`[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 21, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7428-7462]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00555]



[[Page 7427]]

Vol. 90

Tuesday,

No. 12

January 21, 2025

Part III





Office of Personnel Management





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





5 CFR Part 532





Prevailing Rate Systems; Change in Criteria for Defining Appropriated 
Fund Federal Wage System Wage Areas; Final Rule

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

[[Page 7428]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

5 CFR Part 532

[Docket ID: OPM-2024-0016]
RIN 3206-AO69


Prevailing Rate Systems; Change in Criteria for Defining 
Appropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage Areas

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a final 
rule to change the regulatory criteria used to define Federal Wage 
System (FWS) wage area boundaries and make changes in certain wage 
areas. The purpose of this change, which will affect around ten percent 
of the FWS workforce, is to make the FWS wage area criteria more 
similar to the General Schedule (GS) locality pay area criteria. This 
change is based on a December 2023 majority recommendation of the 
Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee (FPRAC), the statutory 
national-level labor-management committee that advises OPM on the 
administration of the FWS.

DATES: 
    Effective date: This rule is effective October 1, 2025.
    Applicability date: Changes to wage schedules resulting from the 
revised wage areas of application in appendix C to subpart B of 5 CFR 
part 532 apply on the first day of the first applicable pay period 
beginning on or after October 1, 2025. Changes to wage survey areas 
apply at various times beginning on or after October 1, 2025, based on 
the annual schedule of wage surveys, as listed in appendix A to subpart 
B of 5 CFR part 532, and with the timing of survey area expansions for 
affected wage areas as noted in the wage area listings in appendix C to 
subpart B of 5 CFR part 532.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ana Paunoiu, by telephone at (202) 
606-2858 or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Overview

    There are two major job classification and pay systems in use by 
the Federal Government: the GS and the FWS. The GS covers around 1.5 
million employees, and the FWS covers around 200,000 employees with 
around 170,000 in the appropriated fund system. On October 11, 2024, 
OPM issued a proposed rule (89 FR 82874) to change the regulatory 
criteria used to define FWS wage area boundaries for the appropriated 
fund system and make changes in certain wage areas. Specifically, OPM 
proposed to amend 5 CFR 532.211 to make the criteria OPM uses to define 
the geographic boundaries of FWS wage areas more similar to the GS 
locality pay area criteria and to define revised wage area boundaries 
in accordance with those revised criteria.
    The 60-day comment period ended on December 10, 2024. OPM received 
585 comments from Members of Congress, labor organizations, several 
hundred Federal employees, and one agency. Public comments, with one 
exception, strongly supported changing the regulatory criteria in 5 CFR 
532.211. After consideration of public comments about the proposed 
rule, OPM is issuing a final rule that amends the regulatory criteria 
in 5 CFR 532.211, pursuant to its authority to issue regulations 
governing the FWS in 5 U.S.C. chapter 53, subchapter IV. In general, 
this final rule implements changes to certain wage areas, as identified 
in the proposed rule. This final rule also reflects a few corrections, 
which are described in detail after the discussion of comments, and it 
makes nonsubstantive changes to the authority citations for part 532 by 
amending the existing authority citations to comply with 1 CFR part 21, 
subpart B.

Background

    During the period GS locality pay was being introduced in the early 
1990s, FPRAC \1\ examined the differences in criteria between the GS 
and FWS, and by consensus, recommended that OPM not change the FWS 
criteria just for the sake of changing the criteria to make the systems 
look more similar. Locality pay for GS employees was a new and unproven 
concept at that time. Since then, however, the differences in 
geographic pay area boundaries for the GS and FWS have increasingly 
raised concerns among employees, their unions, local management 
officials, and consequently Members of Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee is composed 
of a Chair, five representatives from labor unions holding exclusive 
bargaining rights for Federal prevailing rate employees, and five 
representatives from Federal agencies. Entitlement to membership on 
the Committee is provided for in 5 U.S.C. 5347. The Committee's 
primary responsibility is to review the Prevailing Rate System and 
other matters pertinent to establishing prevailing rates under 
subchapter IV, chapter 53, 5 U.S.C., as amended, and from time to 
time advise the Director of OPM on the Governmentwide administration 
of the pay system for blue-collar Federal employees. Transcripts of 
FPRAC meetings can be found under the Federal Wage System section of 
OPM's website (https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/federal-wage-system/#url=FPRAC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in the proposed rule, since around 2006 the labor and 
employing agency representative members of FPRAC have discussed the 
possibility of making FWS wage areas more similar to GS locality pay 
areas, but there was not a consensus for change. The labor organization 
members expressed views that the difference in geographic treatment 
between the FWS and GS systems is inequitable. The management members 
expressed views that the differences best meet the intent of the 
relevant laws that established the two systems.
    In House Report 117-79 \2\ accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022, Congress encouraged OPM 
``to explore limiting the number of local wage areas defined within a 
GS Pay Locality to a single wage area.'' Given the magnitude of the 
potential change in policy, FPRAC established a labor-management 
working group to study various issues concerning the FWS, including 
options on how to make the geographic wage area boundaries of FWS and 
GS pay areas more similar. At its 649th meeting, on December 21, 2023, 
based on working group discussions, FPRAC recommended by a 9 to 1 
majority vote that OPM revise the regulatory criteria for defining wage 
areas so that wage area criteria approved by the Director of OPM will 
be more similar to GS locality pay area criteria approved by the 
President's Pay Agent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ House Report 117-79 can be found at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-117hrpt79/pdf/CRPT-117hrpt79.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OPM examined FPRAC's arguments and concluded that the amendments to 
5 CFR 532.211 constitute an improvement to the FWS. OPM determined that 
the changes to the regulatory criteria used to define and maintain FWS 
wage areas will address the lack of equity that arises when FWS workers 
within a given GS locality pay area are paid from two, three, or more 
different wage schedules, while the GS employees who work alongside 
them are all paid from the same salary schedule. Implementation of the 
amendments to 5 CFR 532.211 will resolve equitably several of the 
thorniest issues on FPRAC's agenda related to specific geographic 
areas, such as the Tobyhanna Army Depot and other long-standing areas 
of interest, such as folding in the Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island, FWS 
wage area with the Boston wage area, redefining Monterey County, 
California, to the San Francisco, CA, wage area, and redefining Shawnee

[[Page 7429]]

County, Kansas to the Kansas City, Missouri, wage area.

Comments Received on the Proposed Rule

Implementation Timeline

    OPM invited comments on the implementation timeline and requested 
input regarding any alternative implementation plans. OPM received over 
100 comments regarding the implementation timeline from employees, many 
of whom requested that the final rule be implemented ``as soon as 
possible.'' See, e.g., Comments 008, 174, and 492.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A reference at the end of a comment summary provides the 
location of the item in the public record. (i.e., the three-digit 
number associated with the location in the docket). Comments filed 
in response to the proposed rule are available at OPM-2024-0016-
0nnn, where ``nnn'' is the comment number. Note that the number must 
be three digits, so insert preceding zeroes as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, several commenters questioned the effective date of 
the proposed change recommending retroactive applicability. See, e.g., 
Comments 176, 187, 224, 227, and 414. OPM defines wage areas through 
regulations in 5 CFR part 532. Changes in OPM's FWS regulations are 
prospective, not retroactive. OPM lacks authority to implement this 
change on a retroactive basis.
    As OPM discussed in the proposed rule, many of the operational 
aspects of this rule could be achieved relatively quickly following 
publication of the final rule; however, one potential approach that OPM 
highlighted was to delay the effective date of the final rule to 
address budgetary constraints. OPM noted that, although the overall 
budgetary impact of the rule is relatively small, the impact at the 
local level could be considerable, making it difficult for local units 
to manage sudden, unexpected increases in payroll. Given that this 
final rule is publishing in the middle of FY 2025 and while agencies 
are operating under a continuing resolution, OPM has concluded that 
imposing the unplanned-for payroll costs 30 days after publication, in 
the middle of the fiscal year, would place undue burdens and 
potentially unmanageable costs on multiple agencies. OPM recognizes 
that the delayed implementation date has real impacts on individual 
employees, but this rule will result in long-term structural changes 
that will increase equity between FWS and GS employees within defined 
geographic areas. OPM expects that, by delaying the effective date 
until the beginning of the next FY, agencies will be able to better 
plan for and manage increased payroll expenses, leading to a more 
effective implementation of this change. OPM recognizes that a longer 
lead time (e.g., FY 2027) would further ease the transition for 
agencies; however, OPM believes that organizational interests need to 
be balanced with the impact that further delays may have on employees. 
Accordingly, balancing the governmental interests and the interests of 
employees, this final rule will be effective on October 1, 2025, the 
first day of FY 2026. Changes in pay based on the updated wage area 
boundaries will be effective the first day of the first pay period 
following October 1, 2025.
    Several commenters mentioned that the affected counties will be 
moved to the new wage areas after the new full-scale surveys. See, 
e.g., Comments 93, 236, 238, and 287. We note that only changes to the 
survey areas will be staggered across FYs 2026 to 2028 as reflected in 
the amended survey schedule in appendix A to subpart B of 5 CFR part 
532 and appendix C to subpart B of part 532. These schedule changes 
will allow the Department of Defense (DOD) sufficient time to plan for 
conducting full-scale wage surveys in survey areas that will expand 
significantly, in some cases doubling, in geographic size. As described 
in the proposed rule, a survey area county that is removed from a 
current wage area that is being eliminated and defined to a different 
wage area that is being continued but revised in this rule would 
initially be added to the area of application of the gaining wage area 
rather than being defined directly to the survey area. The county would 
subsequently be incorporated into the relevant wage area's survey area 
based on the timing of full-scale local wage surveys. For example, 
Calhoun County, AL, is currently part of the Anniston-Gadsden, AL, 
survey area. Under this rule, Calhoun County will be moved to the 
Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, AL, area of application, effective the 
first day of the first pay period following October 1, 2025, until 
January 2028. Calhoun County will subsequently be moved from the 
Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, AL, area of application to the 
Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, AL, survey area, effective for wage 
surveys beginning in January 2028, coinciding with the survey cycle for 
this wage area.
    Under this final rule, there will be an initial implementation 
resulting in wage rate increases for most affected employees. Once 
surveys have been conducted in the expanded survey areas, wage 
schedules will be adjusted. However, OPM anticipates that the long-
standing pay cap and floor increase provisions will control subsequent 
wage schedule adjustments. (See 89 FR 82875 for discussion of the pay 
cap and floor increase provisions.)

Impact on Local Businesses

    OPM requested public comments from local businesses on the 
implementation and impacts of moving the small number of FWS employees 
who would be affected by the proposed rule to different wage schedules 
and the likelihood that the changes would affect those businesses. We 
only received one comment--from a Federal employee who also owns a 
plumbing business--stating that ``the private sector pays so much more 
than the government would ever be willing to'' and that he would not be 
able to hire anyone if his business paid rates as low as the FWS. 
Comment 343. As explained in the proposed rule and further detailed in 
this final rule, over the years, the FWS goal of setting pay in line 
with prevailing private sector rates has been diminished by 
appropriations legislation provisions that have capped FWS wage 
schedule adjustments regardless of local market conditions. On January 
27, 2022, OPM approved DOD requests to establish special rates \4\ to 
establish a minimum pay rate of $15 per hour for Appropriated Fund and 
Nonappropriated Fund FWS employees, in accordance with Compensation 
Policy Memorandum (CPM) 2022-02, ``Achieving a $15 Per Hour Minimum Pay 
Rate for Federal Employees.'' \5\ This policy helped address the gap 
between FWS and private sector wage levels overall, but pay gaps are 
still substantial in different parts of the country as a result of the 
wage schedule adjustment cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The ``Special rates'' section later in this rule provides 
more information about the role of special rates.
    \5\ The ``Achieving a $15 Per Hour Minimum Pay Rate for Federal 
Employees'' memorandum may be found at https://chcoc.gov/content/achieving-15-hour-minimum-pay-rate-federal-employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FWS vs GS

Locality Pay
    OPM received numerous comments from employees supporting FWS 
employees receiving ``locality pay.'' As stated in the proposed rule, 
FWS and GS employees are paid under separate pay systems. The pay 
systems differ because they are governed by separate laws and 
regulations authorizing different types of surveys, occupational and 
geographic coverage, pay adjustment cycles, and pay ranges. The Federal 
Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 was enacted to provide locality 
pay to GS employees. FWS employees are specifically excluded

[[Page 7430]]

from coverage under the locality pay system for GS employees because 
FWS employees have their own statutory local prevailing rate pay 
system. As such, GS locality pay percentages, which are add-ons to the 
base GS pay table, by law do not apply to the FWS. Instead, through 
annual appropriations legislation, employees in the FWS receive at 
least the same annual percentage pay adjustment as GS employees based 
on where they work.
    Likewise, there were several comments from FWS employees reflecting 
a misunderstanding of the intent of this rule, with some comments 
suggesting that FWS employees will be moved to the GS pay scale. That 
is not what this rule does. We reiterate that the FWS and GS are 
different statutory pay systems, and this rule is focused to address 
the major issue identified for administrative resolution by FPRAC, 
which is to change the regulatory criteria for wage areas such that 
wage area definitions will, in almost all cases, follow the same labor 
market definitions and consider the same economically integrated 
regions as used for GS non-Rest of U.S. (RUS) locality pay areas. The 
FWS and GS will continue to be distinct and separate job classification 
and pay systems.
Cost of Living
    Numerous employees argued that amending the regulatory criteria 
used to define and maintain FWS wage areas is necessary because of a 
high cost of living. See, e.g., Comments 17, 112, 329, 459. OPM notes 
that, by law, the cost of labor within a wage area, rather than the 
cost of living, determines FWS pay rates. Similarly, GS locality 
payments are not based on living costs but on salary surveys done by 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as required by law.
Annual Pay Adjustments Timing
    Other commenters indicated that annual pay increases for FWS and GS 
employees do not coincide and that FWS employees receive their pay 
adjustments several months after GS employees. Both GS and FWS workers 
receive only one annual pay adjustment each year. FWS employees do not 
necessarily receive pay adjustments after GS employees; they are just 
on a different annual cycle than GS employees. Pay adjustments for the 
GS and FWS have separate effective dates. The annual adjustments for GS 
employees are made in January of each year (see 5 U.S.C. 5303(a)). 
Because FWS employees are paid according to local prevailing rates, FWS 
pay rates are adjusted each year based on prevailing private sector 
wage levels for similar work in a local wage area subject to pay cap 
and floor increase provisions. DOD obtains the rates paid by local 
private sector employers by conducting annual local wage surveys. The 
wage surveys are scheduled throughout the year and, consequently, the 
pay increases are effective based on when wage surveys are completed 
throughout the year (see 5 U.S.C. 5344(a)). For example, FWS employees 
in the Boston, MA, wage area receive pay adjustments that are effective 
in October each year, three months earlier in the FY than GS employees 
receive their pay adjustments. (Pay increases for FWS employees 
typically occur in October, whereas GS increases typically take effect 
in January.)
Grade and Steps Structure
    A few commenters also expressed concerns regarding the FWS and GS 
grades and steps structure. For example, one commenter said that FWS 
and GS grades do not align and another asserted that, while FWS grades 
are divided into 5 steps, GS grades are divided into 10 steps. See, 
e.g., Comments 221 and 312. As already stated, differences between the 
FWS and GS pay systems include occupational coverage and pay ranges.\6\ 
The FWS pay system covers most trade, craft, and laboring employees 
(blue-collar workers) in the Executive Branch and has existed in 
various forms based on local prevailing wage levels since 1862. The FWS 
has a multi-level job-grading system that includes the full range of 
trade, craft, and laboring jobs. Occupations often cover more than one 
grade level, and many occupations are typically represented at each 
grade. Regardless of occupation, the pay range for all regular schedule 
jobs at a particular grade level in a specific wage area is the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ OPM provides information regarding the classification 
process and job grading criteria for GS employees in Classifying 
General Schedule Positions available at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/classification-qualifications/classifying-general-schedule-positions/#url=Standards; and for FWS employees in 
Classifying Federal Wage System Positions (available at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/classification-qualifications/classifying-federal-wage-system-positions/#url=Standards) and 
Introduction to the Federal Wage System Job Grading System 
(available at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/classification-qualifications/classifying-federal-wage-system-positions/fwsintro.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FWS pay structure is primarily divided into wage grade 
nonsupervisory (WG), wage leader (WL), and wage supervisor (WS) hourly 
wage schedules. The WG and WL schedules have 15 levels or grades each, 
and the WS schedule has 19 grades. Generally, each grade represents 
progressively more difficult levels of work requiring higher levels of 
skills and/or experience. Employees are paid the full prevailing rate 
at step 2 of each grade level. Step 5, the highest step in the FWS, is 
112 percent above the prevailing rate of pay. The FWS grade structure 
is established under 5 U.S.C. 5343(e)(1). The FWS regular wage schedule 
regulations can be found at 5 CFR 532.203.
    The GS pay system covers most white-collar civilian Federal 
employees. The GS has 15 grades (GS-1 through GS-15). Again, each grade 
represents progressively more difficult levels of work requiring higher 
levels of knowledge and/or experience. Each grade has a range of salary 
divided into 10 steps. The GS grade structure is established under 5 
U.S.C. 5332(a)(2).
Hazard Pay
    One commenter noted that FWS employees ``make less money for 
equivalent work'' and ``only get hazard pay for the hours (. . .) in a 
hazard zone.'' Comment 48. Other commenters suggested that their work 
duties are more hazardous than those of GS employees. See, e.g., 
Comments 79, 295, 481. Hazardous duty pay (HDP) is paid to qualifying 
GS employees and Environmental Differential Pay (EDP) is paid to 
qualifying FWS employees. HDP and EDP have separate legal authorities. 
The legal authority for HDP is found in 5 U.S.C. 5545(d). The legal 
authority for EDP is found in 5 U.S.C. 5343(c)(4). The regulations for 
GS HDP are in 5 CFR 550.901. The regulations for FWS EDP are in 5 CFR 
532.511.
    Under 5 CFR 532.511, an FWS employee must be paid an environmental 
differential when exposed to a working condition or hazard that falls 
within one of the categories approved by OPM. Although OPM issues EDP 
regulations, each agency is responsible for evaluating local situations 
to determine if it should pay EDP. This responsibility was given to the 
agencies because each local agency and installation can best determine 
the nature of the work performed by its employees. In order to receive 
a differential, there must be actual exposure to the environmental 
condition. An environmental differential is paid either on the basis of 
actual exposure or on the basis of hours in pay status.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Information on EDP may be found in Subchapter S8 Pay 
Administration in the Federal Wage System Appropriated Fund 
Operating Manual at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/federal-wage-system/#url=Appropriated-Fund. The 
Schedule of Environmental Differentials Paid for Exposure to Various 
Degrees of Hazards, Physical Hardships, and Working Conditions of an 
Unusual Nature is listed under Appendix J of this manual (available 
at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/federal-wage-system/appropriated-fund-operating-manual/appendixj.pdf). Appendix J lists all the FWS EDP categories either 
as actual exposure categories or as hours in a pay status 
categories.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 7431]]

GS Supervisory Differential
    One commenter stated that special rates established for FWS 
employees in their area led to some GS employees making less than FWS 
employees they are supervising. Comment 330. GS supervisors may receive 
a supervisory differential when they have a higher paid subordinate 
that is not covered by the GS pay system. OPM encourages GS employees 
to discuss such matters with their employing agency's human resources 
office for any policy guidance their agency uses in similar situations. 
We note that there is no authority to pay a supervisory differential to 
an FWS employee supervising a higher paid subordinate who is under a 
different pay system.

Pay Increases for FWS Employees Impacted by This Rule

    OPM received various comments from FWS employees reflecting a 
misunderstanding of the expected impact on wages for FWS employees as a 
result of implementing this rule, with some comments indicating a ``12 
percent across-the-board pay increase.'' See, e.g., Comments 70, 83, 
137, 257, and 499. As explained in the ``Impact'' section of the 
proposed rule, the pay increases will vary considerably, based on wage 
area and grades. For example, pay increases for FWS employees in Monroe 
County, PA, who will be moved to the New York, NY, wage area, will vary 
from around $0.49 per hour at grade WG-01 to $7.85 per hour at grade 
WG-15 based on current wage levels. In some wage areas employees will 
be placed on lower wage schedules and either be covered by pay 
retention rules or experience a reduction in pay if they are not 
eligible to retain a rate of pay.

Recruitment and Retention Issues

    Many commenters indicated that the changes to the regulatory 
criteria in 5 CFR 532.211 are necessary because of recruitment and 
retention issues. For example, several commenters stated that placing 
FWS employees in the same geographic area as GS employees for pay 
setting purposes would help recruit and retain skilled candidates. See, 
e.g., Comments 50, 74, 120, and 284. While we acknowledge that pay 
increases may help address some recruitment and retention issues, the 
changes in criteria used to define and maintain FWS wage areas are not 
driven by recruitment or retention challenges, and FWS area definition 
criteria have never considered recruitment and retention criteria, just 
as GS locality pay area criteria contain no mention of recruitment or 
retention. This rule seeks to make the labor market determinations and 
pay area boundaries more similar, as recommended through National 
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) language, by using similar criteria in 
both pay systems, and to therefore advance greater equity between the 
two systems.

Comments Regarding Specific Wage Areas

Southern Missouri FWS Wage Area
    OPM received a few comments from FWS employees requesting that 
several counties in the Southern Missouri wage area be redefined to the 
St. Louis, MO, wage area (see, e.g., Comments 259 and 296) and one 
comment requesting that Butler County, MO, be redefined to either the 
St. Louis wage area or Memphis, TN, wage area (Comment 264). Some 
commenters expressed concerns that FWS rates of pay in Southern 
Missouri are lower than those received by employees who work in the St. 
Louis wage area, by GS employees, or by people who work in comparable 
jobs in the private sector. See, e.g., Comments 57, 203, 253, 263, 264, 
265, 296, and 395.
    Neither the current regulatory criteria nor the new criteria 
support the suggested changes to the Southern Missouri wage area. As 
stated in the proposed rule, OPM must receive the advice of FPRAC 
before reviewing and making any changes to wage area boundaries. Any 
management or labor member of FPRAC may introduce a subject for 
discussion by the Committee. For example, for FPRAC to consider a 
proposal to change the definition of a county, a member of the 
Committee must introduce the matter for discussion. It is the Chair's 
responsibility to approve items to be discussed on the Committee's 
agenda. FWS employees may wish to consider going through the chain of 
command within their employing agency or through their labor union 
representative to bring issues to FPRAC's attention.
    We note that local wage surveys in the Southern Missouri wage area 
continue to meet all requirements for determining prevailing wage rates 
in the local labor market. The wage schedule for the Southern Missouri 
wage area is based on data collected from Christian, Greene, Laclede, 
Phelps, Pulaski, and Webster Counties, MO. The difference in rates of 
pay between the Southern Missouri wage area and other wage areas, 
including St. Louis, MO, and Memphis, TN, reflects the fact that the 
prevailing cost of labor varies by wage area. It is not unusual for FWS 
employees who work in different wage areas to receive substantially 
different rates of pay even though they may have similar grade levels 
and job duties. For example, the wage rate for a WG-10, step 2, 
employee in the Southern Missouri wage area is $27.45, while it is 
$34.12 in the St. Louis wage area. These rates reflect the prevailing 
wage levels for this level of work in each wage survey area subject to 
annual pay cap and floor increase appropriations law provisions.
Puerto Rico Wage Area
    OPM also received two comments inquiring if these changes will 
apply to the Puerto Rico wage area and asserting that pay rates in this 
wage area are lower than in other wage areas. See Comments 246 and 312. 
As stated in the proposed rule, changes to the criteria used to define 
and maintain wage areas will not result in any changes to the Puerto 
Rico wage area boundaries or pay. Likewise, as explained in response to 
the comments regarding the Missouri wage areas, FWS employees are paid 
different wage rates based on their location since the cost of labor 
varies from wage area to wage area. The pay system is neither designed 
nor intended to ensure all FWS employees receive the same wage rates in 
all regions.
Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, Wage Area
    OPM received several comments requesting that Hancock County, ME, 
and Acadia National Park be redefined to the new Boston-Worcester-
Providence, MA, wage area. See, e.g., Comments 348, 385, and 393. 
Hancock County and Acadia National Park are defined to the Central and 
Northern Maine wage area. Neither the current nor the new regulatory 
criteria support the redefinition of Hancock County and Acadia National 
Park to the Boston-Worcester-Providence wage area. We also note that 
Hancock County is not neighboring the Boston wage area with the Central 
and Northern Maine and the Boston-Worcester-Providence wage areas being 
separated by the Augusta, ME, wage area.
    OPM received several comments requesting that Aroostook County, ME, 
be removed from the Central and Northern Maine survey area because it 
only has 15 FWS employees and does not meet the minimum 100 FWS 
employees working in the county requirement and that Hancock County

[[Page 7432]]

be added to this survey area instead. See, e.g., Comments 389, 393, and 
529. As previously mentioned, OPM proposes changes to wage areas, 
including changes to existing survey areas, based on the advice of 
FPRAC. FWS employees may wish to consider going through the chain of 
command within their employing agency or through their labor union 
representative to bring issues to FPRAC's attention.
    OPM received a comment from an employee requesting the Kennebec 
County, ME, be redefined from the Augusta, ME, wage area to the new 
Boston-Worcester-Providence wage area. See Comment 388. Neither the 
current regulatory criteria nor the new criteria support this suggested 
change.
Mono and Inyo Counties, CA
    OPM received a few comments from local government officials in Mono 
and Inyo Counties, CA, requesting that these two counties be redefined 
in their entirety to the Los Angeles, CA, wage area. See, e.g., Comment 
293. Currently, Mono County, with the exception of locations where the 
Bridgeport, CA, special schedule applies, is defined to the Reno, NV, 
wage area, and Inyo County, with the exception of the China Lake Naval 
Weapons Center portion, is defined to the Las Vegas, NV, wage area. 
Neither the current nor the new regulatory criteria support redefining 
these two counties in their entirety to the Los Angeles, CA, wage area. 
As mentioned previously, OPM proposes any changes to wage area 
definitions after FPRAC review and recommendation.
Yuma County, AZ
    One agency recommended that Yuma County, AZ, be redefined from the 
San Diego County, CA, wage area to the Phoenix, AZ, wage area because 
the Federal Salary Council recommended the inclusion of Yuma County 
into the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ GS locality Pay Area, still 
pending approval from the President's Pay Agent. Changes in GS locality 
pay area definitions will not result in automatic changes in FWS wage 
area definitions. Neither the current nor the new regulatory criteria 
support redefining Yuma County to the Phoenix, AZ, wage area. As 
already mentioned, OPM proposes any changes to wage area definitions 
after FPRAC review and recommendation.
San Diego, CA, Survey Area
    OPM received a comment from an FWS employee in the San Diego, CA, 
wage area opposing the redefinition of Yuma County, AZ, from the San 
Diego area of application to the San Diego survey area. The commenter 
argued that the cost of living is lower in Yuma County than in San 
Diego County and adding survey data from Yuma County to the San Diego 
wage area would lead to overall lower pay in the wage area. Comment 
394. As stated in the proposed rule, OPM is moving Yuma County to the 
San Diego survey area beginning in September 2027 because more than 100 
FWS employees work in this county. This move is necessary to comply 
with the requirement that OPM include in survey areas all counties with 
100 or more FWS employees. A future wage survey will determine the 
impact, if any, on wage levels that apply in the San Diego wage area 
and that would likely continue to be subject to annual appropriations 
legislation setting a cap and floor on wage schedule adjustments.
Southern Colorado Wage Area
    OPM received three comments from FWS employees in the City of 
Colorado Springs, CO, expressing concerns that FWS rates of pay in the 
City of Colorado Springs are lower than those earned by people who work 
in comparable jobs in the private sector and in the Consolidated City 
and County of Denver. See, Comments 444, 454, and 455. The City of 
Colorado Springs, in El Paso County, CO, is defined to the Southern 
Colorado wage area, and the Consolidated City and County of Denver is 
defined to the Denver, CO, wage area. Local wage surveys in the 
Southern Colorado wage area continue to meet all requirements for 
determining prevailing wage rates in the local labor market. The wage 
schedule for the Southern Colorado wage area is based on data collected 
from El Paso, Pueblo, and Teller Counties, CO. The difference in rates 
of pay between the Southern Colorado and Denver wage areas, as 
previously mentioned regarding other wage areas, reflects the fact that 
the prevailing cost of labor varies by wage area.
    Neither the current regulatory criteria nor the new criteria 
support a redefinition of the Southern Colorado wage area.
Gettysburg National Military Park
    OPM received a comment from a labor organization local 
representative at the Gettysburg National Military Park requesting that 
this installation be defined to the new Washington-Baltimore-Arlington 
wage area, and pointing out that the cost of living is the same for 
both GS and FWS employees and that FWS employees are ``earning less 
than employees at the local Sheetz and warehouses.'' Comment 365.
    The Gettysburg National Military Park is located in Adams County, 
PA, which is defined to the Harrisburg, PA, wage area, and part of the 
Harrisburg-York-Lebanon, PA, combined statistical area (CSA). The 
purpose of this rule is not to make the FWS system identical to the GS 
locality pay system but to no longer allow, in almost all cases, non-
RUS locality pay areas to be split by FWS wage areas. Please see why 
Adams County will continue to be defined to the Harrisburg wage area in 
the ``Statement of Need'' subsection below.
Assateague Island
    Two commenters stated that ``[t]he Assateague Island FWS exception 
needs to be eliminated,'' and argued that moving Worcester County, MD, 
to the Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA, wage area would lead to FWS 
employees at Assateague Island National Seashore being paid a lot less 
than counterparts working in the rest of Worcester County. Comments 333 
and 546. OPM has been defining Worcester County (excluding the 
Assateague Island part) to the Wilmington, DE, wage area and the 
Assateague Island part of Worcester County to the current Norfolk-
Portsmouth-Newport News-Hampton, VA, wage area. According to OPM data, 
there are 10 FWS employees working for the Department of the Interior, 
with a duty station in the Town of Chincoteague, Accomack County, VA. 
Since the duty station is located within the current Norfolk-
Portsmouth-Newport News-Hampton wage area, this rule will continue to 
define the Assateague Island part of Worcester County to the new 
Virginia Beach-Chesapeake, VA, wage area. As already explained, OPM 
proposes any changes to wage area definitions, other than the ones 
automatically resulting from the application of revised regulatory 
criteria defining wage areas, after FPRAC review and recommendation.
Ft. Wayne-Marion, IN, Wage Area
    OPM received one comment from a labor organization local 
representative requesting that the J.E. Roush Lake Project part of 
Huntington County and Wabash County, IN, be redefined from the Ft. 
Wayne-Marion, IN, wage area to the new Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN 
wage area. Comment 491. Neither the current regulatory criteria nor the 
new criteria support the suggested changes to the Ft. Wayne-Marion, IN, 
wage area. FPRAC may consider a proposal to review the definition of 
Huntington and Wabash Counties if a committee member introduces this 
issue for discussion.

[[Page 7433]]

Timing of the Local Wage Surveys

    OPM received one comment from an FWS employee in the Central and 
Northern Maine wage area requesting that the local wage survey order 
month in this wage area be changed from May to August. Comment 393. 
Under 5 CFR 532.207, FWS wage surveys are scheduled to begin in 
specific months each year based on the following criteria: timing of 
wage surveys in relation to wage adjustments in principal local private 
sector establishments; reasonable distribution of survey workloads for 
the lead agencies; timing of wage surveys in nearby wage areas; and 
scheduling relationships with other pay surveys. FPRAC may consider a 
proposal to change a survey order month if a committee member 
introduces a proposal for discussion.

Conduct of Local Wage Surveys

    One labor organization stated that the way local wage surveys are 
conducted needs reforming because they ``fail to accurately reflect the 
true conditions of the labor markets.'' Comment 543. Several other 
commenters also expressed concern about the results of the local wage 
surveys, saying that they fail to capture private sector wages. See, 
e.g., Comment 259. One agency stated that, in certain survey areas, 
such as Narragansett Bay area, there are challenges in identifying 
private establishments with jobs comparable with the survey jobs 
willing to participate in surveys. As previously stated, the intent of 
this rule is to make the regulatory criteria OPM uses to define FWS 
wage areas more similar to GS locality pay areas and make changes to 
certain wage areas based on the revised criteria in 5 CFR 532.211. Any 
reforms to the local wage surveys collection process need to be 
reviewed by FPRAC.

Special Rates

    One commenter requested that OPM consider special rates for Acadia 
National Park, Bar Harbor, and Mount Desert Island, in the Central and 
Northern Maine wage area. Comment 408. Another commenter requested 
extending special rates currently established in the Jacksonville, FL, 
wage area to FWS positions in Polk County, FL, which is being redefined 
to this wage area through this rule. Comment 346. Under 5 CFR 532.251, 
a lead agency with the approval of OPM may establish special rates for 
pay within all or part of a wage area for a designated occupation or 
occupational specialization and grade, in lieu of rates on the regular 
schedule. OPM may authorize special rates to the extent it considers 
necessary to overcome existing or likely significant handicaps in the 
recruitment or retention of well qualified personnel when these 
handicaps are due to any of the following circumstances: rates of pay 
offered by private sector employers for an occupation or occupational 
specialization and grade are significantly higher than rates paid by 
the Federal Government within the competitive labor market; the 
remoteness of the area or location involved; or any other circumstance 
that OPM considers appropriate. If an employing agency should find it 
necessary to establish special rates for FWS employees in the Central 
and Northern Maine or Jacksonville, FL, wage areas, it must submit data 
to DOD demonstrating staffing problems and certify the availability of 
sufficient funds to support a special rates request for specific 
occupations, grades, installations, and/or locations. If DOD concurs 
that special rates are necessary for those occupations, grades, 
installations, and/or locations, the request will be forwarded to OPM 
for review.
    One agency asked how the changes in wage areas resulting from 
amending the regulatory criteria in 5 CFR 532.211 would affect existing 
special rates. OPM sees no basis for canceling existing special rates. 
Special rates sometimes apply wage area wide and sometimes apply to a 
specific Federal installation or set of occupations within a wage area. 
If an employee who is paid a special rate would be entitled to a higher 
wage rate from a regular wage schedule upon movement to a different 
wage schedule, the employee would be entitled to the higher wage rate 
on the regular wage schedule. OPM will continue to work closely with 
the lead agency to manage appropriate special wage rates to address 
recruitment or retention challenges.

Elimination of the ``Pay Cap'' Provision

    One labor organization wrote in support of the elimination of the 
yearly ``pay cap'' provision from the appropriations legislation. 
Comment 543. As stated in the proposed rule, each year since fiscal 
year 1979, appropriations legislation has limited FWS pay adjustments 
so as not to exceed average GS pay adjustments. For FY 2024, the FWS 
pay limitation of 5.26 percent was in section 737 of division B of the 
Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024. Congress originally 
imposed limits on FWS pay adjustments during the high inflation era of 
the late 1970's for budget purposes and to ensure that FWS pay rates 
did not increase more rapidly than GS pay rates. In certain high cost 
of labor areas, GS employees were leaving white-collar positions to 
take higher paying blue-collar positions. Federal employee 
organizations have strongly opposed FWS pay limitations since they were 
first imposed, but agencies were concerned about the budget impact of 
lifting the cap system-wide in any one fiscal year. At the October 20, 
2022, FPRAC public meeting,\8\ the Committee recommended by consensus 
that OPM should seek elimination of an annual provision placed in the 
Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act that 
establishes a statutory limitation each year on the maximum allowable 
FWS wage schedule adjustment. OPM is considering available policy 
options and solutions to advance this policy change forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A copy of the October 20th, 2022 FPRAC meeting transcript 
may be found at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/federal-wage-system/federal-prevailing-rate-advisory-committee/meeting-number-642-october-20-2022.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

GS Locality Pay Areas

    OPM received several comments requesting that Lucas County, OH, be 
included in the Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, MI, GS locality pay area. 
Comments 362, 363, and 356. Two other commenters requested that several 
counties in Western Colorado be added to the Denver-Aurora, CO, GS 
locality pay area. Comments 151 and 205. The purpose of this rule is to 
change the regulatory criteria used to define and maintain FWS wage 
areas and to redefine certain FWS wage areas established for the FWS 
pay system under 5 U.S.C. 5343. This rulemaking does not address 
boundaries of locality pay areas for the GS pay system and other pay 
systems that receive locality pay under 5 U.S.C. 5304.
    One commenter wrote against the implementation of OPM's proposal, 
stating that adding outlying counties to the core GS locality pay area 
would lead to lower rates of pay for employees working within the 
Metropolitan Statistical Area and arguing that the FWS wage areas and 
GS locality pay areas should not be aligned until the GS system is 
reformed. Comment 417. This commenter also noted that FWS wage areas 
would not fully coincide with GS locality pay areas. As explained 
previously, the purpose of this rule is to make changes to the criteria 
used to define and maintain FWS wage areas and to redefine boundaries 
of FWS wage

[[Page 7434]]

areas, according to the amended regulatory criteria. This rule is not 
meant to make changes to the GS system or consider ideas for reforming 
the GS system. Lastly, as stated in the proposed rule and reiterated in 
this final rule, the new wage area definitions are not intended to 
mirror GS locality pay areas, and some differences between the 
geographical boundaries of wage areas and locality pay areas will 
continue to exist.

Corrections

    The proposed rule contained an error where Union County, PA, was 
listed in both the proposed Harrisburg-York-Lebanon (89 FR 82892 and 
82916) and Scranton-Wilkes-Barre wage areas (89 FR 82893 and 82917). 
This error occurred because, while drafting the proposed rule, Union 
County was identified as one of the four counties of the Bloomsburg-
Berwick CSA, which is within the Harrisburg, PA, wage area. Under the 
new wage area criteria, a CSA should not be split between two wage 
areas except in unusual circumstances. In this instance, OPM intended 
to make an exception to the metropolitan area criterion based on a 
comprehensive analysis of all of the wage area definition criteria.
    The Federal Correctional Complex Allenwood in Union County has been 
defined to the Harrisburg wage area since it opened in the early 1990s, 
and OPM finds no compelling reason based on the mixed nature of a 
comprehensive analysis of the regulatory criteria to move Union County 
to a different wage area. From an organizational relationship 
perspective, there are other Bureau of Prisons institutions immediately 
to the south of Allenwood in Lewisburg, PA, that will be defined to the 
Harrisburg-York-Lebanon wage area. As correctly noted in the proposed 
rule, OPM's intent was to first define Union County, PA, to the 
Harrisburg-York-Lebanon area of application and then, effective for 
wage surveys beginning in May 2026, Union County would become part of 
the survey area for the Harrisburg-York-Lebanon wage area because there 
are more than 100 FWS employees with official duty stations in the 
county. This decision required that the Bloomsburg-Berwick CSA remain 
split between the Harrisburg-York-Lebanon and Scranton-Wilkes-Barre 
wage areas as an exception to the metropolitan area criteria. The 
Bloomsburg-Berwick CSA is comprised of four Micropolitan Statistical 
Areas with some of its counties geographically closer to Harrisburg and 
some closer to Scranton and Wilkes-Barre. The employment interchange 
criterion indicates that there are only marginal differences in 
commuting rates to and from the Bloomsburg-Berwick CSA as a whole and 
the Harrisburg-York-Lebanon and Scranton-Wilkes-Barre survey areas.
    After recognizing that Union County was erroneously listed in two 
wage areas in the proposed rule, OPM is correcting the disposition of 
the following counties for the final rule. Columbia, Montour, and 
Northumberland Counties, PA, will be defined to the area of application 
of the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre wage area as noted in the proposed rule. 
Union County and Snyder County, on the west side of the Susquehanna 
River, will be defined to the Harrisburg-York-Lebanon wage area. Snyder 
County is located to the south of Union County and both counties are 
closest to Harrisburg.
    Wayne County, PA, was erroneously listed as being part of the 
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA, wage area in the ``Definitions of Wage Areas 
and Wage Area Survey Areas'' section (see 89 FR 82917). As correctly 
stated elsewhere in the proposed rule, Wayne County is moving to the 
New York-Newark, NY, wage area. (See 89 FR 82890, 82893, and 82914.)
    The area of application designation for Palm Beach County, FL, was 
erroneously listed as January 2027 (see 89 FR 82883 and 82905); 
however, the proposal correctly identified May 2027 as the effective 
date for the survey area (see 89 FR 82905). This error occurred because 
currently the wage survey order month for the Miami-Dade, FL, wage area 
is January. However, DOD had requested certain changes in wage survey 
order months to allow balancing of the wage survey workload throughout 
the year, including revising the listing of the beginning month of 
survey from ``January'' to ``May'' for the Miami-Dade wage area (see 89 
FR 82878). As such, OPM is correcting the area of application 
designation for Palm Beach County to read ``May.''

Expected Impact of This Final Rule

1. Statement of Need

    OPM is issuing this rule pursuant to its authority in 5 U.S.C. 5343 
to issue regulations governing the FWS. The purpose of these changes is 
to address longstanding inequities between the Federal Government's two 
main pay systems. While the pay systems are different in some ways, the 
concept of geographic pay differentials based on local labor market 
conditions is a key feature of both systems. The FWS regulatory 
criteria in 5 CFR 532.211 are being revised to better align FWS wage 
areas with non-RUS GS locality pay areas. The revised FWS criteria 
include CSA and micropolitan statistical area (MSA) definitions and 
employment interchange data reported by the Census Bureau that reflects 
social and economic integration in a region. Revised FWS wage area 
definitions are based on an analysis of these factors by FPRAC's 
working group and OPM's analysis of the criteria to be consistent with 
the FPRAC majority recommendation to use the new criteria. There is no 
intent that FWS wage areas will be identical to GS locality pay areas 
in all cases. In limited circumstances, such as with Adams and York 
Counties, PA, this rule will not result in all non-RUS locality pay 
areas no longer including more than one FWS wage area. The Harrisburg, 
PA, wage area, will continue to coincide with the Washington-Baltimore-
Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA and the Harrisburg-Lebanon, PA GS locality 
pay areas. Adams and York Counties, PA, are currently part of the 
Washington-Baltimore-Arlington GS locality pay area, based on a Federal 
Salary Council recommendation and Pay Agent decision to keep these 
counties defined to that locality pay area after a new GS locality pay 
area was later established for Harrisburg. Adams and York Counties will 
continue to be defined to the Harrisburg, PA, wage area because they 
are part of the Harrisburg-York-Lebanon, PA, CSA and to avoid splitting 
this CSA as will be required by the new regulatory criteria.

2. Impact

    Per available data, OPM expects these changes will impact 
approximately 17,000 FWS employees nationwide or about 10 percent of 
the appropriated fund FWS workforce. The amendments to current 
regulatory criteria used to define and maintain FWS wage areas will 
result in numerous changes in the composition of many of these wage 
areas. As a result, several FWS wage areas will no longer be viable 
separately, and the counties in those abolished wage areas will be 
defined to another wage area.
    Most employees affected by this approach will receive increases in 
pay, but some will be placed on pay retention if moved to a lower wage 
schedule or experience a reduction in pay if not eligible for pay 
retention. As such, about 85 percent of the affected employees (roughly 
14,500 employees) will receive pay increases, about 11 percent (roughly 
1,800 employees) will be placed on pay retention, around 3 percent 
(about 500 employees) will be placed at a lower wage level, and around 
1 (less than 200 employees) percent will see no change in their wage

[[Page 7435]]

level because their current wage rate is identical to the wage rate on 
a wage schedule they will be moved to.
    This rule primarily affects FWS employees of DOD and its 
components, although employees of many other agencies, including the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), are impacted. For example, the 
Anniston-Gadsden, AL, wage area will be abolished and most of its 
counties will be added to the Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, AL, wage 
area. FWS employees working in these counties will see their pay 
increased at most grades. For example, based on current wage levels, at 
grades WG-01 through WG-04 there will be no change in pay while, at 
grades WG-05 through WG-15, pay increases could vary from $0.72 per 
hour to $5.99 per hour. Likewise, based on these proposed changes, 
Monroe County, PA, will be moved to the New York, NY, wage area. As 
such, based on current pay levels, pay increases for FWS employees in 
Monroe County will vary from about $0.49 per hour at grade WG-01 to 
$7.85 per hour at grade WG-15. However, the Washington, DC, Baltimore, 
MD, and parts of the Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg, MD, wage 
areas will be combined into a revised Washington, DC, based wage area. 
FWS employees will be moved to the existing Washington, DC, wage 
schedule, which will result in placement on a wage schedule with lower 
rates, based on current pay levels, than in the current Baltimore and 
Hagerstown wage areas at lower grade levels. This will primarily affect 
employees at lower grade levels at VA Medical Centers in these wage 
areas. For example, WG-2, step 2, for the Washington, DC, wage schedule 
is currently $18.47 per hour whereas it is $24.51 per hour for 
Baltimore, which will result in around a $6 an hour decrease, based on 
current wage levels, once this final rule goes into effect. 
Nonetheless, most employees will retain their current wage rates if 
they are not under temporary or term appointments. There are around 35 
FWS employees at the Baltimore VA Medical Center under temporary 
appointments who will see an actual reduction in pay if their 
appointments are not changed to be permanent and assuming their 
temporary employment status will continue in future. At higher wage 
grades, employees in the Baltimore and Hagerstown wage areas will 
receive higher rates under a Washington, DC, based wage schedule based 
on current pay levels.
    This final rule affects about 10 percent of FWS appropriated fund 
workers, and there will be 118 separate appropriated fund wage areas 
versus 130 today. The changes are limited in scope with most FWS 
employees seeing no impact at all on their wage levels.
    This rule has potential budgetary impacts affecting three major 
Army Depots, in particular, that will need to be managed appropriately 
and effectively by employing agencies. It is noteworthy, however, that 
the overall budget impact of revising wage area boundaries under this 
final rule equates to about $140 million per year--only around 1 
percent of the current base payroll for the FWS appropriated fund 
workforce as a whole.
    As mentioned previously, 14 percent of the affected employees will 
be placed on retained pay status; however, a vast majority of the 
affected employees--about 85 percent--will receive a pay increase. OPM 
concludes that the benefits of this final rule outweigh the negative 
impacts since this rule will better equalize geographic pay area 
treatment across the Federal Government's two main pay systems. The pay 
retention law exists to alleviate potential decreases in wage rates 
caused by management actions such as changes in wage area boundaries. 
We also note that Federal agencies have considerable discretionary 
authority to provide pay and leave flexibilities to address significant 
recruitment and retention problems. Pay and leave flexibilities are 
always an option to address recruitment or retention challenges at any 
time. Agency headquarters staff may contact OPM for assistance with 
understanding and implementing pay and leave flexibilities when 
appropriate. Information on those flexibilities is available on the OPM 
website at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-and-leave-flexibilities-for-recruitment-and-retention.
    Considering that a fairly small number of employees is affected, 
OPM does not anticipate this rule will have a substantial impact on the 
local economies or a large impact in the local labor markets. As these 
and future wage area changes may impact higher volumes of employees in 
geographical areas and could rise to the level of impacting local labor 
markets, OPM will continue to monitor the revised wage areas for such 
impacts.
    As described below, OPM estimates the rule results in annualized 
transfers in the form of additional payroll of approximately $149.9 
million and annualized costs of approximately $0.9 million over ten 
years at a 2 percent discount rate.

3. Baseline

    The geographic boundaries of FWS wage areas and of GS locality pay 
areas are not the same. Around 1.5 million GS employees are in 58 
locality pay areas and around 170,000 appropriated fund FWS employees 
are in 130 wage areas. However, since 2004, appropriations legislation 
has required that FWS employees receive the same percentage adjustment 
amount that GS employees receive where they work.\9\ This provision is 
known as the floor increase provision. Consequently, the floor increase 
provision requires pay adjustments each FY that result in certain FWS 
wage areas having more than one wage schedule in effect where there are 
multiple wage areas within the boundaries of a single non-RUS GS 
locality pay area. Although a majority of FWS wage areas coincide only 
with part of the RUS GS locality pay area, many FWS wage areas coincide 
with parts of more than one GS locality pay area. In each situation 
where the boundary of a prevailing rate wage area coincides with the 
boundary of a single GS locality pay area boundary, DOD must establish 
one wage schedule applicable in the wage area. For example, the New 
Orleans, LA, FWS wage area coincides with part of the RUS GS locality 
pay area. In this case, the minimum prevailing rate adjustment for the 
New Orleans wage area in FY 2024 was the same as the RUS GS locality 
pay area adjustment, 4.99 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For FY 2024, the floor increase and pay cap provisions may 
be found in section 737 of Division B of the Further Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2024 (the FY 2024 Act), Public Law 118-47.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 7436]]

    In each situation where a prevailing rate wage area coincides with 
part of more than one GS locality pay area, DOD must establish more 
than one prevailing rate wage schedule for that wage area, and 
therefore, FWS employees within the same wage area may receive 
substantially different rates of pay. For example, the boundaries of 
the Philadelphia, PA, FWS wage area coincide with parts of two 
different GS locality pay areas--New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA and 
Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD. In this case, DOD established 
two separate wage schedules for use during FY 2024 in the Philadelphia 
FWS wage area. In the part of the Philadelphia wage area that coincides 
with the New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT GS locality pay area, the minimum 
prevailing rate adjustment was 5.53 percent and in the part coinciding 
with the Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD GS locality pay area, 
the minimum prevailing rate adjustment was 5.28 percent. OPM's guidance 
to agencies regarding FY 2024 FWS pay adjustments can be found at 
https://www.chcoc.gov/content/fiscal-year-2024-prevailing-rate-pay-adjustments.
    Furthermore, at Tobyhanna Army Depot, the largest employer in 
Monroe County, PA, more than 1,000 Federal employees paid under the GS 
work in close proximity to more than 1,500 Federal employees paid under 
the FWS. Prior to 2005, Monroe County was part of the RUS GS locality 
pay area, while the county was (and is) part of the Scranton-Wilkes-
Barre FWS wage area. In January 2005, Monroe County was reassigned from 
RUS to the New York GS locality pay area. As a result, all GS employees 
at Tobyhanna got an immediate 12 percent pay increase, of which 8 
percent was attributable to the reassignment of Monroe County to the 
New York locality pay area. This led to a deep sense of unfairness on 
the part of FWS employees at Tobyhanna which continues to this day.
    This final rule addresses most of the differences in pay among FWS 
employees within the same wage area and between FWS employees and GS 
employees working at the same location. It revises the wage area 
criteria for FWS to achieve better alignment between FWS wage areas and 
GS locality pay areas and addresses observable geographic pay 
disparities between FWS and GS employees that have been caused by using 
different sets of rules to define FWS wage areas and GS locality pay 
areas.

4. Costs

    OPM employs four full-time staff, at grades GS-12 through GS-15, to 
discharge its responsibilities under the FWS. The annual cost is 
estimated at $753,215 based on an average salary of $188,304 and 
includes wages, benefits, and overhead. This estimate is based on the 
2024 GS salary pay rate for the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-
VA-WV-PA locality pay area. We do not anticipate an increase in 
administrative costs for OPM under this final rule.
    During FPRAC discussions on methods to address the House Report 
language, it became apparent that DOD might need to hire additional 
staff members to conduct surveys in the expanded wage areas. However, 
there will also be fewer wage surveys to conduct each year because 12 
wage areas will be abolished, and their survey counties moved to 
neighboring wage areas. Currently, DOD's operating costs for conducting 
FWS wage surveys and issuing wage schedules are estimated at $12 
million, but it is reasonable to expect that additional specialist wage 
survey staff members may be needed to complete local wage survey work 
in the wage areas that will become larger in the time allotted \10\ by 
statute for local wage surveys to be completed. OPM estimates that an 
average wage specialist at around the GS-9 level with a $70,000 a year 
salary in the Washington, DC, area could have a fully burdened cost of 
$140,000 to carry out the additional wage survey work. Allowing for six 
new DOD employees would increase government costs by around $840,000 
for the first year. OPM requested comments regarding the costs of wage 
survey administration. One labor organization proposed a change in 
legislation so that wage schedules are calculated using data collected 
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics instead. Comment 478. As previously 
stated, this rulemaking amends the regulatory criteria used to define 
and maintain wage areas and redefine certain wage areas accordingly and 
cannot make regulatory changes that would require changes in existing 
law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Local wage surveys are scheduled in advance, with surveys 
scheduled by regulation to begin in a certain month in each wage 
area. The beginning month of appropriated fund wage surveys and the 
fiscal year during which full-scale surveys are conducted are set 
out as appendix A to subpart B of part 532. Under 5 U.S.C. 5344(a), 
any increase in rates of basic pay is effective not later than the 
first day of the first pay period on or after the 45th day, 
excluding Saturdays and Sundays, after a survey was ordered to begin 
in a wage area. For example, the January wage schedule is ordered in 
January and becomes effective in March of each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FWS wage surveys are conducted under the information collection 
titled ``Establishment Information Form,'' ``Wage Data Collection 
Form,'' and ``Wage Data Collection Continuation Form'' OMB Control 
number 3260-0036. DOD wage specialist data collectors survey about 
21,760 businesses annually. Based on past experience with local wage 
surveys, DOD estimates that each survey collection requires 1.5 hours 
of respondent burden for collection forms, resulting in a total yearly 
burden of 32,640 hours. (See the Paperwork Reduction Act section 
below.) The changes in wage area boundaries in this rule are not 
expected to affect the public reporting burden of the current 
information collection. This is because the number of counties included 
in future survey areas will remain very similar to those included in 
current survey areas. OPM invited public comment on this matter, but no 
comments were submitted.
    This final rule will affect the FWS employees of up to 30 Federal 
agencies--ranging from cabinet-level departments to small independent 
agencies--affecting around 17,000 FWS employees. The estimated payroll 
cost of this final rule, including 36.70 percent fringe benefits,\11\ 
is approximately $150 million when annualized at a 2 percent rate, and 
its cumulative undiscounted 10-year cost is around $1.5 billion for 
geographic areas being moved from one wage area to another as a result 
of amending the criteria used to define FWS wage area boundaries. The 
total first year base payroll cost represents around 1 percent of the 
$10 billion overall annual base FWS payroll. About half the overall 
cost will be incurred by the Department of the Army, primarily at 
Tobyhanna, Letterkenny, and Anniston Army Depots because a substantial 
number of the FWS employees who will be affected by the proposed 
changes is concentrated at these large federal installations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ DOD provides annual costs for civilian personnel fringe 
benefits at https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/rates/fy2024/2024_d.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Attachment 1 \12\ provides OPM's estimate of the payroll costs for 
the first 10 years of implementation of this rule. This document was 
developed by OPM staff who provide technical support to FPRAC. The cost 
estimate lists the wage areas that will have counties added as

[[Page 7437]]

a result of the final rule and identifies the counties being added.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Attachment 1 may be found in the docket OPM-2024-0016 on 
www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To calculate the estimated first year cost of around $140 million, 
we used Wage Grade, Wage Leader, and Wage Supervisor employment numbers 
in each impacted county and compared the difference in pay between the 
grade's step-2 rate under the county's current wage schedule, the 
prevailing wage grade level, and the wage schedule the county will be 
defined under by this final rule. The overall costs were further 
adjusted based on the average step rate for FWS employees being above 
step 2.\13\ The ten cells to the right of each county provide the costs 
for the first ten years of implementation. In the ``Totals'' worksheet, 
the ``Totals'' column provides the estimated total cost for the 
increased payroll for the first 10 years after implementation. The 
``Emps'' column provides the sum of Wage Grade, Wage Leader, and Wage 
Supervisor employees in the county. The bottom row of each wage area 
section of Attachment 1 provides the total payroll costs associated 
with this rule for all counties being moved to the wage area listed. 
Estimated costs for the second through tenth years were calculated 
using a 2 percent adjustment factor, in line with the President's 
budget plan for FY 2025 and an estimated 36.7 percent fringe benefit 
factor. As these are only estimates, actual future costs will vary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The step 2 rate is the prevailing wage level, or 100 
percent of market, that DOD bases all the other step rates on. The 
average step for employees changes over time and is different from 
area to area and grade to grade within a wage area. Currently, the 
average rate is just above step 3, which is 4 percent above step 2. 
FPRAC has used this methodology for calculating costs for many years 
and has found it to be a fairly accurate predictor of cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Future wage schedules will be based on local wage surveys that will 
include survey counties that were previously survey counties in wage 
areas with different prevailing wage levels. As such, the measurable 
prevailing wage levels within a wage area are likely to be different 
than those measured in the most recent local wage surveys. For 
instance, starting with new full-scale wage surveys beginning in 
October 2027, the proposed San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland wage area 
will include Monterey and San Joaquin Counties, CA, in its wage 
surveys. It is possible that inclusion of these counties in an enlarged 
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland survey area might result in prevailing 
wage levels being measured at a lower level than if they were not 
included. However, as a result of statistical sampling methods and 
natural changes in wage growth across the mix of private industrial 
establishments that will be surveyed, it is not certain what, if any, 
impact will occur on wage survey results until a full-scale wage survey 
has been completed in the expanded wage area. It is reasonable to 
anticipate that adding counties with lower prevailing wage levels to a 
survey area with higher prevailing wage levels will result in somewhat 
lower wage survey findings overall and lower wage schedules. However, 
the floor increase provision that has been included in appropriations 
law each year since FY 2004 would offset that impact if the provision 
is continued. As long as a floor increase provision provides for a 
minimum annual adjustment amount for a wage schedule, the combining of 
counties with lower prevailing wage levels into a wage area with higher 
prevailing wage levels will have no impact on the payable wage rates in 
that wage area should the floor increase amount continue to be higher 
than the pay cap amount. In this scenario, the additional payroll costs 
that agencies would incur in Monterey and San Joaquin counties would be 
because employees there would be paid wage rates from the San Jose-San 
Francisco-Oakland wage schedule that are higher than wage rates 
applicable in their current wage areas.
    Agency payroll providers will need to properly assign official duty 
station codes within their systems for impacted employees by 
reassigning the codes from one FWS wage schedule to another. Although 
around 17,000 FWS employees will be affected by these changes in wage 
area boundaries, there are far fewer official duty station codes that 
will need to be updated by the four major payroll providers in their 
payroll systems. OPM estimates this number of impacted official duty 
station codes to be around 254. This is not anticipated to be a 
significant additional cost burden or to require additional funding as 
agency payroll systems are often updated as a routine business matter 
as pay area boundaries change and as wage schedules are updated every 
year. For example, the payroll providers implemented changes in GS 
locality pay area affecting around 34,000 employees in January 2024. 
However, OPM estimates that implementing payroll changes in terms of 
the time required for the 254 official duty station codes across the 
four payroll providers at a cost of around $7,800. OPM calculated this 
estimate by allowing for ten minutes to manually update each duty 
station change in each of the four payroll systems by a mid-range 
payroll processing staff member with an average salary and benefits 
cost of around $96,000 per year, which equates to a cost of around 
$7.66 per change per provider. OPM invited public comment on this 
estimate, but no comments were received.

5. Benefits

    This rule has important benefits. Employees have expressed 
understandable equity concerns since the mid-1990s about why there are 
different geographic boundaries defined for the Federal Government's 
two main pay systems. Over the years, Members of Congress have 
expressed interest in this issue and written letters in support of 
aligning FWS wage areas and GS locality pay areas. FPRAC heard 
testimony from Congressional staff, local union and management 
representatives, and employees in support of better aligning the 
geographic boundaries of FWS wage areas and GS locality pay areas, 
including testimony that a high rate of commuting interchange--which, 
for example, triggered Monroe County's reassignment from the Rest of 
U.S. GS locality pay area to the New York-Newark GS locality pay area 
in 2005--should also be reflected in the FWS wage areas. This final 
rule will address most of the internal equity and fairness concerns 
found across the country that are unnecessarily damaging to employee 
morale when an alternative and defensible approach is possible. This 
can also be accomplished at a relatively low cost of an increase in 
base payroll of only around 1 percent. FPRAC acknowledged that, 
although around 2,000 FWS employees will be placed on lower wage 
schedules as a result of these actions, around 1,870 of these employees 
will be entitled to pay retention. Accordingly, FPRAC found that the 
benefits to FWS employees overall outweighed the concerns regarding the 
limited number of positions negatively impacted.
    Further, FPRAC members, agency and union representatives, and 
employees expressed concerns at public FPRAC meetings that the FWS no 
longer reflects modern compensation practices for prevailing rate 
tradespeople and laborers and that updating the wage area definition 
criteria to be more similar to the GS locality pay area criteria will 
be a step in the right direction to begin modernizing the prevailing 
rate system. Despite the projection of continuing application of the 
floor and pay cap provisions to the FWS wage schedules, implementation 
of these changes to the criteria used to define and maintain FWS wage 
areas, in particular adopting the use of employment interchange

[[Page 7438]]

measures and CSA definitions, will better position the FWS to align 
with regional prevailing wage practices because they better reflect 
current commuting, employment, and recruitment patterns.

6. Alternatives

    Over the course of 15 working group meetings, at which there was 
extensive discussion, FPRAC considered various options to address the 
FWS and GS pay equity concerns expressed in the House Report language. 
These discussions had been taking place for many years previously 
without consensus. One alternative to the approach adopted in this 
final rule was to make no changes to the current FWS wage areas and 
encourage agencies to use pay flexibilities when challenged with 
recruitment issues. However, maintaining the status quo will not 
resolve employee equity concerns or address the interests expressed by 
Congress.
    Another option considered was conducting piecemeal reviews of wage 
areas using the existing wage area definition criteria (distance, 
commuting, demographic), only when employees or other stakeholders 
raise concerns. This has been FPRAC's approach since 2012, but it has 
not addressed the fundamental inequities resulting from managing the 
FWS and GS with different sets of rules (i.e., different criteria) for 
defining pay area boundaries. The current regulatory criteria were not 
designed to allow for changing wage area definitions absent factors 
such as military base closures or changes in MSAs.
    FPRAC also considered adding CSA definitions alone as a criterion 
to the existing regulatory criteria in 5 CFR 532.211. OMB published new 
CSA and MSA definitions on July 21, 2023, in OMB Bulletin 23-01, and 
FPRAC has a practice of using new MSA definitions when they become 
available. The new OMB definitions and an analysis of the current FWS 
regulatory criteria to define wage areas did not appear to address some 
of the most contentious counties under FPRAC discussion as those 
counties still did not align with the GS locality pay areas. For 
example, the 2023 OMB definitions moved Monroe County, PA, from the New 
York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA, CSA to the Allentown-Bethlehem-East 
Stroudsburg, PA-NJ, CSA. OMB Bulletin No. 20-01 (which FPRAC previously 
used) included the East Stroudsburg, PA, MSA, comprised only of Monroe 
County, PA, in the New York CSA. OMB Bulletin No. 23-01 supersedes the 
previous ones and lists Monroe County as the sole county of the East 
Stroudsburg, PA, micropolitan statistical area, and part of the 
Allentown-Bethlehem-East Stroudsburg, PA-NJ, CSA. Both Monroe County 
and the Allentown CSA are part of the New York locality pay area for GS 
employees. Based on the updated OMB Bulletin and applying the criteria 
in this final rule, Monroe County will be defined to a wage area 
consistent with the rest of the Allentown-Bethlehem-East Stroudsburg, 
PA-NJ, CSA. Applying employment interchange analysis to better 
recognize regional commuting patterns helps to clarify where best to 
define the Allentown-Bethlehem-East Stroudsburg, PA-NJ, CSA and results 
in the Allentown-Bethlehem-East Stroudsburg, PA-NJ, CSA, including 
Monroe County, being defined as part of the New York, Newark wage area.
    The committee also considered and decided against merely adopting 
and applying GS locality pay area definitions to FWS wage areas. For GS 
locality pay purposes, pay disparities with the non-Federal sector for 
GS employees stationed in a locality pay area are based on data for the 
entire locality pay area. The FWS continues the concept of using survey 
areas and areas of application because FWS employees tend to be 
employed in greater numbers at military installations and VA Medical 
Centers and not throughout an entire wage area. In contrast, GS 
employees are widely distributed geographically at all agencies.
    FPRAC's members had disparate views on how future wage schedules 
based on these geographic changes in wage area definitions could best 
reflect prevailing wage levels. One view held that combining the survey 
areas of two wage areas together should result in an entirely new wage 
schedule being applied to FWS employees in the expanded wage area. OPM 
determined that this method was not appropriate given that the floor 
increase provision in appropriations law each year requires that wage 
schedules be adjusted upwards by the same percentage adjustment amount 
received by GS employees in the area. It would also be contrary to 
longstanding precedent to ignore statutory pay cap and floor increase 
provisions when wage survey areas change. Consequently, in this rule 
OPM first adds counties moving between wage areas to the area of 
application of the gaining wage area and subsequently adds counties to 
survey areas for the next full-scale wage survey in the wage area.
    These regulations will not immediately expand survey areas for 
continuing, but enlarged, wage areas. Instead, abolished wage areas 
will first be merged into the areas of application of continuing wage 
areas and subsequently added to the survey areas for the next regularly 
scheduled full wage surveys beginning in FY 2026, FY 2027, and FY 2028. 
This will provide DOD time to allocate and train appropriate additional 
staff, if needed. OPM invited comment on any additional alternative 
approaches that could be considered that are in accordance with the 
permanent and appropriations laws governing the development of FWS wage 
schedules. One labor organization suggested that changes to FWS wage 
areas should be automatic based on changes to GS locality pay areas. 
Comment 478. Another commenter supported this suggestion. Comment 497. 
FWS wage area changes have never been automatic and no changes in wage 
area boundaries have ever been made without first receiving an FPRAC 
recommendation. This rule will not change this practice. FWS wage area 
boundaries could be revised through rulemaking concurrent with changes 
in GS locality pay area boundaries after receiving and approving an 
FPRAC recommendation and with the opportunity for public input.

Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

Regulatory Review

    OPM has examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive 
Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993), as supplemented by Executive Order 13563 
(Jan. 18, 2011) and amended by Executive Order 14094 (Apr. 6, 2023), 
which directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available 
regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select 
regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public, health, and safety effects, 
distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis must be 
prepared for certain rules with effects of $200 million or more in any 
one year. This rule does not reach that threshold but has otherwise 
been designated as a ``significant regulatory action'' under section 
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Acting Director of OPM certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
because the rule will apply only to Federal agencies and employees.

[[Page 7439]]

Federalism

    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, 
on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or 
on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132 
(Aug. 10, 1999), it is determined that this final rule does not have 
sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a 
Federalism Assessment.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in section 3(a) 
and (b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Feb. 7, 1996).

Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before 
issuing any rule that would impose spending costs on State, local, or 
Tribal governments in the aggregate, or on the private sector, in any 1 
year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. 
That threshold is currently approximately $183 million. This rule will 
not result in the expenditure by State, local, or Tribal governments, 
in the aggregate, or by the private sector, in excess of the threshold. 
Thus, no written assessment of unfunded mandates is required.

Congressional Review Act

    Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996 (also known as the Congressional Review Act) (5 U.S.C. 801 
et seq.) requires rules (as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804) to be submitted to 
Congress before taking effect. OPM will submit to Congress and the 
Comptroller General of the United States a report regarding the 
issuance of this action before its effective date, as required by 5 
U.S.C. 801. OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has 
determined that this rule meets the criteria in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required 
to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure 
to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), 
unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB 
Control Number.
    OPM plans to use an existing collection, Establishment Information 
Form, Wage Data Collection Form, and Wage Data Collection Continuation 
Form approved under OMB control number 3206-0036 in association with 
this final rule. OPM does not believe this rule will result in a 
significant change to the burden, reporting, recordkeeping, and other 
compliance requirements as discussed in the preamble of the rule. 
Additional information regarding this collection--including all current 
background materials--can be found at Information Collection Review 
(reginfo.gov) by using the search function to enter either the title of 
the collection or the OMB Control Number.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532

    Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information, 
Government employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages.


Office of Personnel Management.
Kayyonne Marston,
Federal Register Liaison.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, OPM amends 5 CFR part 532 
as follows:

PART 532--PREVAILING RATE SYSTEMS

0
1. The authority citation for part 532 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  5 U.S.C. 5343, 5346. Sec. 532.707 also issued under 
5 U.S.C. 552.


0
2. Revise Sec.  532.211 to read as follows


Sec.  532.211  Criteria for appropriated fund wage areas.

    (a) Each wage area shall consist of one or more survey areas along 
with nonsurvey areas, if any.
    (1) Survey area. A survey area is composed of the counties, 
parishes, cities, townships, or similar geographic entities in which 
survey data are collected. Survey areas are established and maintained 
where there are a minimum of 100 or more wage employees subject to a 
regular wage schedule and those employees are located close to 
concentrations of private sector employment such as found in a Combined 
Statistical Area or Metropolitan Statistical Area.
    (2) Nonsurvey area. Nonsurvey counties, parishes, cities, 
townships, or similar geographic entities may be combined with the 
survey area(s) to form the wage area through consideration of criteria 
including local commuting patterns such as employment interchange 
measures, distance, transportation facilities, geographic features; 
similarities in overall population, employment, and the kinds and sizes 
of private industrial establishments; and other factors relevant to the 
process of determining and establishing rates of pay for wage employees 
at prevailing wage levels.
    (b) Wage areas shall include wherever possible a recognized 
economic community such as a Combined Statistical Area, a Metropolitan 
Statistical Area, or a political unit such as a county. Two or more 
economic communities or political units, or both, may be combined to 
constitute a single wage area; however, except in unusual circumstances 
and as an exception to the criteria, an individually defined Combined 
Statistical Area, Metropolitan Statistical Area, county or similar 
geographic entity shall not be subdivided for the purpose of defining a 
wage area.
    (c) Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, wage areas 
shall be established and maintained when:
    (1) There is a minimum of 100 wage employees subject to the regular 
schedule and the lead agency indicates that a local installation has 
the capacity to do the survey; and
    (2) There is, within a reasonable commuting distance of the 
concentration of Federal employment:
    (i) A minimum of either 20 establishments within survey 
specifications having at least 50 employees each; or 10 establishments 
having at least 50 employees each, with a combined total of 1,500 
employees; and
    (ii) The total private enterprise employment in the industries 
surveyed in the survey area is at least twice the Federal wage 
employment in the survey area.
    (d)(1) Adjacent economic communities or political units meeting the 
separate wage area criteria in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section 
may be combined through consideration of local commuting patterns such 
as employment interchange measures, distance, transportation 
facilities, geographic features; similarities in overall population, 
employment, and the kinds and sizes of private industrial 
establishments; and other factors relevant to the process of 
determining and establishing rates of pay for wage employees at 
prevailing wage levels.
    (2) When two wage areas are combined, the survey area of either or 
both may be used, depending on the concentrations of Federal and 
private employment and locations of establishments, the proximity of 
the survey areas to each other, and the extent of economic similarities 
or differences as indicated by relative

[[Page 7440]]

levels of wage rates in each of the potential survey areas.
    (e) Appropriated fund wage and survey area definitions are set out 
as appendix C to this subpart and are incorporated in and made part of 
this section.
    (f) A single contiguous military installation defined as a Joint 
Base that will otherwise overlap two separate wage areas shall be 
included in only a single wage area. The wage area of such a Joint Base 
shall be defined to be the wage area with the most favorable payline 
based on an analysis of the simple average of the 15 nonsupervisory 
second step rates on each one of the regular wage schedules applicable 
in the otherwise overlapped wage areas.

0
3. Revise and republish appendix A to subpart B to read as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 532--Nationwide Schedule of 
Appropriated Fund Regular Wage Surveys

    This appendix shows the annual schedule of wage surveys. It lists 
all States alphabetically, each State being followed by an alphabetical 
listing of all wage areas in the State. Information given for each wage 
area includes--
    (1) The lead agency responsible for conducting the survey;
    (2) The month in which the survey will begin; and
    (3) Whether full-scale surveys will be done in odd or even numbered 
fiscal years.

[[Page 7441]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Fiscal year of
                                                                             Beginning month       full-scale
             State                      Wage area           Lead agency         of  survey       survey odd  or
                                                                                                      even
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................  Birmingham-Cullman-     DoD..............  January..........  Even.
                                  Talladega.
                                 Dothan................  DoD..............  July.............  Odd.
                                 Huntsville............  DoD..............  April............  Even.
                                 Montgomery-Selma......  DoD..............  August...........  Odd.
Alaska.........................  Alaska................  DoD..............  July.............  Even.
Arizona........................  Northeastern Arizona..  DoD..............  March............  Odd.
                                 Phoenix...............  DoD..............  March............  Odd.
                                 Tucson................  DoD..............  March............  Odd.
Arkansas.......................  Little Rock...........  DoD..............  July.............  Even.
California.....................  Fresno................  DoD..............  February.........  Odd.
                                 Los Angeles...........  DoD..............  November.........  Odd.
                                 Sacramento-Roseville..  DoD..............  February.........  Odd.
                                 San Diego.............  DoD..............  September........  Odd.
                                 San Jose-San Francisco- DoD..............  October..........  Even.
                                  Oakland.
Colorado.......................  Denver................  DoD..............  January..........  Odd.
                                 Southern Colorado.....  DoD..............  January..........  Even.
District of Columbia...........  Washington-Baltimore-   DoD..............  July.............  Odd.
                                  Arlington.
Florida........................  Cocoa Beach...........  DoD..............  October..........  Even.
                                 Jacksonville..........  DoD..............  January..........  Odd.
                                 Miami-Port St. Lucie-   DoD..............  May..............  Odd.
                                  Fort Lauderdale.
                                 Panama City...........  DoD..............  September........  Even.
                                 Pensacola.............  DoD..............  September........  Odd.
                                 Tampa-St. Petersburg..  DoD..............  April............  Even.
Georgia........................  Albany................  DoD..............  August...........  Odd.
                                 Atlanta...............  DoD..............  May..............  Odd.
                                 Augusta...............  DoD..............  June.............  Odd.
                                 Macon.................  DoD..............  June.............  Odd.
                                 Savannah..............  DoD..............  May..............  Odd.
Hawaii.........................  Hawaii................  DoD..............  June.............  Even.
Idaho..........................  Boise.................  DoD..............  July.............  Odd.
Illinois.......................  Bloomington-Pontiac...  DoD..............  September........  Odd.
                                 Chicago-Naperville, IL  DoD..............  September........  Even.
Indiana........................  Evansville-Henderson..  DoD..............  October..........  Odd.
                                 Fort Wayne-Marion.....  DoD..............  October..........  Odd.
                                 Indianapolis-Carmel-    DoD..............  October..........  Odd.
                                  Muncie.
Iowa...........................  Cedar Rapids-Iowa City  DoD..............  July.............  Even.
                                 Davenport-Moline......  DoD..............  October..........  Even.
                                 Des Moines............  DoD..............  September........  Odd.
Kansas.........................  Manhattan.............  DoD..............  November.........  Even.
                                 Wichita...............  DoD..............  November.........  Even.
Kentucky.......................  Lexington.............  DoD..............  February.........  Even.
                                 Louisville............  DoD..............  February.........  Odd.
Louisiana......................  Lake Charles-           DoD..............  April............  Even.
                                  Alexandria.
                                 New Orleans...........  DoD..............  June.............  Even.
                                 Shreveport............  DoD..............  May..............  Even.
Maine..........................  Augusta...............  DoD..............  May..............  Even.
                                 Central and Northern    DoD..............  June.............  Even.
                                  Maine.
Massachusetts..................  Boston-Worcester-       DoD..............  August...........  Even.
                                  Providence.
Michigan.......................  Detroit-Warren-Ann      DoD..............  January..........  Odd.
                                  Arbor.
                                 Northwestern Michigan.  DoD..............  August...........  Odd.
                                 Southwestern Michigan.  DoD..............  October..........  Even.
Minnesota......................  Duluth................  DoD..............  June.............  Odd.
                                 Minneapolis-St. Paul..  DoD..............  April............  Odd.
Mississippi....................  Biloxi................  DoD..............  November.........  Even.
                                 Jackson...............  DoD..............  February.........  Odd.
                                 Meridian..............  DoD..............  February.........  Odd.
                                 Northern Mississippi..  DoD..............  February.........  Even.
Missouri.......................  Kansas City...........  DoD..............  October..........  Odd.
                                 St. Louis.............  DoD..............  October..........  Odd.
                                 Southern Missouri.....  DoD..............  October..........  Odd.
Montana........................  Montana...............  DoD..............  July.............  Even.
Nebraska.......................  Omaha.................  DoD..............  October..........  Odd.
Nevada.........................  Las Vegas.............  DoD..............  September........  Even.
                                 Reno..................  DoD..............  March............  Even.
New Hampshire..................  Portsmouth............  DoD..............  September........  Even.
New Mexico.....................  Albuquerque-Santa Fe-   DoD..............  April............  Odd.
                                  Los Alamos.
New York.......................  Albany-Schenectady....  DoD..............  March............  Odd.
                                 Buffalo...............  DoD..............  September........  Odd.
                                 New York-Newark.......  DoD..............  January..........  Even.
                                 Northern New York.....  DoD..............  March............  Odd.
                                 Rochester.............  DoD..............  April............  Even.

[[Page 7442]]

 
                                 Syracuse-Utica-Rome...  DoD..............  March............  Even.
North Carolina.................  Asheville.............  DoD..............  June.............  Even.
                                 Central North Carolina  DoD..............  May..............  Even.
                                 Charlotte-Concord.....  DoD..............  August...........  Odd.
                                 Southeastern North      DoD..............  January..........  Odd.
                                  Carolina.
North Dakota...................  North Dakota..........  DoD..............  March............  Even.
Ohio...........................  Cincinnati............  DoD..............  January..........  Odd.
                                 Cleveland-Akron-Canton  DoD..............  April............  Odd.
                                 Columbus-Marion-        DoD..............  January..........  Odd.
                                  Zanesville.
                                 Dayton................  DoD..............  January..........  Even.
Oklahoma.......................  Oklahoma City.........  DoD..............  August...........  Odd.
                                 Tulsa.................  DoD..............  August...........  Odd.
Oregon.........................  Portland-Vancouver-     DoD..............  July.............  Even.
                                  Salem.
                                 Southwestern Oregon...  DoD..............  June.............  Even.
Pennsylvania...................  Harrisburg-York-        DoD..............  May..............  Even.
                                  Lebanon.
                                 Philadelphia-Reading-   DoD..............  October..........  Even.
                                  Camden.
                                 Pittsburgh............  DoD..............  July.............  Odd.
                                 Scranton-Wilkes-Barre.  DoD..............  August...........  Odd.
Puerto Rico....................  Puerto Rico...........  DoD..............  July.............  Odd.
South Carolina.................  Charleston............  DoD..............  July.............  Even.
                                 Columbia..............  DoD..............  May..............  Even.
South Dakota...................  Eastern South Dakota..  DoD..............  October..........  Even.
Tennessee......................  Eastern Tennessee.....  DoD..............  February.........  Odd.
                                 Memphis...............  DoD..............  February.........  Even.
                                 Nashville.............  DoD..............  February.........  Even.
Texas..........................  Austin................  DoD..............  June.............  Even.
                                 Corpus Christi-         DoD..............  June.............  Even.
                                  Kingsville-Alice.
                                 Dallas-Fort Worth.....  DoD..............  October..........  Odd.
                                 El Paso...............  DoD..............  April............  Even.
                                 Houston-Galveston-      DoD..............  March............  Even.
                                  Texas City.
                                 San Antonio...........  DoD..............  June.............  Odd.
                                 Texarkana.............  DoD..............  April............  Odd.
                                 Waco..................  DoD..............  May..............  Odd.
                                 Western Texas.........  DoD..............  May..............  Odd.
                                 Wichita Falls, Texas-   DoD..............  July.............  Even.
                                  Southwestern Oklahoma.
Utah...........................  Utah..................  DoD..............  July.............  Odd.
Virginia.......................  Richmond..............  DoD..............  November.........  Odd.
                                 Roanoke...............  DoD..............  November.........  Even.
                                 Virginia Beach-         DoD..............  May..............  Even.
                                  Chesapeake.
Washington.....................  Seattle-Everett.......  DoD..............  September........  Even.
                                 Southeastern            DoD..............  June.............  Odd.
                                  Washington- Eastern
                                  Oregon.
                                 Spokane...............  DoD..............  July.............  Odd.
West Virginia..................  West Virginia.........  DoD..............  March............  Odd.
Wisconsin......................  Madison...............  DoD..............  July.............  Even.
                                 Milwaukee-Racine-       DoD..............  June.............  Odd.
                                  Waukesha.
                                 Southwestern Wisconsin  DoD..............  June.............  Even.
Wyoming........................  Wyoming...............  DoD..............  January..........  Even.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
4. Revise and republish appendix C to subpart B to read as follows:

Appendix C to Subpart B of Part 532--Appropriated Fund Wage and Survey 
Areas

    This appendix lists the wage area definitions for appropriated 
fund employees. With a few exceptions, each area is defined in terms 
of county units, independent cities, or a similar geographic entity. 
Each wage area definition consists of:
    (1) Wage area title. Wage areas usually carry the title of the 
principal city in the area. Sometimes, however, the area title 
reflects a broader geographic area, such as Combined Statistical 
Area or Metropolitan Statistical Area.
    (2) Survey area definition. Lists each county, independent city, 
or a similar geographic entity in the survey area.
    (3) Area of application definition. Lists each county, 
independent city, or a similar geographic entity which, in addition 
to the survey area, is in the area of application.

Definitions of Wage Areas and Wage Area Survey Areas

ALABAMA

Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega

Survey Area

Alabama:
    Calhoun (effective for wage surveys beginning in January 2028)
    Etowah (effective for wage surveys beginning in January 2028)
    Jefferson
    St. Clair
    Shelby
    Talladega (effective for wage surveys beginning in January 2028)
    Tuscaloosa
    Walker

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Alabama:
    Bibb
    Blount
    Calhoun (effective until January 2028)
    Chilton
    Clay
    Coosa
    Cullman
    Etowah (effective until January 2028)
    Fayette
    Greene
    Hale
    Lamar
    Marengo
    Perry
    Pickens
    Talladega (effective January 2028)

[[Page 7443]]

    Winston

Dothan

Survey Area

Alabama:
    Dale
    Houston
Georgia:
    Early

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Alabama:
    Barbour
    Coffee
    Geneva
    Henry
Georgia:
    Clay
    Miller
    Seminole

Huntsville

Survey Area

Alabama:
    Limestone
    Madison
    Marshall
    Morgan

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Alabama
    Colbert
    DeKalb
    Franklin
    Lauderdale
    Lawrence
    Marion
Tennessee
    Giles
    Lincoln
    Wayne

Montgomery-Selma

Survey Area

Alabama
    Autauga
    Elmore
    Montgomery

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Alabama
    Bullock
    Butler
    Crenshaw
    Dallas
    Lowndes
    Pike
    Wilcox

ALASKA

Anchorage

Survey Area

Alaska: (boroughs and the areas within a 24-kilometer (15-mile) 
radius of their corporate city limits)
    Anchorage
    Fairbanks
    Juneau

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Alaska:
    State of Alaska (except special area schedules)

ARIZONA

Northeastern Arizona

Survey Area

Arizona:
    Apache
    Coconino
    Navajo
New Mexico:
    San Juan

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Colorado:
    Dolores
    Gunnison (Only includes the Curecanti National Recreation Area 
portion)
    La Plata
    Montezuma
    Montrose
    Ouray
    San Juan
    San Miguel
Utah:
    Garfield (Only includes the Bryce Canyon, Capitol Reef, and 
Canyonlands National Parks portions)
    Grand (Only includes the Arches and Canyonlands National Parks 
portions)
    Iron (Only includes the Cedar Breaks National Monument and Zion 
National Park portions)
    Kane
    San Juan
    Washington
    Wayne (Only includes the Capitol Reef and Canyonlands National 
Parks portions)

Phoenix

Survey Area

Arizona:
    Gila
    Maricopa

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Arizona:
    Pinal
    Yavapai

Tucson

Survey Area

Arizona:
    Pima

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Arizona:
    Cochise
    Graham
    Greenlee
    Santa Cruz

ARKANSAS

Little Rock

Survey Area

Arkansas:
    Jefferson
    Pulaski
    Saline

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Arkansas:
    Arkansas
    Ashley
    Baxter
    Boone
    Bradley
    Calhoun
    Chicot
    Clark
    Clay
    Cleburne
    Cleveland
    Conway
    Dallas
    Desha
    Drew
    Faulkner
    Franklin (Does not include the Fort Chaffee portion)
    Fulton
    Garland
    Grant
    Greene
    Hot Spring
    Independence
    Izard
    Jackson
    Johnson
    Lawrence
    Lincoln
    Logan
    Lonoke
    Marion
    Monroe
    Montgomery
    Newton
    Ouachita
    Perry
    Phillips
    Pike
    Polk
    Pope
    Prairie
    Randolph
    Scott
    Searcy
    Sharp
    Stone
    Union
    Van Buren
    White
    Woodruff
    Yell

CALIFORNIA

Fresno

Survey Area

California:
    Fresno
    Kings
    Tulare

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

California:
    Madera
    Mariposa
    Tuolumne (Only includes the Yosemite National Park portion)

Los Angeles

Survey Area

California:
    Kern (effective for wage surveys beginning in November 2026)
    Los Angeles
    Orange (effective for wage surveys beginning in November 2026)
    Riverside (effective for wage surveys beginning in November 
2026)
    San Bernardino (effective for wage surveys beginning in November 
2026)

[[Page 7444]]

    Santa Barbara (effective for wage surveys beginning in November 
2026)
    Ventura (effective for wage surveys beginning in November 2026)

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

California:
    Inyo (Only includes the China Lake Naval Weapons Center portion)
    Kern (effective until November 2026)
    Orange (effective until November 2026)
    Riverside (effective until November 2026)
    San Bernardino (effective until November 2026)
    Santa Barbara (effective until November 2026)
    San Luis Obispo
    Ventura (effective until November 2026)

Sacramento-Roseville

Survey Area

California:
    Placer
    Sacramento
    Sutter
    Yolo
    Yuba

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

California:
    Amador
    Butte
    Colusa
    El Dorado
    Glenn
    Humboldt
    Lake
    Modoc
    Nevada
    Plumas
    Shasta
    Sierra
    Siskiyou
    Tehama
    Trinity

San Diego

Survey Area

California:
    San Diego
Arizona:
    Yuma (effective for wage surveys beginning in September 2027)

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Arizona:
    La Paz
    Yuma (effective until September 2027)
California:
    Imperial

San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland

Survey Area

California:
    Alameda
    Contra Costa
    Marin
    Monterey (effective for wage surveys beginning in October 2027)
    Napa
    San Joaquin (effective for wage surveys beginning in October 
2027)
    San Francisco
    San Mateo
    Santa Clara
    Solano

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

California:
    Calaveras
    Mendocino
    Merced
    Monterey (effective until October 2027)
    San Benito
    San Joaquin (effective until October 2027)
    Santa Cruz
    Sonoma
    Stanislaus
    Tuolumne (Does not include the Yosemite National Park portion)

COLORADO

Denver

Survey Area

Colorado:
    Adams
    Arapahoe
    Boulder
    Broomfield
    Denver
    Douglas
    Gilpin
    Jefferson

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Colorado:
    Clear Creek
    Eagle
    Elbert
    Garfield
    Grand
    Jackson
    Lake
    Larimer
    Lincoln
    Logan
    Morgan
    Park
    Phillips
    Pitkin
    Rio Blanco
    Routt
    Sedgwick
    Summit
    Washington
    Weld
    Yuma

Southern Colorado

Survey Area

Colorado:
    El Paso
    Pueblo
    Teller

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Colorado:
    Alamosa
    Archuleta
    Baca
    Bent
    Chaffee
    Cheyenne
    Conejos
    Costilla
    Crowley
    Custer
    Delta
    Fremont
    Gunnison (does not includes the Curecanti National Recreation 
Area portion)
    Hinsdale
    Huerfano
    Kiowa
    Kit Carson
    Las Animas
    Mineral
    Otero
    Prowers
    Rio Grande
    Saguache

CONNECTICUT

New Haven-Hartford

Survey Area

Connecticut:
    Hartford
    New Haven
    New London (effective for wage surveys beginning in April 2027)
Massachusetts:
    Hampden (effective for wage surveys beginning in April 2027)
    Hampshire (effective for wage surveys beginning in April 2027)

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Connecticut:
    Litchfield
    Middlesex
    New London (effective until April 2027)
    Tolland
    Windham
Massachusetts:
    Franklin
    Hampden (effective until April 2027)
    Hampshire (effective until April 2027)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Washington-Baltimore-Arlington

Survey Area

District of Columbia:
    Washington, DC
Maryland (city):
    Baltimore (effective for wage surveys beginning in July 2027)
Maryland (counties):
    Anne Arundel (effective for wage surveys beginning in July 2027)
    Baltimore (effective for wage surveys beginning in July 2027)
    Carroll (effective for wage surveys beginning in July 2027)
    Charles
    Frederick
    Harford (effective for wage surveys beginning in July 2027)
    Howard (effective for wage surveys beginning in July 2027)
    Montgomery
    Prince George's
    Washington (effective for wage surveys beginning in July 2027)
Pennsylvania:
    Franklin (effective for wage surveys beginning in July 2027)
Virginia (cities):
    Alexandria
    Fairfax
    Falls Church
    Manassas
    Manassas Park
Virginia (counties):
    Arlington
    Fairfax

[[Page 7445]]

    King George (effective for wage surveys beginning in July 2027)
    Loudoun
    Prince William
West Virginia:
    Berkley (effective for wage surveys beginning in July 2027)

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Maryland (city):
    Baltimore (effective until July 2027)
    Maryland (counties)
    Allegany
    Anne Arundel (effective until July 2027)
    Baltimore (effective until July 2027)
    Calvert
    Caroline
    Carroll (effective until July 2027)
    Dorchester
    Garrett
    Harford (effective until July 2027)
    Howard (effective until July 2027)
    Kent
    Queen Anne's
    St. Mary's
    Talbot
    Washington (effective until July 2027)
Pennsylvania:
    Franklin (effective until July 2027)
    Fulton
Virginia (cities):
    Fredericksburg
    Harrisonburg
    Staunton
    Waynesboro
    Winchester
Virginia (counties):
    Albemarle (Only includes the Shenandoah National Park portion)
    Augusta
    Caroline
    Clarke
    Culpeper
    Fauquier
    Frederick
    Greene (Only includes the Shenandoah National Park portion)
    King George (effective until July 2027)
    Madison
    Orange
    Page
    Rappahannock
    Rockingham
    Shenandoah
    Spotsylvania
    Stafford
    Warren
    Westmoreland
West Virginia:
    Berkeley (effective until July 2027)
    Hampshire
    Hardy
    Jefferson
    Mineral
    Morgan

FLORIDA

Cocoa-Beach

Survey Area

Florida:
    Brevard

Area of Application. Survey area.

Jacksonville

Survey Area

Florida:
    Alachua
    Baker
    Clay
    Columbia (effective for wage surveys beginning in January 2027)
    Duval
    Nassau
    Orange (effective for wage surveys beginning in January 2027)
    St. Johns
    Sumter (effective for wage surveys beginning in January 2027)
Georgia:
    Camden

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Florida:
    Bradford
    Citrus
    Columbia (effective until January 2027)
    Dixie
    Flagler
    Gilchrist
    Hamilton
    Lafayette
    Lake
    Levy
    Madison
    Marion
    Orange (effective until January 2027)
    Osceola
    Polk
    Putnam
    Seminole
    Sumter (effective until January 2027)
    Suwannee
    Taylor
    Union
    Volusia
Georgia:
    Charlton

Miami-Port St. Lucie-Fort Lauderdale

Survey Area

Florida:
    Miami-Dade
    Palm Beach (effective for wage surveys beginning in May 2027)

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Florida:
    Broward
    Collier
    Glades
    Hendry
    Highlands
    Indian River
    Lee
    Martin
    Monroe
    Okeechobee
    Palm Beach (effective until May 2027)

St. Lucie

Area of Application. Survey area.

Panama City

Survey Area

Florida:
    Bay
    Gulf

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Florida:
    Calhoun
    Franklin
    Gadsden
    Holmes
    Jackson
    Jefferson
    Leon
    Liberty
    Wakulla
    Washington
Georgia:
    Decatur

Pensacola

Survey Area

Florida:
    Escambia
    Santa Rosa

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Alabama:
    Baldwin
    Clarke
    Conecuh
    Covington
    Escambia
    Mobile
    Monroe
    Washington
Florida:
    Okaloosa
    Walton

Tampa-St. Petersburg

Survey Area

Florida:
    Hillsborough
    Pasco
    Pinellas

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Florida:
    Charlotte
    De Soto
    Hardee
    Hernando
    Manatee
    Sarasota

GEORGIA

Albany

Survey Area

Georgia:
    Colquitt
    Dougherty
    Lee
    Mitchell
    Worth

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Georgia:
    Atkinson
    Baker
    Ben Hill
    Berrien
    Brooks
    Calhoun
    Clinch
    Coffee
    Cook
    Echols

[[Page 7446]]

    Grady
    Irwin
    Lanier
    Lowndes
    Quitman
    Randolph
    Schley
    Sumter
    Terrell
    Thomas
    Tift
    Turner
    Ware
    Webster

Atlanta

Survey Area

Alabama:
    Lee (effective for wage surveys beginning in May 2027)
    Macon (effective for wage surveys beginning in May 2027)
    Russell (effective for wage surveys beginning in May 2027)
Georgia:
    Butts
    Chattahoochee (effective for wage surveys beginning in May 2027)
    Cherokee
    Clayton
    Cobb
    De Kalb
    Douglas
    Fayette
    Forsyth
    Fulton
    Gwinnett
    Henry
    Muscogee (effective for wage surveys beginning in May 2027)
    Newton
    Paulding
    Rockdale
    Walton

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Alabama:
    Chambers
    Cherokee
    Cleburne
    Lee (effective until May 2027)
    Macon (effective until May 2027)
    Randolph
    Russell (effective until May 2027)
    Tallapoosa
Georgia:
    Banks
    Barrow
    Bartow
    Carroll
    Chattahoochee (effective until May 2027)
    Clarke
    Coweta
    Dawson
    Elbert
    Fannin
    Floyd
    Franklin
    Gilmer
    Gordon
    Greene
    Habersham
    Hall
    Haralson
    Harris
    Hart
    Heard
    Jackson
    Jasper
    Lamar
    Lumpkin
    Madison
    Marion
    Meriwether
    Morgan
    Muscogee (effective until May 2027)
    Oconee
    Oglethorpe
    Pickens
    Pike
    Polk
    Putnam
    Rabun
    Spalding
    Stephens
    Stewart
    Talbot
    Taliaferro
    Towns
    Troup
    Union
    Upson
    White

Augusta

Survey Area

Georgia:
    Columbia
    McDuffie
    Richmond
South Carolina:
    Aiken

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Georgia:
    Burke
    Emanuel
    Glascock
    Jefferson
    Jenkins
    Lincoln
    Warren
    Wilkes
South Carolina:
    Allendale
    Bamberg
    Barnwell
    Edgefield
    McCormick

Macon

Survey Area

Georgia:
    Bibb
    Houston
    Jones
    Laurens
    Twiggs
    Wilkinson

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Georgia:
    Baldwin
    Bleckley
    Crawford
    Crisp
    Dodge
    Dooly
    Hancock
    Johnson
    Macon
    Monroe
    Montgomery
    Peach
    Pulaski
    Taylor
    Telfair
    Treutlen
    Washington
    Wheeler
    Wilcox

Savannah

Survey Area

Georgia:
    Bryan
    Chatham
    Effingham
    Liberty
South Carolina:
    Beaufort (effective for wage surveys beginning in May 2027)

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Georgia:
    Appling
    Bacon
    Brantley
    Bulloch
    Candler
    Evans
    Glynn
    Jeff Davis
    Long
    McIntosh
    Pierce
    Screven
    Tattnall
    Toombs
    Wayne
South Carolina:
    Beaufort (effective until May 2027)
    Hampton
    Jasper

HAWAII

Hawaii

Survey Area

Hawaii:
    Honolulu

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Hawaii:
    Hawaii
    Kauai (includes the islands of Kauai and Niihau)
    Maui (includes the islands of Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and 
Kahoolawe)

IDAHO

Boise

Survey Area

Idaho:
    Ada
    Boise
    Canyon
    Elmore
    Gem

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Idaho:
    Adams
    Bannock
    Bear Lake
    Bingham
    Blaine

[[Page 7447]]

    Bonneville
    Butte
    Camas
    Caribou
    Cassia
    Clark
    Custer
    Fremont
    Gooding
    Jefferson
    Jerome
    Lemhi
    Lincoln
    Madison
    Minidoka
    Oneida
    Owyhee
    Payette
    Power
    Teton
    Twin Falls
    Valley
    Washington

ILLINOIS

Bloomington-Pontiac

Survey Area

Illinois:
    Champaign
    Menard
    Sangamon
    Vermilion

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Illinois:
    Christian
    Clark
    Coles
    Crawford
    Cumberland
    De Witt
    Douglas
    Edgar
    Ford
    Jasper
    Livingston
    Logan
    McLean
    Macon
    Morgan
    Moultrie
    Piatt
    Scott
    Shelby

Chicago-Naperville, IL

Survey Area

Illinois:
    Cook
    Du Page
    Kane
    Lake
    McHenry
    Will

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Illinois:
    Boone
    Bureau
    De Kalb
    Grundy
    Iroquois
    Kankakee
    Kendall
    La Salle
    Ogle
    Putnam
    Stephenson
    Winnebago
Indiana:
    Jasper
    Lake
    La Porte
    Newton
    Porter
    Pulaski
    Starke
Wisconsin:
    Kenosha

INDIANA

Evansville-Henderson

Survey Area

Indiana:
    Daviess
    Greene
    Knox
    Martin
    Orange

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Illinois:
    Edwards
    Gallatin
    Hardin
    Lawrence
    Richland
    Wabash
    White
Indiana:
    Crawford
    Dubois
    Gibson
    Perry
    Pike
    Posey
    Spencer
    Vanderburgh
    Warrick
Kentucky:
    Crittenden
    Daviess
    Hancock
    Henderson
    McLean
    Ohio
    Union
    Webster

Fort Wayne-Marion

Survey Area

Indiana:
    Adams
    Allen
    DeKalb
    Huntington
    Wells

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Indiana:
    Cass
    Elkhart
    Fulton
    Jay
    Kosciusko
    LaGrange
    Marshall
    Noble
    St. Joseph
    Steuben
    Wabash
    Whitley
Ohio:
    Defiance
    Henry
    Paulding
    Putnam
    Williams

Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie

Survey Area

Indiana:
    Boone
    Grant (effective for wage surveys beginning in October 2026)
    Hamilton
    Hancock
    Hendricks
    Johnson
    Lawrence (effective for wage surveys beginning in October 2026)
    Marion
    Miami (effective for wage surveys beginning in October 2026)
    Monroe (effective for wage surveys beginning in October 2026)
    Morgan
    Shelby
    Vigo (effective for wage surveys beginning in October 2026)

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Indiana:
    Bartholomew
    Benton
    Blackford
    Brown
    Carroll
    Clay
    Clinton
    Decatur
    Delaware
    Fayette
    Fountain
    Grant (effective until October 2026)
    Henry
    Howard
    Jackson
    Jennings
    Lawrence (effective until October 2026)
    Madison
    Miami (effective until October 2026)
    Monroe (effective until October 2026)
    Montgomery
    Owen
    Parke
    Putnam
    Randolph
    Rush
    Sullivan
    Tippecanoe
    Tipton
    Vermillion
    Vigo (effective until October 2026)
    Warren
    Wayne
    White

IOWA

Cedar Rapids-Iowa City

Survey Area

Iowa:
    Benton
    Black Hawk
    Johnson

[[Page 7448]]

    Linn

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Iowa:
    Allamakee
    Bremer
    Buchanan
    Butler
    Cedar
    Chickasaw
    Clayton
    Davis
    Delaware
    Fayette
    Floyd
    Grundy
    Henry
    Howard
    Iowa
    Jefferson
    Jones
    Keokuk
    Mitchell
    Tama
    Van Buren
    Wapello
    Washington
    Winneshiek

Davenport-Moline

Survey Area

Illinois:
    Henry
    Rock Island
Iowa:
    Scott

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Illinois:
    Brown
    Carroll
    Cass
    Fulton
    Hancock
    Henderson
    Jo Daviess
    Knox
    Lee
    McDonough
    Marshall
    Mason
    Mercer
    Peoria
    Schuyler
    Stark
    Tazewell
    Warren
    Whiteside
    Woodford
Iowa:
    Clinton
    Des Moines
    Dubuque
    Jackson
    Lee
    Louisa
    Muscatine

Des Moines

Survey Area

Iowa:
    Polk
    Story
    Warren

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Iowa:
    Adair
    Appanoose
    Boone
    Calhoun
    Carroll
    Cerro Gordo
    Clarke
    Dallas
    Decatur
    Franklin
    Greene
    Guthrie
    Hamilton
    Hancock
    Hardin
    Humboldt
    Jasper
    Kossuth
    Lucas
    Madison
    Mahaska
    Marion
    Marshall
    Monroe
    Poweshiek
    Ringgold
    Union
    Wayne
    Webster
    Winnebago
    Worth
    Wright

KANSAS

Manhattan

Survey Area

Kansas:
    Geary
    Riley (effective for wage surveys beginning in November 2027)

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Kansas:
    Brown
    Clay
    Cloud
    Coffey
    Dickinson
    Lyon
    Marshall
    Morris
    Nemaha
    Ottawa
    Pottawatomie
    Republic
    Riley (effective until November 2027)
    Saline
    Washington

Wichita

Survey Area

Kansas:
    Butler
    Sedgwick

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Kansas:
    Barber
    Barton
    Chase
    Chautauqua
    Cheyenne
    Clark
    Comanche
    Cowley
    Decatur
    Edwards
    Elk
    Ellis
    Ellsworth
    Finney
    Ford
    Gove
    Graham
    Grant
    Gray
    Greeley
    Greenwood
    Hamilton
    Harper
    Harvey
    Haskell
    Hodgeman
    Jewell
    Kearny
    Kingman
    Kiowa
    Labette
    Lane
    Lincoln
    Logan
    McPherson
    Marion
    Meade
    Mitchell
    Montgomery
    Morton
    Neosho
    Ness
    Norton
    Osborne
    Pawnee
    Phillips
    Pratt
    Rawlins
    Reno
    Rice
    Rooks
    Rush
    Russell
    Scott
    Seward
    Sheridan
    Sherman
    Smith
    Stafford
    Stanton
    Stevens
    Sumner
    Thomas
    Trego
    Wallace
    Wichita
    Wilson
    Woodson

KENTUCKY

Lexington

Survey Area

Kentucky:
    Bourbon
    Clark
    Fayette
    Jessamine
    Madison
    Scott
    Woodford

[[Page 7449]]

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Kentucky:
    Anderson
    Bath
    Bell
    Boyle
    Breathitt
    Casey
    Clay
    Estill
    Fleming
    Franklin
    Garrard
    Green
    Harrison
    Jackson
    Knott
    Knox
    Laurel
    Lee
    Leslie
    Lincoln
    McCreary
    Marion
    Menifee
    Mercer
    Montgomery
    Morgan
    Nicholas
    Owsley
    Perry
    Powell
    Pulaski
    Rockcastle
    Rowan
    Taylor
    Washington
    Wayne
    Whitley
    Wolfe

Louisville

Survey Area

Indiana:
    Clark
    Floyd
    Jefferson
Kentucky:
    Bullitt
    Hardin
    Jefferson
    Oldham

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Indiana:
    Harrison
    Scott
    Washington
Kentucky:
    Breckinridge
    Grayson
    Hart
    Henry
    Larue
    Meade
    Nelson
    Shelby
    Spencer
    Trimble

LOUISIANA

Lake Charles-Alexandria

Survey Area

Louisiana:
    Allen
    Beauregard
    Calcasieu
    Grant
    Rapides
    Sabine
    Vernon

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Louisiana:
    Acadia
    Avoyelles
    Caldwell
    Cameron
    Catahoula
    Concordia
    Evangeline
    Franklin
    Iberia
    Jefferson Davis
    Lafayette
    La Salle
    Madison
    Natchitoches
    St. Landry
    St. Martin
    Tensas
    Vermilion
    Winn

New Orleans

Survey Area

Louisiana:
    Jefferson
    Orleans
    Plaquemines
    St. Bernard
    St. Charles
    St. John the Baptist
    St. Tammany

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Louisiana:
    Ascension
    Assumption
    East Baton Rouge
    East Feliciana
    Iberville
    Lafourche
    Livingston
    Pointe Coupee
    St. Helena
    St. James
    St. Mary
    Tangipahoa
    Terrebonne
    Washington
    West Baton Rouge
    West Feliciana

Shreveport

Survey Area

Louisiana:
    Bossier
    Caddo
    Webster

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Louisiana:
    Bienville
    Claiborne
    De Soto
    East Carroll
    Jackson
    Lincoln
    Morehouse
    Ouachita
    Red River
    Richland
    Union
    West Carroll
Texas:
    Gregg
    Harrison
    Panola
    Rusk
    Upshur

MAINE

Augusta

Survey Area

Maine:
    Kennebec
    Knox
    Lincoln

Area of Application. Survey area:

Central And Northern Maine

Survey Area

Maine:
    Aroostook
    Penobscot

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Maine:
    Hancock
    Piscataquis
    Somerset
    Waldo
    Washington

MASSACHUSETTS

Boston-Worcester-Providence

Survey Area

Maine:
    Androscoggin (effective for wage surveys beginning in August 
2026)
    Cumberland (effective for wage surveys beginning in August 2026)
    Sagadahoc (effective for wage surveys beginning in August 2026)
    York (effective for wage surveys beginning in August 2026)
Massachusetts:
    Barnstable
    Bristol (effective for wage surveys beginning in August 2026)
    Essex
    Middlesex
    Norfolk
    Plymouth
    Suffolk
    Worcester (effective for wage surveys beginning in August 2026)
New Hampshire:
    Rockingham (effective for wage surveys beginning in August 2026)
    Strafford (effective for wage surveys beginning in August 2026)
Rhode Island:
    Bristol (effective for wage surveys beginning in August 2026)
    Kent (effective for wage surveys beginning in August 2026)
    Newport (effective for wage surveys beginning in August 2026)
    Providence (effective for wage surveys beginning in August 2026)
    Washington (effective for wage surveys beginning in August 2026)

[[Page 7450]]

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Maine:
    Androscoggin (effective until August 2026)
    Cumberland (effective until August 2026)
    Franklin
    Oxford
    Sagadahoc (effective until August 2026)
    York (effective until August 2026)
Massachusetts:
    Bristol (effective until August 2026)
    Dukes
    Nantucket
    Worcester (effective until August 2026)
New Hampshire:
    Belknap
    Carroll
    Cheshire
    Coos
    Grafton
    Hillsborough
    Merrimack
    Rockingham (effective until August 2026)
    Strafford (effective until August 2026)
    Sullivan
Rhode Island:
    Bristol (effective until August 2026)
    Kent (effective until August 2026)
    Newport (effective until August 2026)
    Providence (effective until August 2026)
    Washington (effective until August 2026)
Vermont:
    Orange
    Windham
    Windsor

MICHIGAN

Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor

Survey Area

Michigan:
    Lapeer
    Livingston
    Macomb
    Oakland
    St. Clair
    Washtenaw (effective for wage surveys beginning in January 2027)
    Wayne
Ohio:
    Lucas (effective for wage surveys beginning in January 2027)

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Michigan:
    Arenac
    Bay
    Clare
    Clinton
    Eaton
    Genesee
    Gladwin
    Gratiot
    Huron
    Ingham
    Isabella
    Jackson
    Lenawee
    Midland
    Monroe
    Saginaw
    Sanilac
    Shiawassee
    Tuscola
    Washtenaw (effective until January 2027)
Ohio:
    Fulton
    Lucas (effective until January 2027)
    Wood

Northwestern Michigan

Survey Area

Michigan:
    Delta
    Dickinson
    Marquette

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Michigan:
    Alcona
    Alger
    Alpena
    Antrim
    Baraga
    Benzie
    Charlevoix
    Cheboygan
    Chippewa
    Crawford
    Emmet
    Gogebic
    Grand Traverse
    Houghton
    Iosco
    Iron
    Kalkaska
    Keweenaw
    Leelanau
    Luce
    Mackinac
    Manistee
    Menominee
    Missaukee
    Montmorency
    Ogemaw
    Ontonagon
    Oscoda
    Otsego
    Presque Isle
    Roscommon
    Schoolcraft
    Wexford
Wisconsin:
    Florence
    Marinette

Southwestern Michigan

Survey Area

Michigan:
    Barry
    Calhoun
    Kalamazoo
    Van Buren

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Michigan:
    Allegan
    Berrien
    Branch
    Cass
    Hillsdale
    Ionia
    Kent
    Lake
    Mason
    Mecosta
    Montcalm
    Muskegon
    Newaygo
    Oceana
    Osceola
    Ottawa
    St. Joseph

MINNESOTA

Duluth

Survey Area

Minnesota:
    Carlton
    St. Louis
Wisconsin:
    Douglas

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Minnesota:
    Aitkin
    Becker (only includes the White Earth Indian Reservation 
portion)
    Beltrami
    Cass
    Clearwater
    Cook
    Crow Wing
    Hubbard
    Itasca
    Koochiching
    Lake
    Lake of the Woods
    Mahnomen
Wisconsin:
    Ashland
    Bayfield
    Burnett
    Iron
    Sawyer
    Washburn

Minneapolis-St. Paul

Survey Area

Minnesota:
    Anoka
    Carver
    Chisago
    Dakota
    Hennepin
    Morrison (effective for wage surveys beginning in April 2027)
    Ramsey
    Scott
    Stearns (effective for wage surveys beginning in April 2027)
    Washington
    Wright
Wisconsin:
    St. Croix

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Minnesota:
    Benton
    Big Stone
    Blue Earth
    Brown
    Chippewa
    Cottonwood
    Dodge
    Douglas
    Faribault
    Fillmore
    Freeborn
    Goodhue
    Grant
    Isanti
    Kanabec
    Kandiyohi
    Lac Qui Parle
    Le Sueur
    McLeod
    Martin
    Meeker

[[Page 7451]]

    Mille Lacs
    Morrison (effective until April 2027)
    Mower
    Nicollet
    Olmsted
    Pine
    Pope
    Redwood
    Renville
    Rice
    Sherburne
    Sibley
    Stearns (effective until April 2027)
    Steele
    Stevens
    Swift
    Todd
    Traverse
    Wabasha
    Wadena
    Waseca
    Watonwan
    Winona
    Yellow Medicine
Wisconsin:
    Pierce
    Polk

MISSISSIPPI

Biloxi

Survey Area

Mississippi:
    Hancock
    Harrison
    Jackson

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Mississippi:
    George
    Pearl River
    Stone

Jackson

Survey Area

Mississippi:
    Hinds
    Rankin
    Warren

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Mississippi:
    Adams
    Amite
    Attala
    Claiborne
    Copiah
    Franklin
    Holmes
    Humphreys
    Issaquena
    Jefferson
    Jefferson Davis
    Lawrence
    Lincoln
    Madison
    Marion
    Pike
    Scott
    Sharkey
    Simpson
    Smith
    Walthall
    Wilkinson
    Yazoo

Meridian

Survey Area

Alabama:
    Choctaw
Mississippi:
    Forrest
    Lamar
    Lauderdale

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Alabama:
    Sumter
Mississippi:
    Clarke
    Covington
    Greene
    Jasper
    Jones
    Kemper
    Leake
    Neshoba
    Newton
    Perry
    Wayne

Northern Mississippi

Survey area

Mississippi:
    Clay
    Grenada
    Lee
    Leflore
    Lowndes
    Monroe
    Oktibbeha

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Mississippi:
    Alcorn
    Bolivar
    Calhoun
    Carroll
    Chickasaw
    Choctaw
    Coahoma
    Itawamba
    Lafayette (Does not include the Holly Springs National Forest 
portion)
    Montgomery
    Noxubee
    Pontotoc (Does not include the Holly Springs National Forest 
portion)
    Prentiss
    Quitman
    Sunflower
    Tallahatchie
    Tishomingo
    Union (Does not include the Holly Springs National Forest 
portion)
    Washington
    Webster
    Winston
    Yalobusha

MISSOURI

Kansas City

Survey Area

Kansas:
    Jefferson (effective for wage surveys beginning in October 2026)
    Johnson
    Leavenworth
    Osage (effective for wage surveys beginning in October 2026)
    Shawnee (effective for wage surveys beginning in October 2026)
    Wyandotte
Missouri:
    Cass
    Clay
    Jackson
    Johnson (effective for wage surveys beginning in October 2026)
    Platte
    Ray

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Kansas:
    Allen
    Anderson
    Atchison
    Bourbon
    Doniphan
    Douglas
    Franklin
    Jackson
    Jefferson (effective until October 2026)
    Linn
    Miami
    Osage (effective until October 2026)
    Shawnee (effective until October 2026)
    Wabaunsee
Missouri:
    Adair
    Andrew
    Atchison
    Bates
    Buchanan
    Caldwell
    Carroll
    Chariton
    Clinton
    Daviess
    DeKalb
    Gentry
    Grundy
    Harrison
    Henry
    Holt
    Johnson (effective until October 2026)
    Lafayette
    Linn
    Livingston
    Macon
    Mercer
    Nodaway
    Pettis
    Putnam
    Saline
    Schuyler
    Sullivan
    Worth

St. Louis

Survey Area

Illinois:
    Clinton
    Madison
    Monroe
    St. Clair
    Williamson (effective for wage surveys beginning in October 
2026)
Missouri (city):
    St. Louis
Missouri (counties):
    Boone (effective for wage surveys beginning in October 2026)
    Franklin
    Jefferson
    St. Charles

[[Page 7452]]

    St. Louis

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Illinois:
    Adams
    Alexander
    Bond
    Calhoun
    Clay
    Effingham
    Fayette
    Franklin
    Greene
    Hamilton
    Jackson
    Jefferson
    Jersey
    Johnson
    Macoupin
    Marion
    Montgomery
    Perry
    Pike
    Pope
    Pulaski
    Randolph
    Saline
    Union
    Washington
    Wayne
    Williamson (effective until October 2026)
Missouri:
    Audrain
    Bollinger
    Boone (effective until October 2026)
    Callaway
    Cape Girardeau
    Clark
    Cole
    Cooper
    Crawford
    Gasconade
    Howard
    Iron
    Knox
    Lewis
    Lincoln
    Madison
    Marion
    Mississippi
    Moniteau
    Monroe
    Montgomery
    Osage
    Perry
    Pike
    Ralls
    Randolph
    St. Francois
    Ste. Genevieve
    Scotland
    Scott
    Shelby
    Warren
    Washington

Southern Missouri

Survey Area

Missouri:
    Christian
    Greene
    Laclede
    Phelps
    Pulaski
    Webster

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Kansas:
    Cherokee
    Crawford
Missouri:
    Barry
    Barton
    Benton
    Butler
    Camden
    Carter
    Cedar
    Dade
    Dallas
    Dent
    Douglas
    Hickory
    Howell
    Jasper
    Lawrence
    Maries
    Miller
    Morgan
    New Madrid
    Newton
    Oregon
    Ozark
    Polk
    Reynolds
    Ripley
    St. Clair
    Shannon
    Stoddard
    Stone
    Taney
    Texas
    Vernon
    Wayne
    Wright

MONTANA

Montana

Survey Area

Montana:
    Cascade
    Lewis and Clark
    Yellowstone

Area of Applicaton. Survey area plus:

Montana:
    Beaverhead
    Big Horn
    Blaine
    Broadwater
    Carbon
    Carter
    Chouteau
    Custer
    Daniels
    Dawson
    Deer Lodge
    Fallon
    Fergus
    Flathead
    Gallatin
    Garfield
    Glacier
    Golden Valley
    Granite
    Hill
    Jefferson
    Judith Basin
    Lake
    Liberty
    Lincoln
    McCone
    Madison
    Meagher
    Mineral
    Missoula
    Musselshell
    Park
    Petroleum
    Phillips
    Pondera
    Powder River
    Powell
    Prairie
    Ravalli
    Richland
    Roosevelt
    Rosebud
    Sanders
    Sheridan
    Silver Bow
    Stillwater
    Sweet Grass
    Teton
    Toole
    Treasure
    Valley
    Wheatland
    Wibaux
Wyoming:
    Big Horn
    Park
    Teton

NEBRASKA

Omaha

Survey Area

Iowa:
    Pottawattamie
Nebraska:
    Douglas
    Lancaster
    Sarpy

Area of Applicaton. Survey area plus:

Iowa:
    Adams
    Audubon
    Buena Vista
    Cass
    Cherokee
    Clay
    Crawford
    Fremont
    Harrison
    Ida
    Mills
    Monona
    Montgomery
    O'Brien
    Page
    Palo Alto
    Plymouth
    Pocahontas
    Sac
    Shelby
    Sioux
    Taylor
    Woodbury
Nebraska:
    Adams
    Antelope
    Arthur
    Blaine
    Boone
    Boyd

[[Page 7453]]

    Brown
    Buffalo
    Burt
    Butler
    Cass
    Cedar
    Chase
    Cherry
    Clay
    Colfax
    Cuming
    Custer
    Dakota
    Dawson
    Dixon
    Dodge
    Dundy
    Fillmore
    Franklin
    Frontier
    Furnas
    Gage
    Garfield
    Gosper
    Grant
    Greeley
    Hall
    Hamilton
    Harlan
    Hayes
    Hitchcock
    Holt
    Hooker
    Howard
    Jefferson
    Johnson
    Kearney
    Keith
    Keya Paha
    Knox
    Lincoln
    Logan
    Loup
    McPherson
    Madison
    Merrick
    Nance
    Nemaha
    Nuckolls
    Otoe
    Pawnee
    Perkins
    Phelps
    Pierce
    Platte
    Polk
    Red Willow
    Richardson
    Rock
    Saline
    Saunders
    Seward
    Sherman
    Stanton
    Thayer
    Thomas
    Thurston
    Valley
    Washington
    Wayne
    Webster
    Wheeler
    York
South Dakota:
    Union

NEVADA

Las Vegas

Survey Area

Nevada:
    Clark
    Nye

Area of Applicaton. Survey area plus:

Arizona:
    Mohave
California:
    Inyo (Does not include the China Lake Naval Weapons Center 
portion.)
Nevada:
    Esmeralda
    Lincoln

Reno

Survey Area

California:
    Lassen (effective for wage surveys beginning in March 2026)
Nevada:
    Lyon
    Mineral
    Storey
    Washoe

Area of Applicaton. Survey area plus:

California:
    Alpine
    Lassen (effective until March 2026)
    Mono (Does not cover locations where the Bridgeport, CA, special 
schedule applies)
Nevada (city):
    Carson City
Nevada (county):
    Churchill
    Douglas
    Elko
    Eureka
    Humboldt
    Lander
    Pershing
    White Pine

NEW MEXICO

Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Los Alamos

Survey Area

New Mexico:
    Bernalillo
    McKinley (effective for wage surveys beginning in April 2027)
    Sandoval

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

New Mexico:
    Catron
    Cibola
    Colfax
    Curry
    De Baca
    Guadalupe
    Harding
    Lincoln (Does not include the White Sands Missile Range portion)
    Los Alamos
    McKinley (effective until April 2027)
    Mora
    Quay
    Rio Arriba
    Roosevelt
    San Miguel
    Santa Fe
    Socorro (Does not include the White Sands Missile Range portion)
    Taos
    Torrance
    Union
    Valencia

NEW YORK

Albany-Schenectady

Survey Area

New York:
    Albany
    Montgomery
    Rensselaer
    Saratoga
    Schenectady

Area of Applicaton. Survey area plus:

Massachusetts:
    Berkshire
New York:
    Columbia
    Delaware
    Fulton
    Greene
    Hamilton
    Schoharie
    Warren
    Washington
Vermont:
    Bennington
    Rutland

Buffalo

Survey Area

New York:
    Erie
    Niagara

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

New York:
    Allegany
    Cattaraugus
    Chautauqua
    Wyoming
Pennsylvania:
    Elk (Only includes the Allegheny National Forest portion)
    Forest (Only includes the Allegheny National Forest portion)
    McKean
    Warren

New York-Newark

Survey Area

New Jersey:
    Bergen
    Burlington (Only includes the Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst 
portion)
    Essex
    Hudson
    Middlesex
    Monmouth (effective for wage surveys beginning in January 2028)
    Morris
    Ocean (effective for wage surveys beginning in January 2028)
    Passaic
    Somerset
    Union
New York:
    Bronx
    Dutchess (effective for wage surveys beginning in January 2028)
    Kings

[[Page 7454]]

    Nassau
    New York
    Orange
    Queens
    Suffolk
    Westchester
Pennsylvania:
    Monroe (effective for wage surveys beginning in January 2028)

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Connecticut:
    Fairfield
New Jersey:
    Hunterdon
    Mercer
    Monmouth (effective until January 2028)
    Ocean (effective until January 2028)
    Sussex
    Warren
New York:
    Dutchess (effective until January 2028)
    Putnam
    Richmond
    Rockland
    Sullivan
    Ulster
Pennsylvania:
    Carbon
    Lehigh
    Monroe (effective until January 2028)
    Northampton
    Pike
    Wayne

Northern New York

Survey Area

New York:
    Clinton
    Franklin
    Jefferson
    St. Lawrence
Vermont:
    Chittenden
    Franklin
    Grand Isle

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

New York:
    Essex
    Lewis
Vermont:
    Addison
    Caledonia
    Essex
    Lamoille
    Orleans
    Washington

Rochester

Survey Area

New York:
    Livingston
    Monroe
    Ontario
    Orleans
    Steuben
    Wayne

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

New York:
    Chemung
    Genesee
    Schuyler
    Seneca
    Yates
Pennsylvania:
    Tioga

Syracuse-Utica-Rome

Survey Area

New York:
    Herkimer
    Madison
    Oneida
    Onondaga
    Oswego

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

New York:
    Broome
    Cayuga
    Chenango
    Cortland
    Otsego
    Tioga
    Tompkins

NORTH CAROLINA

Asheville

Survey Area

North Carolina:
    Buncombe
    Haywood
    Henderson
    Madison
    Transylvania

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

North Carolina:
    Avery
    Cherokee
    Clay
    Graham
    Jackson
    Macon
    Mitchell
    Polk
    Rutherford
    Swain
    Yancey

Central North Carolina

Survey Area

North Carolina:
    Cumberland
    Durham
    Harnett
    Hoke
    Johnston
    Orange
    Wake
    Wayne

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

North Carolina:
    Alamance
    Bladen
    Caswell
    Chatham
    Davidson
    Davie
    Edgecombe
    Forsyth
    Franklin
    Granville
    Guilford
    Halifax
    Lee
    Montgomery
    Moore
    Nash
    Northampton
    Person
    Randolph
    Richmond
    Robeson
    Rockingham
    Sampson
    Scotland
    Stokes
    Surry
    Vance
    Warren
    Wilson
    Yadkin
South Carolina:
    Dillon
    Marion
    Marlboro

Charlotte-Concord

Survey Area

North Carolina:
    Cabarrus
    Gaston
    Mecklenburg
    Rowan
    Union

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

North Carolina:
    Alexander
    Anson
    Burke
    Caldwell
    Catawba
    Cleveland
    Iredell
    Lincoln
    McDowell
    Stanly
    Wilkes
South Carolina:
    Chester
    Chesterfield
    Lancaster
    York

Southeastern North Carolina

Survey Area

North Carolina:
    Brunswick
    Carteret
    Columbus
    Craven
    Jones
    Lenoir
    New Hanover
    Onslow
    Pamlico
    Pender

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

North Carolina:
    Beaufort
    Bertie
    Duplin
    Greene
    Hyde
    Martin
    Pitt
    Washington

[[Page 7455]]

NORTH DAKOTA

North Dakota

Survey Area

Minnesota:
    Clay
    Polk
North Dakota:
    Burleigh
    Cass
    Grand Forks
    McLean
    Mercer
    Morton
    Oliver
    Traill
    Ward

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Minnesota:
    Becker (does not include the White Earth Indian Reservation 
portion)
    Kittson
    Marshall
    Norman
    Otter Tail
    Pennington
    Red Lake
    Roseau
    Wilkin
North Dakota:
    Adams
    Barnes
    Benson
    Billings
    Bottineau
    Bowman
    Burke
    Cavalier
    Dickey
    Divide
    Dunn
    Eddy
    Emmons
    Foster
    Golden Valley
    Grant
    Griggs
    Hettinger
    Kidder
    LaMoure
    Logan
    McHenry
    McIntosh
    McKenzie
    Mountrail
    Nelson
    Pembina
    Pierce
    Ramsey
    Ransom
    Renville
    Richland
    Rolette
    Sargent
    Sheridan
    Sioux
    Slope
    Stark
    Steele
    Stutsman
    Towner
    Walsh
    Wells
    Williams

OHIO

Cincinnati

Survey Area

Indiana:
    Dearborn
Kentucky:
    Boone
    Campbell
    Kenton
Ohio:
    Clermont
    Hamilton
    Warren

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Indiana:
    Franklin
    Ohio
    Ripley
    Switzerland
    Union
Kentucky:
    Bracken
    Carroll
    Gallatin
    Grant
    Lewis
    Mason
    Owen
    Pendleton
    Robertson
Ohio:
    Adams
    Brown
    Butler
    Clinton
    Highland

Cleveland-Akron-Canton

Survey Area

Ohio:
    Cuyahoga
    Geauga
    Lake
    Mahoning (effective for wage surveys beginning in April 2027)
    Medina

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Ohio:
    Ashland
    Ashtabula
    Carroll
    Columbiana
    Coshocton
    Crawford
    Erie
    Holmes
    Huron
    Lorain
    Mahoning (effective until April 2027)
    Ottawa
    Portage
    Richland
    Sandusky
    Stark
    Summit
    Trumbull
    Tuscarawas
    Wayne

Columbus-Marion-Zanesville

Survey Area

Ohio:
    Delaware
    Fairfield
    Franklin
    Licking
    Madison
    Pickaway
    Ross (effective for wage surveys beginning in January 2027)

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Ohio:
    Athens
    Fayette
    Guernsey
    Hancock
    Hardin
    Hocking
    Knox
    Logan
    Marion
    Morgan
    Morrow
    Muskingum
    Noble
    Perry
    Pike
    Ross (effective until January 2027)
    Seneca
    Union
    Vinton
    Wyandot

Dayton

Survey Area

Ohio:
    Champaign
    Clark
    Greene
    Miami
    Montgomery
    Preble

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

    Ohio:
    Allen
    Auglaize
    Darke
    Mercer
    Shelby
    Van Wert

OKLAHOMA

Oklahoma City

Survey Area

Oklahoma:
    Canadian
    Cleveland
    McClain
    Oklahoma
    Pottawatomie

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Oklahoma:
    Alfalfa
    Atoka
    Beckham
    Blaine
    Caddo
    Coal
    Custer
    Dewey
    Ellis
    Garfield
    Garvin
    Grady

[[Page 7456]]

    Grant
    Harper
    Hughes
    Johnston
    Kingfisher
    Lincoln
    Logan
    Major
    Marshall
    Murray
    Noble
    Payne
    Pontotoc
    Roger Mills
    Seminole
    Washita
    Woods
    Woodward

Tulsa

Survey Area

Oklahoma:
    Creek
    Mayes
    Muskogee
    Osage
    Pittsburg
    Rogers
    Tulsa
    Wagoner

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Arkansas:
    Benton
    Carroll
    Crawford
    Franklin (Only includes the Fort Chaffee portion)
    Madison
    Sebastian
    Washington
Missouri:
    McDonald
Oklahoma:
    Adair
    Cherokee
    Choctaw
    Craig
    Delaware
    Haskell
    Kay
    Latimer
    Le Flore
    McCurtain
    McIntosh
    Nowata
    Okfuskee
    Okmulgee
    Ottawa
    Pawnee
    Pushmataha
    Sequoyah
    Washington

OREGON

Portland-Vancouver-Salem

Survey Area

Oregon:
    Clackamas
    Marion
    Multnomah
    Polk
    Washington
Washington:
    Clark

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Oregon:
    Benton
    Clatsop
    Columbia
    Gilliam
    Hood River
    Linn
    Sherman
    Tillamook
    Wasco
    Yamhill
Washington:
    Cowlitz
    Klickitat
    Skamania
    Wahkiakum

Southwestern Oregon

Survey Area

Oregon:
    Douglas
    Jackson
    Lane

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

California:
    Del Norte
Oregon:
    Coos
    Crook
    Curry
    Deschutes
    Jefferson
    Josephine
    Klamath
    Lake
    Lincoln

PENNSYLVANIA

Harrisburg-York-Lebanon

Survey Area

Pennsylvania:
    Cumberland
    Dauphin
    Lebanon
    Union (effective for wage surveys beginning in May 2026)
    York

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Pennsylvania:
    Adams
    Clinton
    Juniata
    Lancaster
    Lycoming
    Mifflin
    Perry
    Snyder
    Union (effective until May 2026)

Philadelphia-Reading-Camden

Survey Area

Delaware:
    Kent (effective for wage surveys beginning in October 2027)
    New Castle (effective for wage surveys beginning in October 
2027)
Maryland:
    Cecil (effective for wage surveys beginning in October 2027)
New Jersey:
    Burlington (Excluding the Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst 
portion)
    Camden
    Gloucester
    Salem (effective for wage surveys beginning in October 2027)
Pennsylvania:
    Bucks
    Chester
    Delaware
    Montgomery
    Philadelphia

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Delaware:
    Kent (effective until October 2027)
    New Castle (effective until October 2027)
    Sussex
Maryland:
    Cecil (effective until October 2027)
    Somerset
    Wicomico
    Worcester (Does not include the Assateague Island portion)
New Jersey:
    Atlantic
    Cape May
    Cumberland
    Salem (effective until October 2027)
Pennsylvania:
    Berks
    Schuylkill

Pittsburgh

Survey Area

Pennsylvania:
    Allegheny
    Beaver
    Butler
    Cambria (effective for wage surveys beginning in July 2027)
    Washington
    Westmoreland

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Ohio:
    Belmont
    Harrison
    Jefferson
Pennsylvania:
    Armstrong
    Bedford
    Blair
    Cambria (effective until July 2027)
    Cameron
    Centre
    Clarion
    Clearfield
    Crawford
    Elk (Does not include the Allegheny National Forest portion)
    Erie
    Fayette
    Forest (Does not include the Allegheny National Forest portion)
    Greene
    Huntingdon
    Indiana
    Jefferson
    Lawrence
    Mercer
    Potter
    Somerset
    Venango
West Virginia:
    Brooke
    Hancock
    Marshall

[[Page 7457]]

    Ohio

Scranton-Wilkes-Barre

Survey Area

Pennsylvania:
    Lackawanna
    Luzerne

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Pennsylvania:
    Bradford
    Columbia
    Montour
    Northumberland
    Sullivan
    Susquehanna
    Wyoming

PUERTO RICO

Puerto Rico

Survey Area

Puerto Rico (Municipios):
    Bayam[oacute]n
    Can[oacute]vanas
    Carolina
    Cata[ntilde]o
    Guaynabo
    Humacao
    Lo[iacute]za
    San Juan
    Toa Baja
    Trujillo Alto

Area of Application.

Puerto Rico

SOUTH CAROLINA

Charleston

Survey Area

South Carolina:
    Berkeley
    Charleston
    Dorchester

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

South Carolina:
    Colleton
    Georgetown
    Horry
    Williamsburg

Columbia

Survey Area

South Carolina:
    Darlington
    Florence
    Kershaw
    Lee
    Lexington
    Richland
    Sumter

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

South Carolina:
    Abbeville
    Anderson
    Calhoun
    Cherokee
    Clarendon
    Fairfield
    Greenville
    Greenwood
    Laurens
    Newberry
    Oconee
    Orangeburg
    Pickens
    Saluda
    Spartanburg
    Union

SOUTH DAKOTA

Eastern South Dakota

Survey Area

South Dakota:
    Minnehaha

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Iowa:
    Dickinson
    Emmet
    Lyon
    Osceola
Minnesota:
    Jackson
    Lincoln
    Lyon
    Murray
    Nobles
    Pipestone
    Rock
South Dakota:
    Aurora
    Beadle
    Bennett
    Bon Homme
    Brookings
    Brown
    Brule
    Buffalo
    Campbell
    Charles Mix
    Clark
    Clay
    Codington
    Corson
    Davison
    Day
    Deuel
    Dewey
    Douglas
    Edmunds
    Faulk
    Grant
    Gregory
    Haakon
    Hamlin
    Hand
    Hanson
    Hughes
    Hutchinson
    Hyde
    Jerauld
    Jones
    Kingsbury
    Lake
    Lincoln
    Lyman
    McCook
    McPherson
    Marshall
    Mellette
    Miner
    Moody
    Potter
    Roberts
    Sanborn
    Spink
    Stanley
    Sully
    Todd
    Tripp
    Turner
    Walworth
    Yankton
    Ziebach

TENNESSEE

Eastern Tennessee

Survey Area

Tennessee:
    Carter
    Hawkins
    Sullivan
    Unicoi
    Washington
Virginia (city):
    Bristol
Virginia (counties):
    Scott
    Washington

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Kentucky:
    Harlan
    Letcher
North Carolina:
    Alleghany
    Ashe
    Watauga
Tennessee:
    Cocke
    Greene
    Hancock
    Johnson
Virginia:
    Buchanan
    Grayson
    Lee
    Russell
    Smyth
    Tazewell

Memphis

Survey Area

Arkansas:
    Crittenden
    Mississippi
Mississippi:
    De Soto
Tennessee:
    Shelby
    Tipton

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Arkansas:
    Craighead
    Cross
    Lee
    Poinsett
    St. Francis
Mississippi:
    Benton
    Lafayette (Only includes the Holly Springs National Forest 
portion)
    Marshall
    Panola
    Pontotoc (Only includes the Holly Springs National Forest 
portion)
    Tate
    Tippah
    Tunica
    Union (Only includes the Holly Springs National Forest portion)

[[Page 7458]]

Missouri:
    Dunklin
    Pemiscot
Tennessee:
    Carroll
    Chester
    Crockett
    Dyer
    Fayette
    Gibson
    Hardeman
    Hardin
    Haywood
    Lake
    Lauderdale
    Madison
    McNairy
    Obion

Nashville

Survey Area

Kentucky:
    Christian
Tennessee:
    Cheatham
    Davidson
    Dickson
    Montgomery
    Robertson
    Rutherford
    Sumner
    Williamson
    Wilson

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Alabama:
    Jackson
Georgia:
    Catossa
    Chattooga
    Dade
    Murray
    Walker
    Whitfield
Illinois:
    Massac
Kentucky:
    Adair
    Allen
    Ballard
    Barren
    Butler
    Caldwell
    Calloway
    Carlisle
    Clinton
    Cumberland
    Edmonson
    Fulton
    Graves
    Hickman
    Hopkins
    Livingston
    Logan
    Lyon
    McCracken
    Marshall
    Metcalfe
    Monroe
    Muhlenberg
    Russell
    Simpson
    Todd
    Trigg
    Warren
Tennessee:
    Anderson
    Bedford
    Benton
    Bledsoe
    Blount
    Bradley
    Campbell
    Cannon
    Claiborne
    Clay
    Coffee
    Cumberland
    Decatur
    DeKalb
    Fentress
    Franklin
    Grainger
    Grundy
    Hamblen
    Hamilton
    Henderson
    Henry
    Hickman
    Houston
    Humphreys
    Jackson
    Jefferson
    Knox
    Lawrence
    Lewis
    Loudon
    McMinn
    Macon
    Marion
    Marshall
    Maury
    Meigs
    Monroe
    Moore
    Morgan
    Overton
    Perry
    Pickett
    Polk
    Putnam
    Rhea
    Roane
    Scott
    Sequatchie
    Sevier
    Smith
    Stewart
    Trousdale
    Union
    Van Buren
    Warren
    Weakley
    White

TEXAS

Austin

Survey Area

Texas:
    Hays
    Milam
    Travis
    Williamson

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Texas:
    Bastrop
    Blanco
    Burnet
    Caldwell
    Fayette
    Lee
    Llano
    Mason
    San Saba

Corpus Christi-Kingsville-Alice

Survey Area

Texas:
    Hidalgo (effective for wage surveys beginning in June 2026)
    Nueces
    San Patricio

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Texas:
    Aransas
    Bee
    Brooks
    Calhoun
    Cameron
    Duval
    Goliad
    Hidalgo (effective until June 2026)
    Jim Wells
    Kenedy
    Kleberg
    Live Oak
    Refugio
    Starr
    Victoria
    Willacy

Dallas-Fort Worth

Survey Area

Texas:
    Collin
    Dallas
    Denton
    Ellis
    Grayson
    Hood
    Johnson
    Kaufman
    Parker
    Rockwall
    Tarrant
    Wise

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Oklahoma:
    Bryan
    Carter
    Love
Texas:
    Cherokee
    Cooke
    Delta
    Erath
    Fannin
    Henderson
    Hill
    Hopkins
    Hunt
    Jack
    Lamar
    Montague
    Navarro
    Palo Pinto
    Rains
    Smith
    Somervell
    Van Zandt
    Wood

[[Page 7459]]

El Paso

Survey Area

New Mexico:
    Dona Ana
    Otero
Texas:
    El Paso

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

New Mexico:
    Chaves
    Eddy
    Grant
    Hidalgo
    Lincoln (Only includes the White Sands Missile Range portion)
    Luna
    Sierra
    Socorro (Only includes the White Sands Missile Range portion)
Texas:
    Culberson
    Hudspeth

Houston-Galveston-Texas City

Survey Area

Texas:
    Brazoria
    Fort Bend
    Galveston
    Harris
    Liberty
    Montgomery
    Waller

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Texas:
    Angelina
    Austin
    Chambers
    Colorado
    Grimes
    Hardin
    Houston
    Jackson
    Jasper
    Jefferson
    Lavaca
    Madison
    Matagorda
    Nacogdoches
    Newton
    Orange
    Polk
    Sabine
    San Augustine
    San Jacinto
    Shelby
    Trinity
    Tyler
    Walker
    Washington
    Wharton

San Antonio

Survey Area

Texas:
    Bexar
    Comal
    Guadalupe

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Texas:
    Atascosa
    Bandera
    DeWitt
    Dimmit
    Edwards
    Frio
    Gillespie
    Gonzales
    Jim Hogg
    Karnes
    Kendall
    Kerr
    Kinney
    La Salle
    McMullen
    Maverick
    Medina
    Real
    Uvalde
    Val Verde
    Webb
    Wilson
    Zapata
    Zavala

Texarkana

Survey Area

Arkansas:
    Little River
    Miller
Texas:
    Bowie

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Arkansas:
    Columbia
    Hempstead
    Howard
    Lafayette
    Nevada
    Sevier
Texas:
    Camp
    Cass
    Franklin
    Marion
    Morris
    Red River
    Titus

Waco

Survey Area

Texas:
    Bell
    Coryell
    McLennan

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Texas:
    Anderson
    Bosque
    Brazos
    Burleson
    Falls
    Freestone
    Hamilton
    Lampasas
    Leon
    Limestone
    Mills
    Robertson

Western Texas

Survey Area

Texas:
    Callahan
    Ector
    Howard
    Jones
    Lubbock
    Midland
    Nolan
    Taylor
    Tom Green

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

New Mexico:
    Lea
Oklahoma:
    Beaver
    Cimarron
    Texas
Texas:
    Andrews
    Armstrong
    Bailey
    Borden
    Brewster
    Briscoe
    Brown
    Carson
    Castro
    Childress
    Cochran
    Coke
    Coleman
    Collingsworth
    Comanche
    Concho
    Cottle
    Crane
    Crockett
    Crosby
    Dallam
    Dawson
    Deaf Smith
    Dickens
    Donley
    Eastland
    Fisher
    Floyd
    Gaines
    Garza
    Glasscock
    Gray
    Hale
    Hall
    Hansford
    Hartley
    Haskell
    Hemphill
    Hockley
    Hutchinson
    Irion
    Jeff Davis
    Kent
    Kimble
    King
    Lamb
    Lipscomb
    Loving
    Lynn
    McCulloch
    Martin
    Menard
    Mitchell
    Moore
    Motley
    Ochiltree
    Oldham
    Parmer
    Pecos
    Potter

[[Page 7460]]

    Presidio
    Randall
    Reagan
    Reeves
    Roberts
    Runnels
    Schleicher
    Scurry
    Shackelford
    Sherman
    Stephens
    Sterling
    Stonewall
    Sutton
    Swisher
    Terrell
    Terry
    Throckmorton
    Upton
    Ward
    Wheeler
    Winkler
    Yoakum

Wichita Falls, Texas-Southwestern Oklahoma

Survey Area

Oklahoma:
    Comanche
    Cotton
    Stephens
    Tillman
Texas:
    Archer
    Clay
    Wichita

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Oklahoma:
    Greer
    Harmon
    Jackson
    Jefferson
    Kiowa
Texas:
    Baylor
    Foard
    Hardeman
    Knox
    Wilbarger
    Young

UTAH

Utah

Survey Area

Utah:
    Box Elder
    Davis
    Salt Lake
    Tooele
    Utah
    Weber

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Colorado:
    Mesa
    Moffat
Idaho:
    Franklin
Utah:
    Beaver
    Cache
    Carbon
    Daggett
    Duchesne
    Emery
    Garfield (Does not include the Bryce Canyon, Capitol Reef, and 
Canyonlands National Parks portions)
    Grand (Does not include the Arches and Canyonlands National 
Parks portions)
    Iron (Does not include the Cedar Breaks National Monument and 
Zion National Park portions)
    Juab
    Millard
    Morgan
    Piute
    Rich
    Sanpete
    Sevier
    Summit
    Uintah
    Wasatch
    Wayne (Does not include the Capitol Reef and Canyonlands 
National Parks portions)

VIRGINIA

Richmond

Survey Area

Virginia (cities):
    Colonial Heights
    Hopewell
    Petersburg
    Richmond
Virginia (counties):
    Charles City
    Chesterfield
    Dinwiddie
    Goochland
    Hanover
    Henrico
    New Kent
    Powhatan
    Prince George

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Virginia (cities):
    Charlottesville
    Emporia
Virginia (counties):
    Albemarle (Does not include the Shenandoah National Park 
portion)
    Amelia
    Brunswick
    Buckingham
    Charlotte
    Cumberland
    Essex
    Fluvanna
    Greene (Does not include the Shenandoah National Park portion)
    Greensville
    King and Queen
    King William
    Lancaster
    Louisa
    Lunenburg
    Mecklenburg
    Nelson
    Northumberland
    Nottoway
    Prince Edward
    Richmond
    Sussex

Roanoke

Survey Area

Virginia (cities):
    Radford
    Roanoke
    Salem
Virginia (counties):
    Botetourt
    Craig
    Montgomery
    Roanoke

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Virginia (cities):
    Buena Vista
    Covington
    Danville
    Galax
    Lexington
    Lynchburg
    Martinsville
    Staunton
    Waynesboro
Virginia (counties):
    Alleghany
    Amherst
    Appomattox
    Augusta (Does not include the Shenandoah National Park portion)
    Bath
    Bedford
    Bland
    Campbell
    Carroll
    Floyd
    Franklin
    Giles
    Halifax
    Henry
    Highland
    Patrick
    Pittsylvania
    Pulaski
    Rockbridge
    Wythe

Virginia Beach-Chesapeake

Survey Area

North Carolina:
    Currituck
    Pasquotank (effective for wage surveys beginning in May 2026)
Virginia (cities):
    Chesapeake
    Hampton
    Newport News
    Norfolk
    Poquoson
    Portsmouth
    Suffolk
    Virginia Beach
    Williamsburg
Virginia (counties):
    Gloucester
    James City
    York

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Maryland:
    Worcester (Only includes the Assateague Island portion)
North Carolina:
    Camden
    Chowan
    Dare
    Gates
    Hertford
    Pasquotank (effective until May 2026)
    Perquimans

[[Page 7461]]

    Tyrrell
Virginia (city):
    Franklin
Virginia (counties):
    Accomack
    Isle of Wight
    Mathews
    Middlesex
    Northampton
    Southampton
    Surry

WASHINGTON

Seattle-Tacoma

Survey Area

Washington:
    Island (effective for wage surveys beginning in September 2026)
    King
    Kitsap
    Pierce
    Snohomish

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Washington:
    Chelan (Only includes the North Cascades National Park section)
    Clallam
    Grays Harbor
    Island (effective until September 2026)
    Jefferson
    Lewis
    Mason
    Pacific
    San Juan
    Skagit
    Thurston
    Whatcom

Southeastern Washington-Eastern Oregon

Survey Area

Oregon:
    Umatilla
Washington:
    Benton
    Franklin
    Walla Walla
    Yakima

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Oregon:
    Baker
    Grant
    Harney
    Malheur
    Morrow
    Union
    Wallowa
    Wheeler
Washington:
    Columbia
    Kittitas (Only includes the Yakima Firing Range portion)

Spokane

Survey Area

Washington:
    Spokane

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Idaho:
    Benewah
    Bonner
    Boundary
    Clearwater
    Idaho
    Kootenai
    Latah
    Lewis
    Nez Perce
    Shoshone
Washington:
    Adams
    Asotin
    Chelan (Does not include the North Cascades National Park 
portion)
    Douglas
    Ferry
    Garfield
    Grant
    Kittitas (Does not include the Yakima Firing Range portion)
    Lincoln
    Okanogan
    Pend Oreille
    Stevens
    Whitman

WEST VIRGINIA

West Virginia

Survey Area

Kentucky:
    Boyd
    Greenup
Ohio:
    Lawrence
West Virginia:
    Cabell
    Harrison
    Kanawha
    Marion
    Monongalia
    Putnam
    Wayne

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Kentucky:
    Carter
    Elliott
    Floyd
    Johnson
    Lawrence
    Magoffin
    Martin
    Pike
Ohio:
    Gallia
    Jackson
    Meigs
    Monroe
    Scioto
    Washington
Virginia (city):
    Norton
Virginia (counties):
    Dickenson
    Wise
West Virginia:
    Barbour
    Boone
    Braxton
    Calhoun
    Clay
    Doddridge
    Fayette
    Gilmer
    Grant
    Greenbrier
    Jackson
    Lewis
    Lincoln
    Logan
    McDowell
    Mason
    Mercer
    Mingo
    Monroe
    Nicholas
    Pendleton
    Pleasants
    Pocahontas
    Preston
    Raleigh
    Randolph
    Ritchie
    Roane
    Summers
    Taylor
    Tucker
    Tyler
    Upshur
    Webster
    Wetzel
    Wirt
    Wood
    Wyoming

WISCONSIN

Madison

Survey Area

Wisconsin:
    Dane

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Wisconsin:
    Adams
    Columbia
    Grant
    Green
    Green Lake
    Iowa
    Lafayette
    Marquette
    Rock
    Sauk
    Waushara

Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha

Survey Area

Wisconsin:
    Milwaukee
    Ozaukee
    Washington
    Waukesha

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Wisconsin:
    Brown
    Calumet
    Dodge
    Door
    Fond du Lac
    Jefferson
    Kewaunee
    Manitowoc
    Menominee
    Oconto
    Outagamie
    Racine
    Shawano
    Sheboygan
    Walworth
    Winnebago

[[Page 7462]]

Southwestern Wisconsin

Survey Area

Wisconsin:
    Chippewa
    Eau Claire
    La Crosse
    Monroe
    Trempealeau

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Minnesota:
    Houston
Wisconsin:
    Barron
    Buffalo
    Clark
    Crawford
    Dunn
    Forest
    Jackson
    Juneau
    Langlade
    Lincoln
    Marathon
    Oneida
    Pepin
    Portage
    Price
    Richland
    Rusk
    Taylor
    Vernon
    Vilas
    Waupaca
    Wood

WYOMING

Wyoming

Survey Area

South Dakota:
    Pennington
Wyoming:
    Albany
    Laramie
    Natrona

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Nebraska:
    Banner
    Box Butte
    Cheyenne
    Dawes
    Deuel
    Garden
    Kimball
    Morrill
    Scotts Bluff
    Sheridan
    Sioux
South Dakota:
    Butte
    Custer
    Fall River
    Harding
    Jackson
    Lawrence
    Meade
    Oglala Lakota
    Perkins
Wyoming:
    Campbell
    Carbon
    Converse
    Crook
    Fremont
    Goshen
    Hot Springs
    Johnson
    Lincoln
    Niobrara
    Platte
    Sheridan
    Sublette
    Sweetwater
    Uinta
    Washakie
    Weston

[FR Doc. 2025-00555 Filed 1-13-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-39-P`