Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Office of Personnel Management 5 CFR Part 532
[Docket ID: OPM-2024-0016]
RIN 3206-AO69
 AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.
 ACTION: Final rule.
 SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a final rule to change the regulatory criteria used to define Federal Wage System (FWS) wage area boundaries and make changes in certain wage areas. The purpose of this change, which will affect around ten percent of the FWS workforce, is to make the FWS wage area criteria more similar to the General Schedule (GS) locality pay area criteria. This change is based on a December 2023 majority recommendation of the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee (FPRAC), the statutory national-level labor-management committee that advises OPM on the administration of the FWS.
 DATES:  *Effective date:*
                             This rule is effective October 1, 2025. *Applicability date:*
                             Changes to wage schedules resulting from the revised wage areas of application in appendix C to subpart B of 5 CFR part 532 apply on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after October 1, 2025. Changes to wage survey areas apply at various times beginning on or after October 1, 2025, based on the annual schedule of wage surveys, as listed in appendix A to subpart B of 5 CFR part 532, and with the timing of survey area expansions for affected wage areas as noted in the wage area listings in appendix C to subpart B of 5 CFR part 532.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ana Paunoiu, by telephone at (202) 606-2858 or by email at 
                            *paypolicy@opm.gov.*


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Overview There are two major job classification and pay systems in use by the Federal Government: the GS and the FWS. The GS covers around 1.5 million employees, and the FWS covers around 200,000 employees with around 170,000 in the appropriated fund system. On October 11, 2024, OPM issued a proposed rule (89 FR 82874) to change the regulatory criteria used to define FWS wage area boundaries for the appropriated fund system and make changes in certain wage areas. Specifically, OPM proposed to amend 5 CFR 532.211 to make the criteria OPM uses to define the geographic boundaries of FWS wage areas more similar to the GS locality pay area criteria and to define revised wage area boundaries in accordance with those revised criteria. The 60-day comment period ended on December 10, 2024. OPM received 585 comments from Members of Congress, labor organizations, several hundred Federal employees, and one agency. Public comments, with one exception, strongly supported changing the regulatory criteria in 5 CFR 532.211. After consideration of public comments about the proposed rule, OPM is issuing a final rule that amends the regulatory criteria in 5 CFR 532.211, pursuant to its authority to issue regulations governing the FWS in 5 U.S.C. chapter 53, subchapter IV. In general, this final rule implements changes to certain wage areas, as identified in the proposed rule. This final rule also reflects a few corrections, which are described in detail after the discussion of comments, and it makes nonsubstantive changes to the authority citations for part 532 by amending the existing authority citations to comply with 1 CFR part 21, subpart B. Background During the period GS locality pay was being introduced in the early 1990s, 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. 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. 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 
                        ( print 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] 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. 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 
                        ( print 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. 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] 
 
 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 
                        ( print 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.
                        ( print 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. 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 
                        ( print 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 
                        ( print 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. 
 
 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. FWS wage surveys are conducted under the information collection titled “Establishment Information Form,” “Wage Data Collection Form,” and “Wage Data Collection Continuation Form” OMB Control number 3260-0036. DOD wage specialist data collectors survey about 21,760 businesses annually. Based on past experience with local wage surveys, DOD estimates that each survey collection requires 1.5 hours of respondent burden for collection forms, resulting in a total yearly burden of 32,640 hours. (See the 
                        *Paperwork Reduction Act*
                         section below.) The changes in wage area boundaries in this rule are not expected to affect the public reporting burden of the current information collection. This is because the number of counties included in future survey areas will remain very similar to those included in current survey areas. OPM invited public comment on this matter, but no comments were submitted. This final rule will affect the FWS employees of up to 30 Federal agencies—ranging from cabinet-level departments to small independent agencies—affecting around 17,000 FWS employees. The estimated payroll cost of this final rule, including 36.70 percent fringe benefits,[11]
                        
                         is approximately $150 million when annualized at a 2 percent rate, and its cumulative undiscounted 10-year cost is around $1.5 billion for geographic areas being moved from one wage area to another as a result of amending the criteria used to define FWS wage area boundaries. The total first year base payroll cost represents around 1 percent of the $10 billion overall annual base FWS payroll. About half the overall cost will be incurred by the Department of the Army, primarily at Tobyhanna, Letterkenny, and Anniston Army Depots because a substantial number of the FWS employees who will be affected by the proposed changes is concentrated at these large federal installations. Attachment 1 [12]
                        
                         provides OPM's estimate of the payroll costs for the first 10 years of implementation of this rule. This document was developed by OPM staff who provide technical support to FPRAC. The cost estimate lists the wage areas that will have counties added as 
                        ( print page 7437)
                        a result of the final rule and identifies the counties being added. To calculate the estimated first year cost of around $140 million, we used Wage Grade, Wage Leader, and Wage Supervisor employment numbers in each impacted county and compared the difference in pay between the grade's step-2 rate under the county's current wage schedule, the prevailing wage grade level, and the wage schedule the county will be defined under by this final rule. The overall costs were further adjusted based on the average step rate for FWS employees being above step 2.[13]
                        
                         The ten cells to the right of each county provide the costs for the first ten years of implementation. In the “Totals” worksheet, the “Totals” column provides the estimated total cost for the increased payroll for the first 10 years after implementation. The “Emps” column provides the sum of Wage Grade, Wage Leader, and Wage Supervisor employees in the county. The bottom row of each wage area section of Attachment 1 provides the total payroll costs associated with this rule for all counties being moved to the wage area listed. Estimated costs for the second through tenth years were calculated using a 2 percent adjustment factor, in line with the President's budget plan for FY 2025 and an estimated 36.7 percent fringe benefit factor. As these are only estimates, actual future costs will vary. Future wage schedules will be based on local wage surveys that will include survey counties that were previously survey counties in wage areas with different prevailing wage levels. As such, the measurable prevailing wage levels within a wage area are likely to be different than those measured in the most recent local wage surveys. For instance, starting with new full-scale wage surveys beginning in October 2027, the proposed San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland wage area will include Monterey and San Joaquin Counties, CA, in its wage surveys. It is possible that inclusion of these counties in an enlarged San Jose-San 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 
                        ( print 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.
                        ( print 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
 1.The authority citation for part 532 is revised to read as follows: Authority:
                            5 U.S.C. 5343, 5346. Sec. 532.707 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552. 2.Revise § 532.211 to read as follows § 532.211
  (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 
                                ( print 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.
 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.
                            ( print page 7441) State
Wage area
Lead agency
Beginning month of 
                                     survey
Fiscal year of full-scale 
                                     survey odd  
                                     or evenAlabama
Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega
DoD
January
Even.Dothan
DoD
July
Odd.Huntsville
DoD
April
Even.Montgomery-Selma
DoD
August
Odd.Alaska
Alaska
DoD
July
Even.Arizona
Northeastern Arizona
DoD
March
Odd.Phoenix
DoD
March
Odd.Tucson
DoD
March
Odd.Arkansas
Little Rock
DoD
July
Even.California
Fresno
DoD
February
Odd.Los Angeles
DoD
November
Odd.Sacramento-Roseville
DoD
February
Odd.San Diego
DoD
September
Odd.San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland
DoD
October
Even.Colorado
Denver
DoD
January
Odd.Southern Colorado
DoD
January
Even.District of Columbia
Washington-Baltimore-Arlington
DoD
July
Odd.Florida
Cocoa Beach
DoD
October
Even.Jacksonville
DoD
January
Odd.Miami-Port St. Lucie-Fort Lauderdale
DoD
May
Odd.Panama City
DoD
September
Even.Pensacola
DoD
September
Odd.Tampa-St. Petersburg
DoD
April
Even.Georgia
Albany
DoD
August
Odd.Atlanta
DoD
May
Odd.Augusta
DoD
June
Odd.Macon
DoD
June
Odd.Savannah
DoD
May
Odd.Hawaii
Hawaii
DoD
June
Even.Idaho
Boise
DoD
July
Odd.Illinois
Bloomington-Pontiac
DoD
September
Odd.Chicago-Naperville, IL
DoD
September
Even.Indiana
Evansville-Henderson
DoD
October
Odd.Fort Wayne-Marion
DoD
October
Odd.Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie
DoD
October
Odd.Iowa
Cedar Rapids-Iowa City
DoD
July
Even.Davenport-Moline
DoD
October
Even.Des Moines
DoD
September
Odd.Kansas
Manhattan
DoD
November
Even.Wichita
DoD
November
Even.Kentucky
Lexington
DoD
February
Even.Louisville
DoD
February
Odd.Louisiana
Lake Charles-Alexandria
DoD
April
Even.New Orleans
DoD
June
Even.Shreveport
DoD
May
Even.Maine
Augusta
DoD
May
Even.Central and Northern Maine
DoD
June
Even.Massachusetts
Boston-Worcester-Providence
DoD
August
Even.Michigan
Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor
DoD
January
Odd.Northwestern Michigan
DoD
August
Odd.Southwestern Michigan
DoD
October
Even.Minnesota
Duluth
DoD
June
Odd.Minneapolis-St. Paul
DoD
April
Odd.Mississippi
Biloxi
DoD
November
Even.Jackson
DoD
February
Odd.Meridian
DoD
February
Odd.Northern Mississippi
DoD
February
Even.Missouri
Kansas City
DoD
October
Odd.St. Louis
DoD
October
Odd.Southern Missouri
DoD
October
Odd.Montana
Montana
DoD
July
Even.Nebraska
Omaha
DoD
October
Odd.Nevada
Las Vegas
DoD
September
Even.Reno
DoD
March
Even.New Hampshire
Portsmouth
DoD
September
Even.New Mexico
Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Los Alamos
DoD
April
Odd.New York
Albany-Schenectady
DoD
March
Odd.Buffalo
DoD
September
Odd.New York-Newark
DoD
January
Even.Northern New York
DoD
March
Odd.Rochester
DoD
April
Even.( print 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 Carolina
DoD
January
Odd.North Dakota
North Dakota
DoD
March
Even.Ohio
Cincinnati
DoD
January
Odd.Cleveland-Akron-Canton
DoD
April
Odd.Columbus-Marion-Zanesville
DoD
January
Odd.Dayton
DoD
January
Even.Oklahoma
Oklahoma City
DoD
August
Odd.Tulsa
DoD
August
Odd.Oregon
Portland-Vancouver-Salem
DoD
July
Even.Southwestern Oregon
DoD
June
Even.Pennsylvania
Harrisburg-York-Lebanon
DoD
May
Even.Philadelphia-Reading-Camden
DoD
October
Even.Pittsburgh
DoD
July
Odd.Scranton-Wilkes-Barre
DoD
August
Odd.Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico
DoD
July
Odd.South Carolina
Charleston
DoD
July
Even.Columbia
DoD
May
Even.South Dakota
Eastern South Dakota
DoD
October
Even.Tennessee
Eastern Tennessee
DoD
February
Odd.Memphis
DoD
February
Even.Nashville
DoD
February
Even.Texas
Austin
DoD
June
Even.Corpus Christi-Kingsville-Alice
DoD
June
Even.Dallas-Fort Worth
DoD
October
Odd.El Paso
DoD
April
Even.Houston-Galveston-Texas City
DoD
March
Even.San Antonio
DoD
June
Odd.Texarkana
DoD
April
Odd.Waco
DoD
May
Odd.Western Texas
DoD
May
Odd.Wichita Falls, Texas-Southwestern Oklahoma
DoD
July
Even.Utah
Utah
DoD
July
Odd.Virginia
Richmond
DoD
November
Odd.Roanoke
DoD
November
Even.Virginia Beach-Chesapeake
DoD
May
Even.Washington
Seattle-Everett
DoD
September
Even.Southeastern Washington- Eastern Oregon
DoD
June
Odd.Spokane
DoD
July
Odd.West Virginia
West Virginia
DoD
March
Odd.Wisconsin
Madison
DoD
July
Even.Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha
DoD
June
Odd.Southwestern Wisconsin
DoD
June
Even.Wyoming
Wyoming
DoD
January
Even.
 4.Revise and republish appendix C to subpart B to read as follows: Appendix C to Subpart B of Part 532—Appropriated Fund Wage and Survey Areas This appendix lists the wage area definitions for appropriated fund employees. With a few exceptions, each area is defined in terms of county units, independent cities, or a similar geographic entity. Each wage area definition consists of: (1) Wage area title. Wage areas usually carry the title of the principal city in the area. Sometimes, however, the area title reflects a broader geographic area, such as Combined Statistical Area or Metropolitan Statistical Area. (2) Survey area definition. Lists each county, independent city, or a similar geographic entity in the survey area. (3) Area of application definition. Lists each county, independent city, or a similar geographic entity which, in addition to the survey area, is in the area of application. Definitions of Wage Areas and Wage Area Survey Areas ALABAMA Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega Survey Area Alabama: Calhoun (effective for wage surveys beginning in January 2028) Etowah (effective for wage surveys beginning in January 2028) Jefferson St. Clair Shelby Talladega (effective for wage surveys beginning in January 2028) Tuscaloosa Walker Area of Application. Survey area plus: Alabama: Bibb Blount Calhoun (effective until January 2028) Chilton Clay Coosa Cullman Etowah (effective until January 2028) Fayette Greene Hale Lamar Marengo Perry Pickens Talladega (effective January 2028)
                                ( print 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)
                                ( print 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
                                ( print 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
                                ( print 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
                                ( print 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
                                ( print 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
                                ( print 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)
                                ( print 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
                                ( print 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
                                ( print 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
                                ( print 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
                                ( print 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
                                ( print 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
                                ( print 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
                                ( print 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): Bayamón Canóvanas Carolina Cataño Guaynabo Humacao Loíza 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)
                                ( print 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
                                ( print 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
                                ( print 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
                                ( print 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
                                ( print 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


# Footnotes

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*). Back to Citation
 2.
    
                             House Report 117-79 can be found at 
                            *https://www.govinfo.gov/​content/​pkg/​CRPT-117hrpt79/​pdf/​CRPT-117hrpt79.pdf.* Back to Citation
 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. Back to Citation
 4.
    
                             The “Special rates” section later in this rule provides more information about the role of special rates. Back to Citation
 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.* Back to Citation
 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*). Back to Citation
 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. Back to Citation
 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.* Back to Citation
 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. Back to Citation
 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. Back to Citation
 11.
    
                             DOD provides annual costs for civilian personnel fringe benefits at 
                            *https://comptroller.defense.gov/​Portals/​45/​documents/​rates/​fy2024/​2024_​d.pdf.* Back to Citation
 12.
    
                             Attachment 1 may be found in the docket OPM-2024-0016 on 
                            *www.regulations.gov.* Back to Citation
 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. Back to Citation


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