitkin 

Rio Blanco 

Routt 

Sedgwick 

Summit 

Washington 

Weld 

Yuma 

Southern Colorado 

Survey Area 

Colorado: 

El Paso 

Pueblo 

Teller 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Colorado: 

Alamosa 

Archuleta 

Baca 

Bent 

Chaffee 

Cheyenne 

Conejos 

Costilla 

Crowley 

Custer 

Delta 

Fremont 

Gunnison (does not includes the Curecanti 

National Recreation Area portion) 

Hinsdale 

Huerfano 

Kiowa 

Kit Carson 

Las Animas 

Mineral 

Otero 

Prowers 

Rio Grande 

Saguache 

CONNECTICUT 

New Haven-Hartford 

Survey Area 

Connecticut: 

Hartford 

New Haven 

New London (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in April 2027) 

Massachusetts: 

Hampden (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in April 2027) 

Hampshire (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in April 2027) 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Connecticut: 

Litchfield 

Middlesex 

New London (effective until April 2027) 

Tolland 

Windham 

Massachusetts: 

Franklin 

Hampden (effective until April 2027) 

Hampshire (effective until April 2027) 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Washington-Baltimore-Arlington 

Survey Area 

District of Columbia: 

Washington, DC 

Maryland (city): 

Baltimore (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in July 2027) 

Maryland (counties): 

Anne Arundel (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in July 2027) 

Baltimore (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in July 2027) 

Carroll (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in July 2027) 

Charles 

Frederick 

Harford (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in July 2027) 

Howard (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in July 2027) 

Montgomery 

Prince George’s 

Washington (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in July 2027) 

Pennsylvania: 

Franklin (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in July 2027) 

Virginia (cities): 

Alexandria 

Fairfax 

Falls Church 

Manassas 

Manassas Park 

Virginia (counties): 

Arlington 

Fairfax 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 7445 

King George (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in July 2027) 

Loudoun 

Prince William 

West Virginia: 

Berkley (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in July 2027) 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Maryland (city): 

Baltimore (effective until July 2027) 

Maryland (counties) 

Allegany 

Anne Arundel (effective until July 2027) 

Baltimore (effective until July 2027) 

Calvert 

Caroline 

Carroll (effective until July 2027) 

Dorchester 

Garrett 

Harford (effective until July 2027) 

Howard (effective until July 2027) 

Kent 

Queen Anne’s 

St. Mary’s 

Talbot 

Washington (effective until July 2027) 

Pennsylvania: 

Franklin (effective until July 2027) 

Fulton 

Virginia (cities): 

Fredericksburg 

Harrisonburg 

Staunton 

Waynesboro 

Winchester 

Virginia (counties): 

Albemarle (Only includes the Shenandoah 

National Park portion) 

Augusta 

Caroline 

Clarke 

Culpeper 

Fauquier 

Frederick 

Greene (Only includes the Shenandoah 

National Park portion) 

King George (effective until July 2027) 

Madison 

Orange 

Page 

Rappahannock 

Rockingham 

Shenandoah 

Spotsylvania 

Stafford 

Warren 

Westmoreland 

West Virginia: 

Berkeley (effective until July 2027) 

Hampshire 

Hardy 

Jefferson 

Mineral 

Morgan 

FLORIDA 

Cocoa-Beach 

Survey Area 

Florida: 

Brevard 

Area of Application. Survey area. 

Jacksonville 

Survey Area 

Florida: 

Alachua 

Baker 

Clay 

Columbia (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in January 2027) 

Duval 

Nassau 

Orange (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in January 2027) 

St. Johns 

Sumter (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in January 2027) 

Georgia: 

Camden 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Florida: 

Bradford 

Citrus 

Columbia (effective until January 2027) 

Dixie 

Flagler 

Gilchrist 

Hamilton 

Lafayette 

Lake 

Levy 

Madison 

Marion 

Orange (effective until January 2027) 

Osceola 

Polk 

Putnam 

Seminole 

Sumter (effective until January 2027) 

Suwannee 

Taylor 

Union 

Volusia 

Georgia: 

Charlton 

Miami-Port St. Lucie-Fort Lauderdale 

Survey Area 

Florida: 

Miami-Dade 

Palm Beach (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in May 2027) 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Florida: 

Broward 

Collier 

Glades 

Hendry 

Highlands 

Indian River 

Lee 

Martin 

Monroe 

Okeechobee 

Palm Beach (effective until May 2027) 

St. Lucie 

Area of Application. Survey area. 

Panama City 

Survey Area 

Florida: 

Bay 

Gulf 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Florida: 

Calhoun 

Franklin 

Gadsden 

Holmes 

Jackson 

Jefferson 

Leon 

Liberty 

Wakulla 

Washington 

Georgia: 

Decatur 

Pensacola 

Survey Area 

Florida: 

Escambia 

Santa Rosa 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Alabama: 

Baldwin 

Clarke 

Conecuh 

Covington 

Escambia 

Mobile 

Monroe 

Washington 

Florida: 

Okaloosa 

Walton 

Tampa-St. Petersburg 

Survey Area 

Florida: 

Hillsborough 

Pasco 

Pinellas 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Florida: 

Charlotte 

De Soto 

Hardee 

Hernando 

Manatee 

Sarasota 

GEORGIA 

Albany 

Survey Area 

Georgia: 

Colquitt 

Dougherty 

Lee 

Mitchell 

Worth 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Georgia: 

Atkinson 

Baker 

Ben Hill 

Berrien 

Brooks 

Calhoun 

Clinch 

Coffee 

Cook 

Echols 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
7446 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

Grady 

Irwin 

Lanier 

Lowndes 

Quitman 

Randolph 

Schley 

Sumter 

Terrell 

Thomas 

Tift 

Turner 

Ware 

Webster 

Atlanta 

Survey Area 

Alabama: 

Lee (effective for wage surveys beginning 

in May 2027) 

Macon (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in May 2027) 

Russell (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in May 2027) 

Georgia: 

Butts 

Chattahoochee (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in May 2027) 

Cherokee 

Clayton 

Cobb 

De Kalb 

Douglas 

Fayette 

Forsyth 

Fulton 

Gwinnett 

Henry 

Muscogee (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in May 2027) 

Newton 

Paulding 

Rockdale 

Walton 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Alabama: 

Chambers 

Cherokee 

Cleburne 

Lee (effective until May 2027) 

Macon (effective until May 2027) 

Randolph 

Russell (effective until May 2027) 

Tallapoosa 

Georgia: 

Banks 

Barrow 

Bartow 

Carroll 

Chattahoochee (effective until May 2027) 

Clarke 

Coweta 

Dawson 

Elbert 

Fannin 

Floyd 

Franklin 

Gilmer 

Gordon 

Greene 

Habersham 

Hall 

Haralson 

Harris 

Hart 

Heard 

Jackson 

Jasper 

Lamar 

Lumpkin 

Madison 

Marion 

Meriwether 

Morgan 

Muscogee (effective until May 2027) 

Oconee 

Oglethorpe 

Pickens 

Pike 

Polk 

Putnam 

Rabun 

Spalding 

Stephens 

Stewart 

Talbot 

Taliaferro 

Towns 

Troup 

Union 

Upson 

White 

Augusta 

Survey Area 

Georgia: 

Columbia 

McDuffie 

Richmond 

South Carolina: 

Aiken 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Georgia: 

Burke 

Emanuel 

Glascock 

Jefferson 

Jenkins 

Lincoln 

Warren 

Wilkes 

South Carolina: 

Allendale 

Bamberg 

Barnwell 

Edgefield 

McCormick 

Macon 

Survey Area 

Georgia: 

Bibb 

Houston 

Jones 

Laurens 

Twiggs 

Wilkinson 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Georgia: 

Baldwin 

Bleckley 

Crawford 

Crisp 

Dodge 

Dooly 

Hancock 

Johnson 

Macon 

Monroe 

Montgomery 

Peach 

Pulaski 

Taylor 

Telfair 

Treutlen 

Washington 

Wheeler 

Wilcox 

Savannah 

Survey Area 

Georgia: 

Bryan 

Chatham 

Effingham 

Liberty 

South Carolina: 

Beaufort (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in May 2027) 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Georgia: 

Appling 

Bacon 

Brantley 

Bulloch 

Candler 

Evans 

Glynn 

Jeff Davis 

Long 

McIntosh 

Pierce 

Screven 

Tattnall 

Toombs 

Wayne 

South Carolina: 

Beaufort (effective until May 2027) 

Hampton 

Jasper 

HAWAII 

Hawaii 

Survey Area 

Hawaii: 

Honolulu 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Hawaii: 

Hawaii 

Kauai (includes the islands of Kauai and 

Niihau) 

Maui (includes the islands of Maui, 

Molokai, Lanai, and Kahoolawe) 

IDAHO 

Boise 

Survey Area 

Idaho: 

Ada 

Boise 

Canyon 

Elmore 

Gem 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Idaho: 

Adams 

Bannock 

Bear Lake 

Bingham 

Blaine 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 7447 

Bonneville 

Butte 

Camas 

Caribou 

Cassia 

Clark 

Custer 

Fremont 

Gooding 

Jefferson 

Jerome 

Lemhi 

Lincoln 

Madison 

Minidoka 

Oneida 

Owyhee 

Payette 

Power 

Teton 

Twin Falls 

Valley 

Washington 

ILLINOIS 

Bloomington-Pontiac 

Survey Area 

Illinois: 

Champaign 

Menard 

Sangamon 

Vermilion 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Illinois: 

Christian 

Clark 

Coles 

Crawford 

Cumberland 

De Witt 

Douglas 

Edgar 

Ford 

Jasper 

Livingston 

Logan 

McLean 

Macon 

Morgan 

Moultrie 

Piatt 

Scott 

Shelby 

Chicago-Naperville, IL 

Survey Area 

Illinois: 

Cook 

Du Page 

Kane 

Lake 

McHenry 

Will 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Illinois: 

Boone 

Bureau 

De Kalb 

Grundy 

Iroquois 

Kankakee 

Kendall 

La Salle 

Ogle 

Putnam 

Stephenson 

Winnebago 

Indiana: 

Jasper 

Lake 

La Porte 

Newton 

Porter 

Pulaski 

Starke 

Wisconsin: 

Kenosha 

INDIANA 

Evansville-Henderson 

Survey Area 

Indiana: 

Daviess 

Greene 

Knox 

Martin 

Orange 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Illinois: 

Edwards 

Gallatin 

Hardin 

Lawrence 

Richland 

Wabash 

White 

Indiana: 

Crawford 

Dubois 

Gibson 

Perry 

Pike 

Posey 

Spencer 

Vanderburgh 

Warrick 

Kentucky: 

Crittenden 

Daviess 

Hancock 

Henderson 

McLean 

Ohio 

Union 

Webster 

Fort Wayne-Marion 

Survey Area 

Indiana: 

Adams 

Allen 

DeKalb 

Huntington 

Wells 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Indiana: 

Cass 

Elkhart 

Fulton 

Jay 

Kosciusko 

LaGrange 

Marshall 

Noble 

St. Joseph 

Steuben 

Wabash 

Whitley 

Ohio: 

Defiance 

Henry 

Paulding 

Putnam 

Williams 

Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie 

Survey Area 

Indiana: 

Boone 

Grant (effective for wage surveys beginning 

in October 2026) 

Hamilton 

Hancock 

Hendricks 

Johnson 

Lawrence (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in October 2026) 

Marion 

Miami (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in October 2026) 

Monroe (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in October 2026) 

Morgan 

Shelby 

Vigo (effective for wage surveys beginning 

in October 2026) 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Indiana: 

Bartholomew 

Benton 

Blackford 

Brown 

Carroll 

Clay 

Clinton 

Decatur 

Delaware 

Fayette 

Fountain 

Grant (effective until October 2026) 

Henry 

Howard 

Jackson 

Jennings 

Lawrence (effective until October 2026) 

Madison 

Miami (effective until October 2026) 

Monroe (effective until October 2026) 

Montgomery 

Owen 

Parke 

Putnam 

Randolph 

Rush 

Sullivan 

Tippecanoe 

Tipton 

Vermillion 

Vigo (effective until October 2026) 

Warren 

Wayne 

White 

IOWA 

Cedar Rapids-Iowa City 

Survey Area 

Iowa: 

Benton 

Black Hawk 

Johnson 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
7448 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

Linn 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Iowa: 

Allamakee 

Bremer 

Buchanan 

Butler 

Cedar 

Chickasaw 

Clayton 

Davis 

Delaware 

Fayette 

Floyd 

Grundy 

Henry 

Howard 

Iowa 

Jefferson 

Jones 

Keokuk 

Mitchell 

Tama 

Van Buren 

Wapello 

Washington 

Winneshiek 

Davenport-Moline 

Survey Area 

Illinois: 

Henry 

Rock Island 

Iowa: 

Scott 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Illinois: 

Brown 

Carroll 

Cass 

Fulton 

Hancock 

Henderson 

Jo Daviess 

Knox 

Lee 

McDonough 

Marshall 

Mason 

Mercer 

Peoria 

Schuyler 

Stark 

Tazewell 

Warren 

Whiteside 

Woodford 

Iowa: 

Clinton 

Des Moines 

Dubuque 

Jackson 

Lee 

Louisa 

Muscatine 

Des Moines 

Survey Area 

Iowa: 

Polk 

Story 

Warren 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Iowa: 

Adair 

Appanoose 

Boone 

Calhoun 

Carroll 

Cerro Gordo 

Clarke 

Dallas 

Decatur 

Franklin 

Greene 

Guthrie 

Hamilton 

Hancock 

Hardin 

Humboldt 

Jasper 

Kossuth 

Lucas 

Madison 

Mahaska 

Marion 

Marshall 

Monroe 

Poweshiek 

Ringgold 

Union 

Wayne 

Webster 

Winnebago 

Worth 

Wright 

KANSAS 

Manhattan 

Survey Area 

Kansas: 

Geary 

Riley (effective for wage surveys beginning 

in November 2027) 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Kansas: 

Brown 

Clay 

Cloud 

Coffey 

Dickinson 

Lyon 

Marshall 

Morris 

Nemaha 

Ottawa 

Pottawatomie 

Republic 

Riley (effective until November 2027) 

Saline 

Washington 

Wichita 

Survey Area 

Kansas: 

Butler 

Sedgwick 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Kansas: 

Barber 

Barton 

Chase 

Chautauqua 

Cheyenne 

Clark 

Comanche 

Cowley 

Decatur 

Edwards 

Elk 

Ellis 

Ellsworth 

Finney 

Ford 

Gove 

Graham 

Grant 

Gray 

Greeley 

Greenwood 

Hamilton 

Harper 

Harvey 

Haskell 

Hodgeman 

Jewell 

Kearny 

Kingman 

Kiowa 

Labette 

Lane 

Lincoln 

Logan 

McPherson 

Marion 

Meade 

Mitchell 

Montgomery 

Morton 

Neosho 

Ness 

Norton 

Osborne 

Pawnee 

Phillips 

Pratt 

Rawlins 

Reno 

Rice 

Rooks 

Rush 

Russell 

Scott 

Seward 

Sheridan 

Sherman 

Smith 

Stafford 

Stanton 

Stevens 

Sumner 

Thomas 

Trego 

Wallace 

Wichita 

Wilson 

Woodson 

KENTUCKY 

Lexington 

Survey Area 

Kentucky: 

Bourbon 

Clark 

Fayette 

Jessamine 

Madison 

Scott 

Woodford 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 7449 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Kentucky: 

Anderson 

Bath 

Bell 

Boyle 

Breathitt 

Casey 

Clay 

Estill 

Fleming 

Franklin 

Garrard 

Green 

Harrison 

Jackson 

Knott 

Knox 

Laurel 

Lee 

Leslie 

Lincoln 

McCreary 

Marion 

Menifee 

Mercer 

Montgomery 

Morgan 

Nicholas 

Owsley 

Perry 

Powell 

Pulaski 

Rockcastle 

Rowan 

Taylor 

Washington 

Wayne 

Whitley 

Wolfe 

Louisville 

Survey Area 

Indiana: 

Clark 

Floyd 

Jefferson 

Kentucky: 

Bullitt 

Hardin 

Jefferson 

Oldham 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Indiana: 

Harrison 

Scott 

Washington 

Kentucky: 

Breckinridge 

Grayson 

Hart 

Henry 

Larue 

Meade 

Nelson 

Shelby 

Spencer 

Trimble 

LOUISIANA 

Lake Charles-Alexandria 

Survey Area 

Louisiana: 

Allen 

Beauregard 

Calcasieu 

Grant 

Rapides 

Sabine 

Vernon 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Louisiana: 

Acadia 

Avoyelles 

Caldwell 

Cameron 

Catahoula 

Concordia 

Evangeline 

Franklin 

Iberia 

Jefferson Davis 

Lafayette 

La Salle 

Madison 

Natchitoches 

St. Landry 

St. Martin 

Tensas 

Vermilion 

Winn 

New Orleans 

Survey Area 

Louisiana: 

Jefferson 

Orleans 

Plaquemines 

St. Bernard 

St. Charles 

St. John the Baptist 

St. Tammany 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Louisiana: 

Ascension 

Assumption 

East Baton Rouge 

East Feliciana 

Iberville 

Lafourche 

Livingston 

Pointe Coupee 

St. Helena 

St. James 

St. Mary 

Tangipahoa 

Terrebonne 

Washington 

West Baton Rouge 

West Feliciana 

Shreveport 

Survey Area 

Louisiana: 

Bossier 

Caddo 

Webster 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Louisiana: 

Bienville 

Claiborne 

De Soto 

East Carroll 

Jackson 

Lincoln 

Morehouse 

Ouachita 

Red River 

Richland 

Union 

West Carroll 

Texas: 

Gregg 

Harrison 

Panola 

Rusk 

Upshur 

MAINE 

Augusta 

Survey Area 

Maine: 

Kennebec 

Knox 

Lincoln 

Area of Application. Survey area: 

Central And Northern Maine 

Survey Area 

Maine: 

Aroostook 

Penobscot 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Maine: 

Hancock 

Piscataquis 

Somerset 

Waldo 

Washington 

MASSACHUSETTS 

Boston-Worcester-Providence 

Survey Area 

Maine: 

Androscoggin (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in August 2026) 

Cumberland (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in August 2026) 

Sagadahoc (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in August 2026) 

York (effective for wage surveys beginning 

in August 2026) 

Massachusetts: 

Barnstable 

Bristol (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in August 2026) 

Essex 

Middlesex 

Norfolk 

Plymouth 

Suffolk 

Worcester (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in August 2026) 

New Hampshire: 

Rockingham (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in August 2026) 

Strafford (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in August 2026) 

Rhode Island: 

Bristol (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in August 2026) 

Kent (effective for wage surveys beginning 

in August 2026) 

Newport (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in August 2026) 

Providence (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in August 2026) 

Washington (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in August 2026) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
7450 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Maine: 

Androscoggin (effective until August 2026) 

Cumberland (effective until August 2026) 

Franklin 

Oxford 

Sagadahoc (effective until August 2026) 

York (effective until August 2026) 

Massachusetts: 

Bristol (effective until August 2026) 

Dukes 

Nantucket 

Worcester (effective until August 2026) 

New Hampshire: 

Belknap 

Carroll 

Cheshire 

Coos 

Grafton 

Hillsborough 

Merrimack 

Rockingham (effective until August 2026) 

Strafford (effective until August 2026) 

Sullivan 

Rhode Island: 

Bristol (effective until August 2026) 

Kent (effective until August 2026) 

Newport (effective until August 2026) 

Providence (effective until August 2026) 

Washington (effective until August 2026) 

Vermont: 

Orange 

Windham 

Windsor 

MICHIGAN 

Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor 

Survey Area 

Michigan: 

Lapeer 

Livingston 

Macomb 

Oakland 

St. Clair 

Washtenaw (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in January 2027) 

Wayne 

Ohio: 

Lucas (effective for wage surveys beginning 

in January 2027) 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Michigan: 

Arenac 

Bay 

Clare 

Clinton 

Eaton 

Genesee 

Gladwin 

Gratiot 

Huron 

Ingham 

Isabella 

Jackson 

Lenawee 

Midland 

Monroe 

Saginaw 

Sanilac 

Shiawassee 

Tuscola 

Washtenaw (effective until January 2027) 

Ohio: 

Fulton 

Lucas (effective until January 2027) 

Wood 

Northwestern Michigan 

Survey Area 

Michigan: 

Delta 

Dickinson 

Marquette 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Michigan: 

Alcona 

Alger 

Alpena 

Antrim 

Baraga 

Benzie 

Charlevoix 

Cheboygan 

Chippewa 

Crawford 

Emmet 

Gogebic 

Grand Traverse 

Houghton 

Iosco 

Iron 

Kalkaska 

Keweenaw 

Leelanau 

Luce 

Mackinac 

Manistee 

Menominee 

Missaukee 

Montmorency 

Ogemaw 

Ontonagon 

Oscoda 

Otsego 

Presque Isle 

Roscommon 

Schoolcraft 

Wexford 

Wisconsin: 

Florence 

Marinette 

Southwestern Michigan 

Survey Area 

Michigan: 

Barry 

Calhoun 

Kalamazoo 

Van Buren 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Michigan: 

Allegan 

Berrien 

Branch 

Cass 

Hillsdale 

Ionia 

Kent 

Lake 

Mason 

Mecosta 

Montcalm 

Muskegon 

Newaygo 

Oceana 

Osceola 

Ottawa 

St. Joseph 

MINNESOTA 

Duluth 

Survey Area 

Minnesota: 

Carlton 

St. Louis 

Wisconsin: 

Douglas 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Minnesota: 

Aitkin 

Becker (only includes the White Earth 

Indian Reservation portion) 

Beltrami 

Cass 

Clearwater 

Cook 

Crow Wing 

Hubbard 

Itasca 

Koochiching 

Lake 

Lake of the Woods 

Mahnomen 

Wisconsin: 

Ashland 

Bayfield 

Burnett 

Iron 

Sawyer 

Washburn 

Minneapolis-St. Paul 

Survey Area 

Minnesota: 

Anoka 

Carver 

Chisago 

Dakota 

Hennepin 

Morrison (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in April 2027) 

Ramsey 

Scott 

Stearns (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in April 2027) 

Washington 

Wright 

Wisconsin: 

St. Croix 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Minnesota: 

Benton 

Big Stone 

Blue Earth 

Brown 

Chippewa 

Cottonwood 

Dodge 

Douglas 

Faribault 

Fillmore 

Freeborn 

Goodhue 

Grant 

Isanti 

Kanabec 

Kandiyohi 

Lac Qui Parle 

Le Sueur 

McLeod 

Martin 

Meeker 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 7451 

Mille Lacs 

Morrison (effective until April 2027) 

Mower 

Nicollet 

Olmsted 

Pine 

Pope 

Redwood 

Renville 

Rice 

Sherburne 

Sibley 

Stearns (effective until April 2027) 

Steele 

Stevens 

Swift 

Todd 

Traverse 

Wabasha 

Wadena 

Waseca 

Watonwan 

Winona 

Yellow Medicine 

Wisconsin: 

Pierce 

Polk 

MISSISSIPPI 

Biloxi 

Survey Area 

Mississippi: 

Hancock 

Harrison 

Jackson 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Mississippi: 

George 

Pearl River 

Stone 

Jackson 

Survey Area 

Mississippi: 

Hinds 

Rankin 

Warren 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Mississippi: 

Adams 

Amite 

Attala 

Claiborne 

Copiah 

Franklin 

Holmes 

Humphreys 

Issaquena 

Jefferson 

Jefferson Davis 

Lawrence 

Lincoln 

Madison 

Marion 

Pike 

Scott 

Sharkey 

Simpson 

Smith 

Walthall 

Wilkinson 

Yazoo 

Meridian 

Survey Area 

Alabama: 

Choctaw 

Mississippi: 

Forrest 

Lamar 

Lauderdale 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Alabama: 

Sumter 

Mississippi: 

Clarke 

Covington 

Greene 

Jasper 

Jones 

Kemper 

Leake 

Neshoba 

Newton 

Perry 

Wayne 

Northern Mississippi 

Survey area 

Mississippi: 

Clay 

Grenada 

Lee 

Leflore 

Lowndes 

Monroe 

Oktibbeha 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Mississippi: 

Alcorn 

Bolivar 

Calhoun 

Carroll 

Chickasaw 

Choctaw 

Coahoma 

Itawamba 

Lafayette (Does not include the Holly 

Springs National Forest portion) 

Montgomery 

Noxubee 

Pontotoc (Does not include the Holly 

Springs National Forest portion) 

Prentiss 

Quitman 

Sunflower 

Tallahatchie 

Tishomingo 

Union (Does not include the Holly Springs 

National Forest portion) 

Washington 

Webster 

Winston 

Yalobusha 

MISSOURI 

Kansas City 

Survey Area 

Kansas: 

Jefferson (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in October 2026) 

Johnson 

Leavenworth 

Osage (effective for wage surveys beginning 

in October 2026) 

Shawnee (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in October 2026) 

Wyandotte 

Missouri: 

Cass 

Clay 

Jackson 

Johnson (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in October 2026) 

Platte 

Ray 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Kansas: 

Allen 

Anderson 

Atchison 

Bourbon 

Doniphan 

Douglas 

Franklin 

Jackson 

Jefferson (effective until October 2026) 

Linn 

Miami 

Osage (effective until October 2026) 

Shawnee (effective until October 2026) 

Wabaunsee 

Missouri: 

Adair 

Andrew 

Atchison 

Bates 

Buchanan 

Caldwell 

Carroll 

Chariton 

Clinton 

Daviess 

DeKalb 

Gentry 

Grundy 

Harrison 

Henry 

Holt 

Johnson (effective until October 2026) 

Lafayette 

Linn 

Livingston 

Macon 

Mercer 

Nodaway 

Pettis 

Putnam 

Saline 

Schuyler 

Sullivan 

Worth 

St. Louis 

Survey Area 

Illinois: 

Clinton 

Madison 

Monroe 

St. Clair 

Williamson (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in October 2026) 

Missouri (city): 

St. Louis 

Missouri (counties): 

Boone (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in October 2026) 

Franklin 

Jefferson 

St. Charles 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
7452 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

St. Louis 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Illinois: 

Adams 

Alexander 

Bond 

Calhoun 

Clay 

Effingham 

Fayette 

Franklin 

Greene 

Hamilton 

Jackson 

Jefferson 

Jersey 

Johnson 

Macoupin 

Marion 

Montgomery 

Perry 

Pike 

Pope 

Pulaski 

Randolph 

Saline 

Union 

Washington 

Wayne 

Williamson (effective until October 2026) 

Missouri: 

Audrain 

Bollinger 

Boone (effective until October 2026) 

Callaway 

Cape Girardeau 

Clark 

Cole 

Cooper 

Crawford 

Gasconade 

Howard 

Iron 

Knox 

Lewis 

Lincoln 

Madison 

Marion 

Mississippi 

Moniteau 

Monroe 

Montgomery 

Osage 

Perry 

Pike 

Ralls 

Randolph 

St. Francois 

Ste. Genevieve 

Scotland 

Scott 

Shelby 

Warren 

Washington 

Southern Missouri 

Survey Area 

Missouri: 

Christian 

Greene 

Laclede 

Phelps 

Pulaski 

Webster 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Kansas: 

Cherokee 

Crawford 

Missouri: 

Barry 

Barton 

Benton 

Butler 

Camden 

Carter 

Cedar 

Dade 

Dallas 

Dent 

Douglas 

Hickory 

Howell 

Jasper 

Lawrence 

Maries 

Miller 

Morgan 

New Madrid 

Newton 

Oregon 

Ozark 

Polk 

Reynolds 

Ripley 

St. Clair 

Shannon 

Stoddard 

Stone 

Taney 

Texas 

Vernon 

Wayne 

Wright 

MONTANA 

Montana 

Survey Area 

Montana: 

Cascade 

Lewis and Clark 

Yellowstone 

Area of Applicaton. Survey area plus: 

Montana: 

Beaverhead 

Big Horn 

Blaine 

Broadwater 

Carbon 

Carter 

Chouteau 

Custer 

Daniels 

Dawson 

Deer Lodge 

Fallon 

Fergus 

Flathead 

Gallatin 

Garfield 

Glacier 

Golden Valley 

Granite 

Hill 

Jefferson 

Judith Basin 

Lake 

Liberty 

Lincoln 

McCone 

Madison 

Meagher 

Mineral 

Missoula 

Musselshell 

Park 

Petroleum 

Phillips 

Pondera 

Powder River 

Powell 

Prairie 

Ravalli 

Richland 

Roosevelt 

Rosebud 

Sanders 

Sheridan 

Silver Bow 

Stillwater 

Sweet Grass 

Teton 

Toole 

Treasure 

Valley 

Wheatland 

Wibaux 

Wyoming: 

Big Horn 

Park 

Teton 

NEBRASKA 

Omaha 

Survey Area 

Iowa: 

Pottawattamie 

Nebraska: 

Douglas 

Lancaster 

Sarpy 

Area of Applicaton. Survey area plus: 

Iowa: 

Adams 

Audubon 

Buena Vista 

Cass 

Cherokee 

Clay 

Crawford 

Fremont 

Harrison 

Ida 

Mills 

Monona 

Montgomery 

O’Brien 

Page 

Palo Alto 

Plymouth 

Pocahontas 

Sac 

Shelby 

Sioux 

Taylor 

Woodbury 

Nebraska: 

Adams 

Antelope 

Arthur 

Blaine 

Boone 

Boyd 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 7453 

Brown 

Buffalo 

Burt 

Butler 

Cass 

Cedar 

Chase 

Cherry 

Clay 

Colfax 

Cuming 

Custer 

Dakota 

Dawson 

Dixon 

Dodge 

Dundy 

Fillmore 

Franklin 

Frontier 

Furnas 

Gage 

Garfield 

Gosper 

Grant 

Greeley 

Hall 

Hamilton 

Harlan 

Hayes 

Hitchcock 

Holt 

Hooker 

Howard 

Jefferson 

Johnson 

Kearney 

Keith 

Keya Paha 

Knox 

Lincoln 

Logan 

Loup 

McPherson 

Madison 

Merrick 

Nance 

Nemaha 

Nuckolls 

Otoe 

Pawnee 

Perkins 

Phelps 

Pierce 

Platte 

Polk 

Red Willow 

Richardson 

Rock 

Saline 

Saunders 

Seward 

Sherman 

Stanton 

Thayer 

Thomas 

Thurston 

Valley 

Washington 

Wayne 

Webster 

Wheeler 

York 

South Dakota: 

Union 

NEVADA 

Las Vegas 

Survey Area 

Nevada: 

Clark 

Nye 

Area of Applicaton. Survey area plus: 

Arizona: 

Mohave 

California: 

Inyo (Does not include the China Lake 

Naval Weapons Center portion.) 

Nevada: 

Esmeralda 

Lincoln 

Reno 

Survey Area 

California: 

Lassen (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in March 2026) 

Nevada: 

Lyon 

Mineral 

Storey 

Washoe 

Area of Applicaton. Survey area plus: 

California: 

Alpine 

Lassen (effective until March 2026) 

Mono (Does not cover locations where the 

Bridgeport, CA, special schedule applies) 

Nevada (city): 

Carson City 

Nevada (county): 

Churchill 

Douglas 

Elko 

Eureka 

Humboldt 

Lander 

Pershing 

White Pine 

NEW MEXICO 

Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Los Alamos 

Survey Area 

New Mexico: 

Bernalillo 

McKinley (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in April 2027) 

Sandoval 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

New Mexico: 

Catron 

Cibola 

Colfax 

Curry 

De Baca 

Guadalupe 

Harding 

Lincoln (Does not include the White Sands 

Missile Range portion) 

Los Alamos 

McKinley (effective until April 2027) 

Mora 

Quay 

Rio Arriba 

Roosevelt 

San Miguel 

Santa Fe 

Socorro (Does not include the White Sands 

Missile Range portion) 

Taos 

Torrance 

Union 

Valencia 

NEW YORK 

Albany-Schenectady 

Survey Area 

New York: 

Albany 

Montgomery 

Rensselaer 

Saratoga 

Schenectady 

Area of Applicaton. Survey area plus: 

Massachusetts: 

Berkshire 

New York: 

Columbia 

Delaware 

Fulton 

Greene 

Hamilton 

Schoharie 

Warren 

Washington 

Vermont: 

Bennington 

Rutland 

Buffalo 

Survey Area 

New York: 

Erie 

Niagara 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

New York: 

Allegany 

Cattaraugus 

Chautauqua 

Wyoming 

Pennsylvania: 

Elk (Only includes the Allegheny National 

Forest portion) 

Forest (Only includes the Allegheny 

National Forest portion) 

McKean 

Warren 

New York-Newark 

Survey Area 

New Jersey: 

Bergen 

Burlington (Only includes the Joint Base 

McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst portion) 

Essex 

Hudson 

Middlesex 

Monmouth (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in January 2028) 

Morris 

Ocean (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in January 2028) 

Passaic 

Somerset 

Union 

New York: 

Bronx 

Dutchess (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in January 2028) 

Kings 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
7454 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

Nassau 

New York 

Orange 

Queens 

Suffolk 

Westchester 

Pennsylvania: 

Monroe (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in January 2028) 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Connecticut: 

Fairfield 

New Jersey: 

Hunterdon 

Mercer 

Monmouth (effective until January 2028) 

Ocean (effective until January 2028) 

Sussex 

Warren 

New York: 

Dutchess (effective until January 2028) 

Putnam 

Richmond 

Rockland 

Sullivan 

Ulster 

Pennsylvania: 

Carbon 

Lehigh 

Monroe (effective until January 2028) 

Northampton 

Pike 

Wayne 

Northern New York 

Survey Area 

New York: 

Clinton 

Franklin 

Jefferson 

St. Lawrence 

Vermont: 

Chittenden 

Franklin 

Grand Isle 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

New York: 

Essex 

Lewis 

Vermont: 

Addison 

Caledonia 

Essex 

Lamoille 

Orleans 

Washington 

Rochester 

Survey Area 

New York: 

Livingston 

Monroe 

Ontario 

Orleans 

Steuben 

Wayne 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

New York: 

Chemung 

Genesee 

Schuyler 

Seneca 

Yates 

Pennsylvania: 

Tioga 

Syracuse-Utica-Rome 

Survey Area 

New York: 

Herkimer 

Madison 

Oneida 

Onondaga 

Oswego 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

New York: 

Broome 

Cayuga 

Chenango 

Cortland 

Otsego 

Tioga 

Tompkins 

NORTH CAROLINA 

Asheville 

Survey Area 

North Carolina: 

Buncombe 

Haywood 

Henderson 

Madison 

Transylvania 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

North Carolina: 

Avery 

Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Jackson 

Macon 

Mitchell 

Polk 

Rutherford 

Swain 

Yancey 

Central North Carolina 

Survey Area 

North Carolina: 

Cumberland 

Durham 

Harnett 

Hoke 

Johnston 

Orange 

Wake 

Wayne 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

North Carolina: 

Alamance 

Bladen 

Caswell 

Chatham 

Davidson 

Davie 

Edgecombe 

Forsyth 

Franklin 

Granville 

Guilford 

Halifax 

Lee 

Montgomery 

Moore 

Nash 

Northampton 

Person 

Randolph 

Richmond 

Robeson 

Rockingham 

Sampson 

Scotland 

Stokes 

Surry 

Vance 

Warren 

Wilson 

Yadkin 

South Carolina: 

Dillon 

Marion 

Marlboro 

Charlotte-Concord 

Survey Area 

North Carolina: 

Cabarrus 

Gaston 

Mecklenburg 

Rowan 

Union 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

North Carolina: 

Alexander 

Anson 

Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 

Cleveland 

Iredell 

Lincoln 

McDowell 

Stanly 

Wilkes 

South Carolina: 

Chester 

Chesterfield 

Lancaster 

York 

Southeastern North Carolina 

Survey Area 

North Carolina: 

Brunswick 

Carteret 

Columbus 

Craven 

Jones 

Lenoir 

New Hanover 

Onslow 

Pamlico 

Pender 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

North Carolina: 

Beaufort 

Bertie 

Duplin 

Greene 

Hyde 

Martin 

Pitt 

Washington 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 7455 

NORTH DAKOTA 

North Dakota 

Survey Area 

Minnesota: 

Clay 

Polk 

North Dakota: 

Burleigh 

Cass 

Grand Forks 

McLean 

Mercer 

Morton 

Oliver 

Traill 

Ward 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Minnesota: 

Becker (does not include the White Earth 

Indian Reservation portion) 

Kittson 

Marshall 

Norman 

Otter Tail 

Pennington 

Red Lake 

Roseau 

Wilkin 

North Dakota: 

Adams 

Barnes 

Benson 

Billings 

Bottineau 

Bowman 

Burke 

Cavalier 

Dickey 

Divide 

Dunn 

Eddy 

Emmons 

Foster 

Golden Valley 

Grant 

Griggs 

Hettinger 

Kidder 

LaMoure 

Logan 

McHenry 

McIntosh 

McKenzie 

Mountrail 

Nelson 

Pembina 

Pierce 

Ramsey 

Ransom 

Renville 

Richland 

Rolette 

Sargent 

Sheridan 

Sioux 

Slope 

Stark 

Steele 

Stutsman 

Towner 

Walsh 

Wells 

Williams 

OHIO 

Cincinnati 

Survey Area 

Indiana: 

Dearborn 

Kentucky: 

Boone 

Campbell 

Kenton 

Ohio: 

Clermont 

Hamilton 

Warren 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Indiana: 

Franklin 

Ohio 

Ripley 

Switzerland 

Union 

Kentucky: 

Bracken 

Carroll 

Gallatin 

Grant 

Lewis 

Mason 

Owen 

Pendleton 

Robertson 

Ohio: 

Adams 

Brown 

Butler 

Clinton 

Highland 

Cleveland-Akron-Canton 

Survey Area 

Ohio: 

Cuyahoga 

Geauga 

Lake 

Mahoning (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in April 2027) 

Medina 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Ohio: 

Ashland 

Ashtabula 

Carroll 

Columbiana 

Coshocton 

Crawford 

Erie 

Holmes 

Huron 

Lorain 

Mahoning (effective until April 2027) 

Ottawa 

Portage 

Richland 

Sandusky 

Stark 

Summit 

Trumbull 

Tuscarawas 

Wayne 

Columbus-Marion-Zanesville 

Survey Area 

Ohio: 

Delaware 

Fairfield 

Franklin 

Licking 

Madison 

Pickaway 

Ross (effective for wage surveys beginning 

in January 2027) 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Ohio: 

Athens 

Fayette 

Guernsey 

Hancock 

Hardin 

Hocking 

Knox 

Logan 

Marion 

Morgan 

Morrow 

Muskingum 

Noble 

Perry 

Pike 

Ross (effective until January 2027) 

Seneca 

Union 

Vinton 

Wyandot 

Dayton 

Survey Area 

Ohio: 

Champaign 

Clark 

Greene 

Miami 

Montgomery 

Preble 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Ohio: 

Allen 

Auglaize 

Darke 

Mercer 

Shelby 

Van Wert 

OKLAHOMA 

Oklahoma City 

Survey Area 

Oklahoma: 

Canadian 

Cleveland 

McClain 

Oklahoma 

Pottawatomie 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Oklahoma: 

Alfalfa 

Atoka 

Beckham 

Blaine 

Caddo 

Coal 

Custer 

Dewey 

Ellis 

Garfield 

Garvin 

Grady 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
7456 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

Grant 

Harper 

Hughes 

Johnston 

Kingfisher 

Lincoln 

Logan 

Major 

Marshall 

Murray 

Noble 

Payne 

Pontotoc 

Roger Mills 

Seminole 

Washita 

Woods 

Woodward 

Tulsa 

Survey Area 

Oklahoma: 

Creek 

Mayes 

Muskogee 

Osage 

Pittsburg 

Rogers 

Tulsa 

Wagoner 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Arkansas: 

Benton 

Carroll 

Crawford 

Franklin (Only includes the Fort Chaffee 

portion) 

Madison 

Sebastian 

Washington 

Missouri: 

McDonald 

Oklahoma: 

Adair 

Cherokee 

Choctaw 

Craig 

Delaware 

Haskell 

Kay 

Latimer 

Le Flore 

McCurtain 

McIntosh 

Nowata 

Okfuskee 

Okmulgee 

Ottawa 

Pawnee 

Pushmataha 

Sequoyah 

Washington 

OREGON 

Portland-Vancouver-Salem 

Survey Area 

Oregon: 

Clackamas 

Marion 

Multnomah 

Polk 

Washington 

Washington: 

Clark 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Oregon: 

Benton 

Clatsop 

Columbia 

Gilliam 

Hood River 

Linn 

Sherman 

Tillamook 

Wasco 

Yamhill 

Washington: 

Cowlitz 

Klickitat 

Skamania 

Wahkiakum 

Southwestern Oregon 

Survey Area 

Oregon: 

Douglas 

Jackson 

Lane 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

California: 

Del Norte 

Oregon: 

Coos 

Crook 

Curry 

Deschutes 

Jefferson 

Josephine 

Klamath 

Lake 

Lincoln 

PENNSYLVANIA 

Harrisburg-York-Lebanon 

Survey Area 

Pennsylvania: 

Cumberland 

Dauphin 

Lebanon 

Union (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in May 2026) 

York 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Pennsylvania: 

Adams 

Clinton 

Juniata 

Lancaster 

Lycoming 

Mifflin 

Perry 

Snyder 

Union (effective until May 2026) 

Philadelphia-Reading-Camden 

Survey Area 

Delaware: 

Kent (effective for wage surveys beginning 

in October 2027) 

New Castle (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in October 2027) 

Maryland: 

Cecil (effective for wage surveys beginning 

in October 2027) 

New Jersey: 

Burlington (Excluding the Joint Base 

McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst portion) 

Camden 

Gloucester 

Salem (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in October 2027) 

Pennsylvania: 

Bucks 

Chester 

Delaware 

Montgomery 

Philadelphia 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Delaware: 

Kent (effective until October 2027) 

New Castle (effective until October 2027) 

Sussex 

Maryland: 

Cecil (effective until October 2027) 

Somerset 

Wicomico 

Worcester (Does not include the 

Assateague Island portion) 

New Jersey: 

Atlantic 

Cape May 

Cumberland 

Salem (effective until October 2027) 

Pennsylvania: 

Berks 

Schuylkill 

Pittsburgh 

Survey Area 

Pennsylvania: 

Allegheny 

Beaver 

Butler 

Cambria (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in July 2027) 

Washington 

Westmoreland 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Ohio: 

Belmont 

Harrison 

Jefferson 

Pennsylvania: 

Armstrong 

Bedford 

Blair 

Cambria (effective until July 2027) 

Cameron 

Centre 

Clarion 

Clearfield 

Crawford 

Elk (Does not include the Allegheny 

National Forest portion) 

Erie 

Fayette 

Forest (Does not include the Allegheny 

National Forest portion) 

Greene 

Huntingdon 

Indiana 

Jefferson 

Lawrence 

Mercer 

Potter 

Somerset 

Venango 

West Virginia: 

Brooke 

Hancock 

Marshall 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 7457 

Ohio 

Scranton-Wilkes-Barre 

Survey Area 

Pennsylvania: 

Lackawanna 

Luzerne 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Pennsylvania: 

Bradford 

Columbia 

Montour 

Northumberland 

Sullivan 

Susquehanna 

Wyoming 

PUERTO RICO 

Puerto Rico 

Survey Area 

Puerto Rico (Municipios): 

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 

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) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
7458 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

Missouri: 

Dunklin 

Pemiscot 

Tennessee: 

Carroll 

Chester 

Crockett 

Dyer 

Fayette 

Gibson 

Hardeman 

Hardin 

Haywood 

Lake 

Lauderdale 

Madison 

McNairy 

Obion 

Nashville 

Survey Area 

Kentucky: 

Christian 

Tennessee: 

Cheatham 

Davidson 

Dickson 

Montgomery 

Robertson 

Rutherford 

Sumner 

Williamson 

Wilson 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Alabama: 

Jackson 

Georgia: 

Catossa 

Chattooga 

Dade 

Murray 

Walker 

Whitfield 

Illinois: 

Massac 

Kentucky: 

Adair 

Allen 

Ballard 

Barren 

Butler 

Caldwell 

Calloway 

Carlisle 

Clinton 

Cumberland 

Edmonson 

Fulton 

Graves 

Hickman 

Hopkins 

Livingston 

Logan 

Lyon 

McCracken 

Marshall 

Metcalfe 

Monroe 

Muhlenberg 

Russell 

Simpson 

Todd 

Trigg 

Warren 

Tennessee: 

Anderson 

Bedford 

Benton 

Bledsoe 

Blount 

Bradley 

Campbell 

Cannon 

Claiborne 

Clay 

Coffee 

Cumberland 

Decatur 

DeKalb 

Fentress 

Franklin 

Grainger 

Grundy 

Hamblen 

Hamilton 

Henderson 

Henry 

Hickman 

Houston 

Humphreys 

Jackson 

Jefferson 

Knox 

Lawrence 

Lewis 

Loudon 

McMinn 

Macon 

Marion 

Marshall 

Maury 

Meigs 

Monroe 

Moore 

Morgan 

Overton 

Perry 

Pickett 

Polk 

Putnam 

Rhea 

Roane 

Scott 

Sequatchie 

Sevier 

Smith 

Stewart 

Trousdale 

Union 

Van Buren 

Warren 

Weakley 

White 

TEXAS 

Austin 

Survey Area 

Texas: 

Hays 

Milam 

Travis 

Williamson 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Texas: 

Bastrop 

Blanco 

Burnet 

Caldwell 

Fayette 

Lee 

Llano 

Mason 

San Saba 

Corpus Christi-Kingsville-Alice 

Survey Area 

Texas: 

Hidalgo (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in June 2026) 

Nueces 

San Patricio 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Texas: 

Aransas 

Bee 

Brooks 

Calhoun 

Cameron 

Duval 

Goliad 

Hidalgo (effective until June 2026) 

Jim Wells 

Kenedy 

Kleberg 

Live Oak 

Refugio 

Starr 

Victoria 

Willacy 

Dallas-Fort Worth 

Survey Area 

Texas: 

Collin 

Dallas 

Denton 

Ellis 

Grayson 

Hood 

Johnson 

Kaufman 

Parker 

Rockwall 

Tarrant 

Wise 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Oklahoma: 

Bryan 

Carter 

Love 

Texas: 

Cherokee 

Cooke 

Delta 

Erath 

Fannin 

Henderson 

Hill 

Hopkins 

Hunt 

Jack 

Lamar 

Montague 

Navarro 

Palo Pinto 

Rains 

Smith 

Somervell 

Van Zandt 

Wood 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 7459 

El Paso 

Survey Area 

New Mexico: 

Dona Ana 

Otero 

Texas: 

El Paso 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

New Mexico: 

Chaves 

Eddy 

Grant 

Hidalgo 

Lincoln (Only includes the White Sands 

Missile Range portion) 

Luna 

Sierra 

Socorro (Only includes the White Sands 

Missile Range portion) 

Texas: 

Culberson 

Hudspeth 

Houston-Galveston-Texas City 

Survey Area 

Texas: 

Brazoria 

Fort Bend 

Galveston 

Harris 

Liberty 

Montgomery 

Waller 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Texas: 

Angelina 

Austin 

Chambers 

Colorado 

Grimes 

Hardin 

Houston 

Jackson 

Jasper 

Jefferson 

Lavaca 

Madison 

Matagorda 

Nacogdoches 

Newton 

Orange 

Polk 

Sabine 

San Augustine 

San Jacinto 

Shelby 

Trinity 

Tyler 

Walker 

Washington 

Wharton 

San Antonio 

Survey Area 

Texas: 

Bexar 

Comal 

Guadalupe 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Texas: 

Atascosa 

Bandera 

DeWitt 

Dimmit 

Edwards 

Frio 

Gillespie 

Gonzales 

Jim Hogg 

Karnes 

Kendall 

Kerr 

Kinney 

La Salle 

McMullen 

Maverick 

Medina 

Real 

Uvalde 

Val Verde 

Webb 

Wilson 

Zapata 

Zavala 

Texarkana 

Survey Area 

Arkansas: 

Little River 

Miller 

Texas: 

Bowie 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Arkansas: 

Columbia 

Hempstead 

Howard 

Lafayette 

Nevada 

Sevier 

Texas: 

Camp 

Cass 

Franklin 

Marion 

Morris 

Red River 

Titus 

Waco 

Survey Area 

Texas: 

Bell 

Coryell 

McLennan 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Texas: 

Anderson 

Bosque 

Brazos 

Burleson 

Falls 

Freestone 

Hamilton 

Lampasas 

Leon 

Limestone 

Mills 

Robertson 

Western Texas 

Survey Area 

Texas: 

Callahan 

Ector 

Howard 

Jones 

Lubbock 

Midland 

Nolan 

Taylor 

Tom Green 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

New Mexico: 

Lea 

Oklahoma: 

Beaver 

Cimarron 

Texas 

Texas: 

Andrews 

Armstrong 

Bailey 

Borden 

Brewster 

Briscoe 

Brown 

Carson 

Castro 

Childress 

Cochran 

Coke 

Coleman 

Collingsworth 

Comanche 

Concho 

Cottle 

Crane 

Crockett 

Crosby 

Dallam 

Dawson 

Deaf Smith 

Dickens 

Donley 

Eastland 

Fisher 

Floyd 

Gaines 

Garza 

Glasscock 

Gray 

Hale 

Hall 

Hansford 

Hartley 

Haskell 

Hemphill 

Hockley 

Hutchinson 

Irion 

Jeff Davis 

Kent 

Kimble 

King 

Lamb 

Lipscomb 

Loving 

Lynn 

McCulloch 

Martin 

Menard 

Mitchell 

Moore 

Motley 

Ochiltree 

Oldham 

Parmer 

Pecos 

Potter 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
7460 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

Presidio 

Randall 

Reagan 

Reeves 

Roberts 

Runnels 

Schleicher 

Scurry 

Shackelford 

Sherman 

Stephens 

Sterling 

Stonewall 

Sutton 

Swisher 

Terrell 

Terry 

Throckmorton 

Upton 

Ward 

Wheeler 

Winkler 

Yoakum 

Wichita Falls, Texas-Southwestern 

Oklahoma 

Survey Area 

Oklahoma: 

Comanche 

Cotton 

Stephens 

Tillman 

Texas: 

Archer 

Clay 

Wichita 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Oklahoma: 

Greer 

Harmon 

Jackson 

Jefferson 

Kiowa 

Texas: 

Baylor 

Foard 

Hardeman 

Knox 

Wilbarger 

Young 

UTAH 

Utah 

Survey Area 

Utah: 

Box Elder 

Davis 

Salt Lake 

Tooele 

Utah 

Weber 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Colorado: 

Mesa 

Moffat 

Idaho: 

Franklin 

Utah: 

Beaver 

Cache 

Carbon 

Daggett 

Duchesne 

Emery 

Garfield (Does not include the Bryce 

Canyon, Capitol Reef, and Canyonlands 

National Parks portions) 

Grand (Does not include the Arches and 

Canyonlands National Parks portions) 

Iron (Does not include the Cedar Breaks 

National Monument and Zion National 

Park portions) 

Juab 

Millard 

Morgan 

Piute 

Rich 

Sanpete 

Sevier 

Summit 

Uintah 

Wasatch 

Wayne (Does not include the Capitol Reef 

and Canyonlands National Parks 

portions) 

VIRGINIA 

Richmond 

Survey Area 

Virginia (cities): 

Colonial Heights 

Hopewell 

Petersburg 

Richmond 

Virginia (counties): 

Charles City 

Chesterfield 

Dinwiddie 

Goochland 

Hanover 

Henrico 

New Kent 

Powhatan 

Prince George 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Virginia (cities): 

Charlottesville 

Emporia 

Virginia (counties): 

Albemarle (Does not include the 

Shenandoah National Park portion) 

Amelia 

Brunswick 

Buckingham 

Charlotte 

Cumberland 

Essex 

Fluvanna 

Greene (Does not include the Shenandoah 

National Park portion) 

Greensville 

King and Queen 

King William 

Lancaster 

Louisa 

Lunenburg 

Mecklenburg 

Nelson 

Northumberland 

Nottoway 

Prince Edward 

Richmond 

Sussex 

Roanoke 

Survey Area 

Virginia (cities): 

Radford 

Roanoke 

Salem 

Virginia (counties): 

Botetourt 

Craig 

Montgomery 

Roanoke 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Virginia (cities): 

Buena Vista 

Covington 

Danville 

Galax 

Lexington 

Lynchburg 

Martinsville 

Staunton 

Waynesboro 

Virginia (counties): 

Alleghany 

Amherst 

Appomattox 

Augusta (Does not include the Shenandoah 

National Park portion) 

Bath 

Bedford 

Bland 

Campbell 

Carroll 

Floyd 

Franklin 

Giles 

Halifax 

Henry 

Highland 

Patrick 

Pittsylvania 

Pulaski 

Rockbridge 

Wythe 

Virginia Beach-Chesapeake 

Survey Area 

North Carolina: 

Currituck 

Pasquotank (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in May 2026) 

Virginia (cities): 

Chesapeake 

Hampton 

Newport News 

Norfolk 

Poquoson 

Portsmouth 

Suffolk 

Virginia Beach 

Williamsburg 

Virginia (counties): 

Gloucester 

James City 

York 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Maryland: 

Worcester (Only includes the Assateague 

Island portion) 

North Carolina: 

Camden 

Chowan 

Dare 

Gates 

Hertford 

Pasquotank (effective until May 2026) 

Perquimans 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 7461 

Tyrrell 

Virginia (city): 

Franklin 

Virginia (counties): 

Accomack 

Isle of Wight 

Mathews 

Middlesex 

Northampton 

Southampton 

Surry 

WASHINGTON 

Seattle-Tacoma 

Survey Area 

Washington: 

Island (effective for wage surveys 

beginning in September 2026) 

King 

Kitsap 

Pierce 

Snohomish 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Washington: 

Chelan (Only includes the North Cascades 

National Park section) 

Clallam 

Grays Harbor 

Island (effective until September 2026) 

Jefferson 

Lewis 

Mason 

Pacific 

San Juan 

Skagit 

Thurston 

Whatcom 

Southeastern Washington-Eastern Oregon 

Survey Area 

Oregon: 

Umatilla 

Washington: 

Benton 

Franklin 

Walla Walla 

Yakima 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Oregon: 

Baker 

Grant 

Harney 

Malheur 

Morrow 

Union 

Wallowa 

Wheeler 

Washington: 

Columbia 

Kittitas (Only includes the Yakima Firing 

Range portion) 

Spokane 

Survey Area 

Washington: 

Spokane 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Idaho: 

Benewah 

Bonner 

Boundary 

Clearwater 

Idaho 

Kootenai 

Latah 

Lewis 

Nez Perce 

Shoshone 

Washington: 

Adams 

Asotin 

Chelan (Does not include the North 

Cascades National Park portion) 

Douglas 

Ferry 

Garfield 

Grant 

Kittitas (Does not include the Yakima 

Firing Range portion) 

Lincoln 

Okanogan 

Pend Oreille 

Stevens 

Whitman 

WEST VIRGINIA 

West Virginia 

Survey Area 

Kentucky: 

Boyd 

Greenup 

Ohio: 

Lawrence 

West Virginia: 

Cabell 

Harrison 

Kanawha 

Marion 

Monongalia 

Putnam 

Wayne 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Kentucky: 

Carter 

Elliott 

Floyd 

Johnson 

Lawrence 

Magoffin 

Martin 

Pike 

Ohio: 

Gallia 

Jackson 

Meigs 

Monroe 

Scioto 

Washington 

Virginia (city): 

Norton 

Virginia (counties): 

Dickenson 

Wise 

West Virginia: 

Barbour 

Boone 

Braxton 

Calhoun 

Clay 

Doddridge 

Fayette 

Gilmer 

Grant 

Greenbrier 

Jackson 

Lewis 

Lincoln 

Logan 

McDowell 

Mason 

Mercer 

Mingo 

Monroe 

Nicholas 

Pendleton 

Pleasants 

Pocahontas 

Preston 

Raleigh 

Randolph 

Ritchie 

Roane 

Summers 

Taylor 

Tucker 

Tyler 

Upshur 

Webster 

Wetzel 

Wirt 

Wood 

Wyoming 

WISCONSIN 

Madison 

Survey Area 

Wisconsin: 

Dane 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Wisconsin: 

Adams 

Columbia 

Grant 

Green 

Green Lake 

Iowa 

Lafayette 

Marquette 

Rock 

Sauk 

Waushara 

Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha 

Survey Area 

Wisconsin: 

Milwaukee 

Ozaukee 

Washington 

Waukesha 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Wisconsin: 

Brown 

Calumet 

Dodge 

Door 

Fond du Lac 

Jefferson 

Kewaunee 

Manitowoc 

Menominee 

Oconto 

Outagamie 

Racine 

Shawano 

Sheboygan 

Walworth 

Winnebago 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
7462 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

Southwestern Wisconsin 

Survey Area 

Wisconsin: 

Chippewa 

Eau Claire 

La Crosse 

Monroe 

Trempealeau 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Minnesota: 

Houston 

Wisconsin: 

Barron 

Buffalo 

Clark 

Crawford 

Dunn 

Forest 

Jackson 

Juneau 

Langlade 

Lincoln 

Marathon 

Oneida 

Pepin 

Portage 

Price 

Richland 

Rusk 

Taylor 

Vernon 

Vilas 

Waupaca 

Wood 

WYOMING 

Wyoming 

Survey Area 

South Dakota: 

Pennington 

Wyoming: 

Albany 

Laramie 

Natrona 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Nebraska: 

Banner 

Box Butte 

Cheyenne 

Dawes 

Deuel 

Garden 

Kimball 

Morrill 

Scotts Bluff 

Sheridan 

Sioux 

South Dakota: 

Butte 

Custer 

Fall River 

Harding 

Jackson 

Lawrence 

Meade 

Oglala Lakota 

Perkins 

Wyoming: 

Campbell 

Carbon 

Converse 

Crook 

Fremont 

Goshen 

Hot Springs 

Johnson 

Lincoln 

Niobrara 

Platte 

Sheridan 

Sublette 

Sweetwater 

Uinta 

Washakie 

Weston 

[FR Doc. 2025–00555 Filed 1–13–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–39–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3