Proposed Rule2024-22933
Prevailing Rate Systems; Change in Criteria for Defining Appropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage Areas
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
October 11, 2024
Issuing agencies
Personnel Management Office
Abstract
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is proposing a rule to change the regulatory criteria used to define Federal Wage System (FWS) wage area boundaries and make changes in certain wage areas. The purpose of this change, which would affect around ten percent of the FWS workforce, is to make the FWS wage area criteria more similar to the General Schedule (GS) locality pay area criteria. This change is based on a December 2023 majority recommendation of the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee (FPRAC), the statutory national level labor-management committee that advises OPM on the administration of the FWS. A summary of this proposed rule may be found in the docket for this rulemaking at www.regulations.gov.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 198 (Friday, October 11, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 198 (Friday, October 11, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 82874-82922]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22933]
[[Page 82873]]
Vol. 89
Friday,
No. 198
October 11, 2024
Part III
Office of Personnel Management
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 CFR Part 532
Prevailing Rate Systems; Change in Criteria for Defining Appropriated
Fund Federal Wage System Wage Areas; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 82874]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
5 CFR Part 532
[Docket ID: OPM-2024-0016]
RIN 3206-AO69
Prevailing Rate Systems; Change in Criteria for Defining
Appropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage Areas
AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is proposing a rule
to change the regulatory criteria used to define Federal Wage System
(FWS) wage area boundaries and make changes in certain wage areas. The
purpose of this change, which would affect around ten percent of the
FWS workforce, is to make the FWS wage area criteria more similar to
the General Schedule (GS) locality pay area criteria. This change is
based on a December 2023 majority recommendation of the Federal
Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee (FPRAC), the statutory national
level labor-management committee that advises OPM on the administration
of the FWS. A summary of this proposed rule may be found in the docket
for this rulemaking at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.
DATES: Send comments on or before December 10, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or
Regulatory Information Number (RIN) and title, by the following method:
<bullet> Federal Rulemaking Portal: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
All submissions received must include the agency name and docket
number or RIN for this Federal Register document. Please arrange and
identify your comments on the regulatory text by subpart and section
number. All comments must be received by the end of the comment period
for them to be considered. All comments and other submissions received
generally will be posted at <a href="https://regulations.gov">https://regulations.gov</a>, without change,
including any personal information provided. However, OPM retains
discretion to redact personal or sensitive information, including but
not limited to, personal or sensitive information pertaining to third
parties.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ana Paunoiu, by telephone at (202)
606-2858 or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5c2c3d252c3330353f251c332c31723b332a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1a6a7b636a75767379635a756a77347d756c">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
The prevailing rate system under 5 U.S.C. chapter 53, subchapter
IV, is a uniform pay-setting system that covers FWS appropriated fund
and nonappropriated fund employees.\1\ OPM proposes to amend 5 CFR
532.211 to make the criteria OPM uses to define the geographic
boundaries of FWS wage areas more similar to the GS locality pay area
criteria and to define revised wage area boundaries in accordance with
those revised criteria. These proposed changes would affect around
17,000 FWS employees, or around ten percent of the appropriated fund
FWS workforce, by moving them to different wage areas and existing wage
schedules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Nonappropriated Fund (NAF) employment system is
partially within the FWS and managed separately from the
appropriated fund system. NAF activities primarily employ food
service workers and housekeepers on military bases. Under 5 U.S.C.
5343(a)(1)(B), NAF areas are not defined the same way as
appropriated fund so FPRAC has not focused on NAF wage areas. NAF
areas are only defined where employees are located. Under 5 CFR
532.219, each NAF wage area ``shall consist of one or more survey
areas along with nonsurvey areas, if any, having nonappropriated
fund employees.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following several months of analysis and discussion of these
proposed modifications to regulatory criteria, FPRAC \2\ identified
that around 15,000 FWS employees would be placed on higher wage
schedules and around 2,000 employees would be placed on lower wage
schedules as a result of these changes in policy. Employees who would
be placed on a lower wage schedule would, in most cases, be able to
retain their current rate of pay under current 5 CFR 536.301(a)(4) pay
retention rules.\3\ Employees under temporary or term appointments and
employees appointed after the changes would go into effect are not
eligible for pay retention. Under this approach, counties that would be
moved from one wage area to another would first be added to the gaining
wage area's area of application and then be added to the gaining wage
area's survey area for the next suitable full-scale wage survey cycle.
The specific timing of survey area changes is contained in the revised
appendices to subpart B of 5 CFR part 532 of this proposed rule. Most
FWS employees would experience no change in wage rates through these
proposed changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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 (<a href="https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/federal-wage-system/#url=FPRAC">https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/federal-wage-system/#url=FPRAC</a>).
\3\ An employee receiving pay retention gets 50 percent of any
general increases in pay in the maximum rate of the employee's grade
at the time of the increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
History and Differences Between FWS Wage Areas and GS Locality Pay
Areas
There are two major job classification and pay systems in use by
the Federal government. The GS covers around 1.5 million employees, and
the FWS covers around 200,000 employees with around 170,000 in the
appropriated fund system and around 30,000 in the nonappropriated fund
system. Note that the nonappropriated fund system is not the subject of
this proposed rule, which is limited to the appropriated fund system's
wage area definition criteria and conforming geographic area
definitions. Craft, trade, and laboring workers are covered by the FWS
and are employed directly by the Federal government with wage levels
set according to prevailing private sector rates. Although there are
now only around 200,000 such employees in appropriated and
nonappropriated fund activities, there were around 700,000 during the
Vietnam War era when the FWS was established as a single job grading
and pay system. Until 1965, each Federal agency had authority to
determine local prevailing rates and establish wage area boundaries for
its prevailing rate employees. Consequently, prevailing rate employees
at the same grade level in the same city working for different agencies
received different wage rates. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson
addressed these inequities by ordering Federal agencies to coordinate
their wage-setting activities under the leadership of the Civil Service
Commission. The Commission established the National Wage Policy
Committee (NWPC), which was composed of the heads of the major
employing agencies and the heads of the major Federal employee unions,
to seek advice on how to administratively combine separate agency pay
systems into a Coordinated Federal Wage System (CFWS). The NWPC worked
diligently and collaboratively to develop and recommend policies for
the new CFWS.
In 1972, President Richard M. Nixon signed Public Law 92-392, the
Prevailing Rate Systems Act, which established the current FWS. The FWS
incorporated most of the existing administrative policies of the CFWS.
Since 1972, the Commission and its successor agency, OPM, have been
[[Page 82875]]
responsible for overseeing the policies for administering the FWS after
receiving advice from FPRAC. The FWS now covers about 170,000
appropriated fund craft, trade, and laboring employees. These employees
are located in 130 separate wage areas throughout the country and in
overseas locations. The geographic definitions of wage areas have
remained largely the same since the late 1960s with changes occurring
primarily as a result either of military base closures and realignments
that left a wage area without enough FWS employees to participate in
local wage surveys or of Metropolitan Statistical Area redefinitions.
Each FWS wage area consists of a survey area and area of
application. A survey area includes the counties, cities, and towns
where DOD, the lead agency for appropriated fund wage areas, collects
and analyzes private sector wage data to produce annual wage schedules
for each of the 130 wage areas. An area of application includes the
survey area and nearby counties, cities, and towns where the wage
schedules for a wage area also apply.
One of the key statutory principles underlying the FWS is that pay
rates are to be maintained in line with prevailing levels of pay for
comparable levels of work in the private sector within a local wage
area. Because the FWS is a prevailing rate system, its wage schedules
are market sensitive in the sense that the schedules are based on
annual local wage surveys. However, all FWS wage schedules have been
subject to appropriations legislation each year since FY 1979 to
control maximum allowable adjustment amounts (``pay cap provision'')
and since FY 2004 to provide for guaranteed minimum adjustment amounts
based on the annual pay adjustments received by GS employees where they
work (``floor increase provision''). The difference in rates of pay
among wage areas reflects that the prevailing cost of labor varies by
wage area as measured by annual local wage surveys carried out
collaboratively by management and labor as required by law; however,
the difference in rates also reflects the differential effects the
appropriations provisions have had on the payable wage rates each year.
This proposed rule assumes that the pay cap \4\ provision and floor
increase provision will continue in future years through appropriations
legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ At the October 20th, 2022, FPRAC public meeting, the
Committee recommended by consensus that OPM should seek elimination
of an annual provision placed in the Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations Act that establishes a statutory
limitation each year on the maximum allowable FWS wage schedule
adjustment (i.e., the ``pay cap provision'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The geographic definitions of wage areas for FWS employees covered
by the 5 CFR 532.211 wage area criteria are different than the pay
areas for the 1.5 million employees under the GS. This is because the
two pay systems evolved separately and have followed different criteria
for defining pay area boundaries for the last 30 years. When the
Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 (FEPCA) was enacted to
implement locality pay for the GS beginning in 1994, the legislation
did not require that GS locality pay areas and FWS wage areas have the
same geographic coverage. FEPCA did not specify the method for defining
geographic pay area boundaries for GS locality pay areas. Instead,
FEPCA established the Federal Salary Council (FSC), comprised of
experts in pay and labor relations and representatives of employee
organizations, to provide advice on how to best administer the GS
locality pay system and close gaps between GS and non-Federal pay
levels. The FSC meets annually.
FWS wage areas consist of a survey area containing a number of
counties surrounding a major military installation or Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center where the Department of Defense
(DOD) measures prevailing private sector wage levels and an area of
application containing additional counties where DOD does not collect
wage data but wage schedules apply.
GS locality pay areas consist of a core set of counties generally
mirroring the definition of a Combined Statistical Area (CSA) or
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), and in some cases, additional area
of application counties that are added to the locality pay area based
on analyses of regional commuting pattern data. The Bureau of Labor
Statistics measures non-Federal labor costs in the locality pay areas
and OPM determines overall pay disparities between GS and comparable
non-Federal employment in the whole of each locality pay area on behalf
of the President's Pay Agent.\5\ As of 2024, there are 58 GS locality
pay areas including a Rest of United States (RUS) area that covers the
counties in the country that are not defined to individual locality pay
areas. The FWS does not have this RUS concept for wage area definitions
but instead has every county defined to an individual wage area's area
of application or survey area. We note that future changes to GS
locality pay areas would not automatically apply to FWS wage areas.
OPM, on advice from FPRAC, would review FWS wage areas when updates to
CSA and/or MSA definitions are published by OMB or when there are
significant changes to employment interchange measures. This policy is
consistent with longstanding protocols OPM has followed to administer
the FWS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Section 5304(d)(1) of title 5, United States Code,
authorizes the President to designate a Pay Agent. In Executive
Order 12748, the President designated the Secretary of Labor and the
Directors of the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of
Personnel Management to serve as the President's Pay Agent. Under
section 5304 of title 5, the Pay Agent provides for Federal Salary
Council meetings, considers the recommendations of the Federal
Salary Council, defines locality pay areas, and submits an annual
report to the President on the locality pay program. The report
compares rates of pay under the General Schedule to non-Federal pay,
identifies areas in which a pay disparity exists and specifies the
size of the disparity, makes recommendations for locality rates, and
includes the views of the Federal Salary Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPRAC Review and Recommendations
During the same period GS locality pay was being introduced in the
early 1990s, FPRAC examined the differences in criteria between the GS
and FWS, and by consensus, recommended that OPM not change the FWS
criteria just for the sake of changing the criteria to make the systems
look more similar. Locality pay for GS employees was a new and unproven
concept at that time. Since that time, however, the differences in
geographic pay area boundaries for the GS and FWS have increasingly
raised concerns among employees, their unions, local management
officials, and consequently members of Congress. For example, FPRAC
heard testimony at its January 21, 2016, meeting from Congressional
staff and local employees in support of a proposal introduced by an
American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) representative to
review the geographic definitions of Monroe County, PA, including
testimony that a high rate of commuting interchange--which triggered
Monroe County's reassignment to the New York-Newark GS locality pay
area in 2005--also applies to the county's blue-collar employees. 609th
FPRAC Meeting transcript (available at <a href="https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/federal-wage-system/federal-prevailing-rate-advisory-committee/meetingtranscript609.pdf">https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/federal-wage-system/federal-prevailing-rate-advisory-committee/meetingtranscript609.pdf</a>). More recently, FPRAC
heard testimony from a military command representative of the Naval
Support Activity, Monterey, California. The representative testified at
the FPRAC 644th Meeting, during an extensive presentation, that
[[Page 82876]]
the geographical pay differences between GS and FWS employees at Naval
Support Activity Monterey impacted negatively the retention and
recruitment of qualified employees. 644th FPRAC Meeting transcript
(available at <a href="https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/federal-wage-system/federal-prevailing-rate-advisory-committee/meeting-transcript-644.pdf">https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/federal-wage-system/federal-prevailing-rate-advisory-committee/meeting-transcript-644.pdf</a>). In February 2024, the president of AFGE
Local 1647 at Tobyhanna Army Depot, provided testimony at the FPRAC
650th Meeting regarding ``long-standing inequity'' between FWS and GS
employees in Monroe County, PA. 650th FPRAC Meeting transcript
(available at <a href="https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/federal-wage-system/federal-prevailing-rate-advisory-committee/meetingtranscript650.pdf">https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/federal-wage-system/federal-prevailing-rate-advisory-committee/meetingtranscript650.pdf</a>).
The difference in GS and FWS pay area boundaries is most noticeable
on the East Coast from Maine to Virginia and on the West Coast in
California. In some cases, there are as many as six different FWS wage
areas coinciding with a single non-RUS locality pay area for GS
employees. For example, the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-
WV-PA GS locality pay area coincides with six different FWS wage
areas--the Washington, District of Columbia, FWS wage area; the
Baltimore, MD, FWS wage area; the Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg,
MD, FWS wage area; the Harrisburg, PA, FWS wage area; the Richmond, VA,
FWS wage area; and the West Virginia FWS wage area. Conversely, a
single wage area may coincide with multiple GS locality pay areas,
which, due to the appropriations pay cap and floor increase provisions,
can result in multiple, different wage schedules within the wage area.
For example, the Central and Western Massachusetts wage area coincides
with four different GS locality pay areas--the Albany-Schenectady, NY,
GS locality pay area; the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT-ME,
GS locality pay area; the Hartford-West Hartford, CT-MA, GS locality
pay area; and RUS. As a result, FWS employees in the Central and
Western Massachusetts wage area are paid from four separate wage
schedules: (069R)--Central and Western Massachusetts (GS Locality--
Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT-ME (BOS)); (269R)--Central and
Western Massachusetts (GS Locality--Rest of United States (RUS));
(469R)--Central and Western Massachusetts (GS Locality--Hartford-West
Hartford, CT-MA (HAR)); and (669R)--Central and Western Massachusetts
(GS Locality--Albany-Schenectady, NY (AL)). Overall, there are 52
appropriated fund wage areas that only coincide with the GS RUS
locality pay area. There are 10 wage areas that coincide with only one
GS locality pay area other than RUS (e.g., the Alaska wage area
coincides with the Alaska GS locality pay area; the Salinas-Monterey
wage area coincides only with San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA GS
locality pay area; Baltimore wage area coincides only with the
Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA locality pay area).
There are 68 FWS wage areas that coincide with multiple GS locality pay
areas, including non-RUS and RUS. Therefore, not only are there
differences in pay between FWS and GS employees working at the same
location but also among FWS employees within the same wage area. The
changes in this proposed rule would reduce the number of wage schedules
that apply within a wage area as well as reduce inequities caused by
maintaining different criteria for defining GS and FWS pay area
boundaries.
In House Report 117-79 \6\ accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, Congress encouraged OPM ``to
explore limiting the number of local wage areas defined within a GS Pay
Locality to a single wage area.'' Even before that, since around 2006,
the labor and employing agency representative members of FPRAC
discussed different methods for making FWS wage areas more similar to
GS locality pay areas, though they have struggled to reach consensus on
whether or how to effect changes that would be necessary to make pay
area boundaries more similar. The labor organization members of the
committee have expressed views that the differences in geographic
treatment between the GS and FWS systems are inequitable and
unsustainable when GS and FWS employees are working at the same Federal
installation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ House Report 117-79 can be found at <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-117hrpt79/pdf/CRPT-117hrpt79.pdf">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-117hrpt79/pdf/CRPT-117hrpt79.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the scope and complexity of the recommended change in policy
that would be required to limit the number of local wage areas defined
within a GS locality pay area to a single wage area, as requested in
the House Report language, FPRAC established a working group to study
the technical and policy obstacles involved in positively addressing
the issue. Over the course of 15 meetings, at which there was extensive
discussion, the working group analyzed potential methods of using GS
locality pay areas as a factor in defining FWS wage areas. The
differences in regulatory criteria used to define FWS wage areas versus
criteria used to establish and define GS locality pay areas were among
the challenges to aligning FWS wage areas with GS locality pay areas
the working group encountered. The working group noted that CSAs were
initially used as the basis for creating GS locality pay areas, but the
FWS never used the CSAs to define wage areas. Extensive analyses by the
working group of various FWS wage areas that split GS locality pay
areas showed that, if the CSAs were used to define wage areas, most
wage areas studied would be more like the GS locality pay areas.
However, some FWS wage areas would still not coincide with GS locality
pay areas by switching to using CSAs alone. As such, the working group
then considered another criterion used in defining GS locality pay
areas, employment interchange, and studied the effects of using such
criterion in defining FWS wage areas, as well. The working group
concluded that considering employment interchange between metropolitan
areas or individual counties, as applicable, and using CSA definitions
would make wage areas more similar to GS locality pay areas.
The FPRAC recommendation is limited to appropriated fund FWS wage
area regulatory criteria and does not apply to nonappropriated fund
regulatory criteria for defining wage area boundaries found in 5 CFR
532.219. The transcript of the December 21, 2023, meeting, expressing
the views and concerns of the committee members expressed at that
meeting, can be found on the OPM website at <a href="https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/federal-wage-system/federal-prevailing-rate-advisory-committee/meetingtranscript649.pdf">https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/federal-wage-system/federal-prevailing-rate-advisory-committee/meetingtranscript649.pdf</a>.
After reviewing the FPRAC recommendation, including the minority
views, OPM has concluded that the views of the majority of the
committee's members regarding the proposed amendments to 5 CFR 532.211
constitute a beneficial and equitable modernization of the FWS. OPM
agrees with the committee that the primary differences in the criteria
used to define GS and FWS pay area boundaries result from different
ways of considering commuting patterns and metropolitan area
definitions and how those relate to regional labor market integration.
OPM's existing regulatory criteria for defining wage area boundaries in
5 CFR 532.211 have remained the same since the early 1990s, except for
a minor amendment in 2016 to keep newly defined military Joint Bases
defined to a single wage area
[[Page 82877]]
and wage schedule. While the differences in geographic pay treatment
made sense in the context of the development of the original pay
systems, the interactions of GS and FWS statutory pay provisions have
worked to create inequitable, unintended discrepancies in pay between
similarly situated employees. Therefore, amending the wage area
definition criteria following the FPRAC recommended method will address
some of those differences in geographic pay treatment between the FWS
and GS systems.
Historically, the FWS and GS pay systems have both considered
commuting patterns data published by the Census Bureau but have done so
differently. While the FWS has looked at commuting from a county to
nearby local wage survey areas (out-commuting) to associate counties
with major military installations or VA Medical Centers, the GS has
looked at employment interchange (in-commuting and out-commuting)
within a large metropolitan area. Use of out-commuting alone was based
on a traditional tendency of people to live in areas outside a
centralized metropolitan area and commute to the metropolitan area for
work. Adopting employment interchange as a criterion for defining wage
areas would better reflect contemporary commuting patterns within an
economic region. The methods and criteria for defining CSAs and MSAs
have also evolved over time to now be focused on regional employment
interchange measures as identified through analysis of commuting
patterns gathered by the Census Bureau. Today, a person working in a
skilled trades occupation under the FWS such as Electronics Mechanic or
Aircraft Mechanic likely works in a competitive labor market with
commuting and recruitment patterns that are similar in geographic scope
to those of an Accountant or Human Resources Manager, for example,
under the GS system.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The goal of the FWS is to maintain Federal trade, craft, and
laboring employee pay rates in line with prevailing private sector
pay levels for comparable work within a local wage area. To
accomplish this goal, DoD conducts annual surveys to collect wage
data from private sector establishments in each FWS wage area. By
law, the cost of labor within a wage area, rather than the cost of
living, determines FWS pay rates. If the wage area does not reflect
commuting and recruitment patterns, then the full-scale wage survey
within that area will also not capture prevailing private sector pay
levels within the economically integrated area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other primary difference between the current FWS and GS
geographic pay area criteria is that the FWS has historically defined
wage area boundaries based in part on consideration of OMB-defined MSAs
while not allowing for consideration of the larger CSAs. The concept of
a CSA did not exist when the methods for creating FWS wage areas were
established in the late 1960s. The legislative history for the
Prevailing Rate Systems Act shows that Congress believed it would be
inappropriate for there to be more than one wage area within the
boundaries of an MSA. Although the Prevailing Rate Systems Act did not
explicitly specify this, OPM's regulations have long indicated that
wage areas should not split MSA boundaries.
CSAs also reflect economic relationships between communities within
a region but do so on a broader geographic basis than for MSAs. A CSA
is usually the combination of two or more MSAs within a region when
they are sufficiently economically integrated. The GS locality pay
system has defined locality pay areas based on these larger geographic
areas since locality pay began. The proposed new wage area definitions
in this rulemaking use the CSA and MSA definitions contained in OMB
Bulletin No. 23-01, published July 21, 2023. Current FWS wage area
definitions split the boundaries of many CSAs, but the changes in wage
area criteria and revised wage area definitions based on the criteria
in this proposed rule would address this.
Changes Proposed in This Rulemaking
Based on the December 2023 FPRAC recommendation, OPM is proposing
the following changes to Sec. 532.211, including changing the title of
the section to ``Criteria for appropriated fund wage areas.'' As
discussed previously in the section discussing the differences between
FWS and GS, OPM proposes to revise paragraph (a)(1) to require OPM to
include in survey areas all counties with 100 or more FWS employees and
to consider CSAs and MSAs in the designation of survey areas. OPM also
proposes to revise paragraph (a)(2) to include employment interchange
measures as a criterion in determining whether to combine nonsurvey
areas with survey areas.
OPM proposes to revise paragraph (b) to include, wherever possible,
a recognized economic community such as a CSA, MSA, or a political unit
such as a county or similar geographic entity. OPM would continue to be
permitted to combine two or more economic communities or political
units, or both, to constitute a single wage area.
OPM proposes to revise paragraph (c) to address not only when wage
areas must be established, but also the conditions under which wage
areas must be maintained after being established. Because the original
criteria for defining FWS wage areas were written decades ago when the
FWS was first established, they focused on the initial development of a
single system of wage areas out of several separate agency systems and
did not define circumstances under which the newly established wage
area boundaries would remain in place. This proposed language
recognizes that wage area boundaries will be reexamined at times by
FPRAC and OPM in consideration of the factors listed. This proposed
rule would therefore revise paragraph (c) to include the word
``maintained.''
OPM proposes to amend paragraph (c)(1) to provide for greater
flexibility in the ability to establish or maintain wage areas where
there is a sufficient number of employees and resources available to
host local wage surveys, but the employees do not necessarily work in
the same agency. Currently, this section requires a minimum of 100
employees of one agency subject to the regular schedule for a wage area
to be established. Since the proposed language for paragraph (c) will
now include conditions precedent to continuation of an existing wage
area, removing the requirement that the minimum 100 wage grade
employees be within the same agency will allow OPM to consider factors
such as intermittent fluctuations in the number of wage employees and
prevailing rate principles when determining whether a wage area should
be maintained. This proposed rule would therefore revise paragraph
(c)(1) to specify that one of the criteria for a wage area to be
maintained is if there are a minimum of 100 wage employees subject to
the regular schedule and the agency involved indicates that a local
installation has the capacity to do the survey.
OPM proposes to amend paragraph (d)(1) to list the factors that
will be considered when determining whether or not adjacent wage areas
should be combined. FPRAC would continue to provide OPM with
recommendations on application of these factors. This proposed rule
would therefore revise paragraph (d)(1) to allow adjacent economic
communities or political units meeting the separate wage area criteria
described previously in paragraphs (b) and (c) to be combined through
consideration of ``local commuting patterns such as employment
interchange measures, distance, transportation facilities, geographic
features; similarities in overall population, employment, and the kinds
[[Page 82878]]
and sizes of private industrial establishments; and other factors
relevant to the process of determining and establishing rates of pay
for wage employees at prevailing wage levels.''
OPM proposes to delete paragraphs (d)(1)(i)-(iii) and (d)(2) as
they are no longer necessary and to redesignate paragraph (d)(3) as
paragraph (d)(2).
Based on the proposed changes to the regulatory criteria for
establishing and maintaining wage areas, OPM is proposing conforming
amendments to Appendix C to subpart B of part 532--Appropriated Fund
Wage and Survey Areas. This appendix serves to list wage areas and
their geographic coverage including the portion of each wage area where
a lead agency gathers wage data (the survey area) and the rest of the
wage area (the area of application) where the lead agency does not
gather wage data but where the wage area's wage schedules apply.
Paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) would be revised to include ``a similar
geographic entity'' as an all-encompassing phrase for recognized
geographic units other than county units or independent cities.
Paragraphs (1) and (2) would be revised to include Combined Statistical
Area or Metropolitan Statistical Area as examples of broader geographic
areas used to establish wage area titles.
DOD has requested certain changes in wage survey order months to
allow balancing of the wage survey workload throughout the year. As
such, in Appendix A to subpart B of part 532, OPM is proposing to
revise, under the State of Arkansas, the listing of the beginning month
of survey from ``August'' to ``July'' for the Little Rock wage area;
revise under the State of California the listings of the beginning
month of survey from ``September'' to ``November'' and ``even year'' to
``odd year'' for the Los Angeles wage area; revise under the State of
California the listings of the beginning month of survey from
``September'' to ``October'' and ``odd year'' to ``even year'' for the
San Francisco wage area; revise under the District of Columbia, the
listing of the beginning month of survey from ``August'' to ``July''
for the Washington, DC, wage area; revise under the State of Florida
the listing of the beginning month of survey from ``January'' to
``May'' for the Miami-Dade wage area; revise under the State of
Louisiana the listings of the beginning month of survey from
``November'' to ``June'' and ``odd year'' to ``even year'' for the New
Orleans wage area; revise under the State of Minnesota the listing of
the beginning month of survey from ``March'' to ``April'' for the
Minneapolis-St. Paul wage area; revise under the State of New York the
listing of the beginning month of survey from ``February'' to ``April''
for the Rochester wage area; revise under the State of Oregon the
listing of the beginning month of survey from ``August'' to ``July''
for the Portland wage area; revise under the State of Pennsylvania the
listing of the beginning month of survey from ``January'' to ``May''
for the Harrisburg wage area; and revise under the State of Texas the
listing of the beginning month of survey from ``August'' to ``July''
for the Wichita Falls, Texas-Southwestern Oklahoma wage area.
As a result of the proposed changes to the regulatory criteria for
defining and maintaining wage areas, the geographic boundaries of
numerous wage areas would change. This proposed rule would result in
OPM abolishing 12 of the 130 current appropriated fund FWS wage areas,
89 wage areas would be affected, and there would be no changes in the
wage area definitions of 41 wage areas. Certain cities, counties, or
portions of counties that coincide with GS locality pay areas would
move to expanded wage areas based on the application of the new
criteria. Because 12 wage areas would be abolished, certain additional
cities, counties, or portions of counties that coincide with the RUS
locality pay area would also be redefined to existing wage areas.
FPRAC has recommended that OPM use counties to define survey and
nonsurvey areas in FWS wage areas in New England instead of cities and/
or townships. FPRAC has also recommended that OPM use legacy county
boundaries to define FWS survey and nonsurvey areas in the State of
Connecticut instead of Connecticut Planning Regions to maintain
consistency with the geographic entities used for GS locality pay
areas. Defining FWS wage areas by using county or county-equivalent
boundaries in New England, rather than New England cities and towns,
would be more consistent with how most FWS wage areas are defined and
may improve the statistical accuracy of wage survey analyses.
The proposed changes in specific appropriated fund FWS wage area
definitions are described below in the section on Redefined FWS Wage
Areas.
In certain instances, OPM is proposing delayed implementation dates
for adding counties to the survey areas of wage areas that are gaining
counties. This is necessary because it takes DOD, the lead agency for
FWS wage surveys, a number of months to develop the statistical and
logistical specifications for local wage surveys. The changes in wage
area names, areas of application, and survey areas are detailed below
in the section on Redefined FWS Wage Areas.
Based on longstanding practice when abolishing wage areas and
moving counties from one wage area to another, FWS employees in
locations that would be defined to different wage areas would be placed
on the existing wage schedules for those wage areas on the first day of
the first applicable pay period beginning on or after the effective
date of the final rule that would be published after this proposed
rule. The movements of counties from an existing wage area to a
different wage area are noted in detail below in the section on
Redefined FWS Wage Areas.
The implementation dates for new local wage surveys in expanded
wage areas would vary by wage area accounting for, in certain cases,
factors including the wage survey workload for the DOD wage survey
staff. In particular, a survey area county that is removed from a
current wage area that is being eliminated, and defined to a different
wage area that is being continued but revised in the existing
regulation, would initially be added to the area of application of the
gaining wage area rather than being defined directly to the survey
area. The county would subsequently be incorporated into the relevant
wage area's survey area based on the timing of full-scale local wage
surveys. This would allow DOD sufficient time to plan for conducting
full-scale wage surveys in survey areas that would expand
significantly, in some cases doubling, in geographic size. It is
anticipated that future wage schedule adjustments will continue to
follow longstanding appropriations law provisions providing for annual
adjustments that are both capped at the average GS increase amount (the
``pay cap provision'') while providing for the same percentage
adjustment received by GS employees in each employment location (``the
floor increase provision''). The statutory floor increase provision
would continue to prevent any decreases in wage schedules as has been
the case for prevailing rate system employees since FY 2004. The
statutory pay cap provision would also continue to prevent existing
wage schedules from increasing above the amount established as the cap
each year, except in cases where the floor increase would provide for a
greater increase.
OPM believes that its proposed approach--in which the proposed
changes to the wage areas could be implemented soon after publication
of the final rule--is operationally feasible. Payroll providers
typically are able to implement changes to wage area
[[Page 82879]]
designations quickly and do not require a great deal of lead time. In
fact, changes to wage area designations are typically effective on the
first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after 30
days following publication of the final rule adjusting a wage area.
Further, and importantly, a short implementation timeframe would allow
employees to immediately benefit from the updated wage area
definitions.
OPM's proposed approach is also consistent with past practice.
Currently OPM defines wage areas through a routine, consistent, and
mechanical process to comply with the area definition criteria OPM
establishes in 5 CFR 532.211 and based on FPRAC recommendations. For
example, when OPM abolished the Newburgh, NY wage area in 2016 to
comply with an existing MSA criterion and expanded the New York wage
area to encompass most of the Newburgh wage area, the movement of
counties into the New York area of application was not delayed beyond
the effective date of the final regulations. OPM did not establish a
new policy where the merging of the Newburgh wage area into the New
York wage area would be delayed until an entirely new wage survey could
be conducted in the slightly enlarged New York survey area. The
statutory pay cap and floor increase provisions continued to be applied
to the wage schedules for the New York wage area. Likewise, when OPM
abolished the Portland, ME, wage area in 2015 and added its counties to
the Portsmouth, NH, wage area, OPM did not delay the merging of the
Portland wage area into the Portsmouth wage area until an entirely new
wage survey could be conducted in the enlarged wage area. In this case,
the Portland survey area was carried over in its entirety to the
Portsmouth survey area for the next full scale wage survey. The
statutory pay cap and floor increase provisions continued to be applied
to wage schedule adjustments in the enlarged Portsmouth wage area.
OPM recognizes, however, that, even though the overall budgetary
impact of this rule is relatively small (i.e., 1% of FWS payroll--see
the Expected Impact of this Rulemaking section of this rule), the
budgetary impact at the local level in some cases would be considerable
and any unplanned increase in payroll can be challenging to manage.
OPM therefore requests comment on the appropriate implementation
timeframe. An alternative implementation option could provide for a
delayed effective date of the final regulation, such that OPM's
regulatory amendments--including the new boundary criteria, and,
therefore, the new wage schedules--would not go into effect until after
a set period of time. The other aspects of OPM's proposal would remain
unchanged.
Another alternative implementation plan, which a minority of FPRAC
committee members suggested but which is inconsistent with past
practice when revising wage areas, would defer the implementation of
the revised criteria until DOD had the opportunity to conduct new wage
surveys for the impacted areas based on the new criteria. For example,
amendments to the Boston wage area might not go into effect until
October 2026 while amendments would not go into effect in the
Birmingham, AL, wage area until April 2028. Under this approach, the
existing wage areas would be abolished and new wage areas established
using the revised criteria as new surveys are completed, on a rolling
basis.
OPM invites comments on the implementation timeline and any
alternative implementation plans and encourages commenters to address
any implementation concerns with any alternative plans.
The following wage area changes would be necessary, based on
extensive FPRAC review and subsequent recommendations, to best fit the
newly revised wage area definition criteria. As noted earlier, these
changes are primarily driven by the adoption of the proposed regulatory
criteria changing to follow CSA definitions, by not allowing a CSA to
be divided between two or more wage areas, rather than just MSA
definitions, and by allowing consideration of employment interchange
data when analyzing and applying regional commuting information. These
proposed changes do not merely adopt GS locality pay area definitions
into the FWS but instead rely on FWS criteria being more similar to GS
criteria. Indeed, because the GS and FWS continue to be separate
statutory pay systems, there will continue to be differences in certain
wage area definitions and the FWS will not use a catch-all RUS concept
as is used for the GS locality pay system.
The proposed changes in regulatory criteria would have no impact on
the following FWS wage areas: Dothan, AL; Alaska, AK; Phoenix, AZ;
Tucson, AZ; Little Rock, AR; Pensacola, FL; Hawaii, HI; Boise, ID;
Cedar Rapids-Iowa City, IA; Des Moines, IA; Wichita, KS; Lake Charles-
Alexandria, LA; New Orleans, LA; Augusta, ME; Central and Northern
Maine; Biloxi, MS; Jackson, MS; Meridian, MS; Northern Mississippi;
Montana; Omaha, NE; Las Vegas, NV; Central North Carolina; North
Dakota; Tulsa, OK; Puerto Rico; Columbia, SC; Eastern South Dakota;
Eastern Tennessee; Memphis, TN; Austin, TX; El Paso, TX; Houston-
Galveston-Texas City, TX; Texarkana, TX; Western Texas; Wichita Falls,
Texas-Southwestern Oklahoma; Utah; Southwestern Washington-Eastern
Oregon; Spokane, WA; and Wyoming.
Redefined FWS Wage Areas
Anniston-Gadsden, AL, Wage Area
With the redefinition of Calhoun, Etowah, and Talladega, AL, to the
Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, AL, area of application, the Anniston-
Gadsden, AL, wage area would lose all of its survey area counties. This
proposed rule would abolish the Anniston-Gadsden wage area and redefine
its remaining counties to the Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, AL, wage
area, Huntsville, AL, wage area, and Atlanta, GA, wage area.
Birmingham, AL, Wage Area
This proposed rule would change the name of the Birmingham, AL,
wage area to the Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, AL, wage area. This
proposed rule would redefine the following counties to the Birmingham-
Cullman-Talladega, AL, wage area based on the application of the new
criteria:
<bullet> Calhoun, Etowah, and Talladega Counties, AL, from the
Anniston-Gadsden, AL, survey area to the Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega,
AL, area of application. These counties would subsequently be moved to
the Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, AL, survey area effective for local
wage surveys beginning in January 2028;
<bullet> Clay County, AL, from the Anniston-Gadsden, AL, area of
application to the Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, AL, area of
application based on employment interchange measures favoring the
Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, AL, wage area;
<bullet> Coosa County, AL, from the Columbus, GA, area of
application to the Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, AL, area of
application because Coosa County is part of the Birmingham-Cullman-
Talladega, AL, CSA;
<bullet> Winston County, AL, from the Huntsville, AL, area of
application to the Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, AL, area of
application based on employment interchange measures favoring the
Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, AL, wage area over the Huntsville wage
area.
Huntsville, AL, Wage Area
This proposed rule would redefine the following counties to and
away from
[[Page 82880]]
the Huntsville, AL, wage area based on the application of the new
criteria:
<bullet> DeKalb County, AL, from the Anniston-Gadsden, AL, area of
application to the Huntsville, AL, area of application because DeKalb
County, AL, is part of the Huntsville-Decatur-Albertville, AL-TN, CSA;
<bullet> Winston County, AL, from the Huntsville, AL, area of
application to the Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, AL, area of
application based on employment interchange measures favoring the
Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, AL, wage area over the Huntsville, AL,
wage area;
<bullet> Jackson County, AL, from the Huntsville, AL, area of
application to the Nashville, TN, area of application. Jackson County
is part of the Chattanooga-Cleveland-Dalton, TN-GA-AL, CSA. Most of
this CSA is currently defined to the Nashville wage area.
<bullet> Franklin, Lawrence, and Moore Counties, TN, from the
Huntsville, AL, area of application to the Nashville, TN, area of
application because these counties are part of the Nashville-Davidson-
Murfreesboro, TN, CSA.
Northeastern Arizona, AZ, Wage Area
This proposed rule would also redefine the following county away
from the Northeastern Arizona wage area based on the application of the
new criteria:
<bullet> McKinley County, NM, from the Northeastern Arizona survey
area to the Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Los Alamos, NM, area of application
based on employment interchange measures being more favorable to the
Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Los Alamos, NM, than to the Northeastern Arizona
wage area. This county would subsequently be moved to the Albuquerque-
Santa Fe-Los Alamos, NM, survey area effective for local wage surveys
beginning in April 2027.
Fresno, CA, Wage Area
This proposed rule would redefine the following counties to and
away from the Fresno, CA, wage area based on the application of the new
criteria:
<bullet> Madera County, CA, (Devils Postpile National Monument
portion) from the Reno, NV, area of application to the Fresno, CA, area
of application because Madera County is part of the Fresno-Hanford-
Corcoran, CA, CSA;
<bullet> Madera County, CA, (Yosemite National Park portion) from
the Stockton, CA, area of application to the Fresno, CA, area of
application because Madera County is part of the Fresno-Hanford-
Corcoran, CA, CSA;
<bullet> Mariposa County, CA, from the Stockton, CA, area of
application to the Fresno, CA, area of application based on employment
interchange measures favoring the Fresno, CA, wage area more than the
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA, wage area;
<bullet> Tuolumne County, CA, (Yosemite National Park portion only)
from the Stockton, CA, area of application to the Fresno, CA, area of
application so that Yosemite National Park is not split across multiple
wage areas;
<bullet> Kern County, CA, (does not include China Lake Naval
Weapons Center, Edwards Air Force Base, and portions occupied by
Federal activities in Boron (City)) from the Fresno, CA, area of
application to the Los Angeles, CA, area of application based on
employment interchange measures favoring the Los Angeles, CA, wage area
more than the Fresno, CA, wage area.
Los Angeles, CA, Wage Area
This proposed rule would redefine the following counties to and
within the Los Angeles, CA, wage area based on application of the new
criteria:
<bullet> Kern County, CA, (does not include China Lake Naval
Weapons Center, Edwards Air Force Base, and portions occupied by
Federal activities in Boron (City)) from the Fresno, CA, area of
application to the Los Angeles, CA, area of application because Kern
County is part of the Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA, CSA;
<bullet> Riverside County, CA, (does not include the Joshua Tree
National Monument portion) from the San Bernardino-Riverside-Ontario,
CA, survey area to Los Angeles, CA, area of application because
Riverside County is part of the Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA, CSA;
<bullet> Riverside County, CA, to the Los Angeles, CA, survey area
effective for local wage surveys beginning in November 2026 because
more than 100 FWS employees work in Riverside County;
<bullet> San Bernardino County, CA, (only that portion occupied by,
and south and west of, the Angeles and San Bernardino National Forests)
from the San Bernardino-Riverside-Ontario, CA, survey area to Los
Angeles, CA, area of application;
<bullet> San Bernardino County, CA, to the Los Angeles, CA, survey
area effective for local wage surveys beginning in November 2026
because more than 100 FWS employees work in San Bernardino County;
<bullet> Kern County, CA, to the Los Angeles, CA, survey area
effective for local wage surveys beginning in November 2026 because
more than 100 FWS employees work in Kern County;
<bullet> Santa Barbara County, CA, from the Santa Barbara, CA,
survey area to the Los Angeles, CA, area of application based on
employment interchange measures being most favorable to the Los
Angeles, CA, wage area. This county would subsequently be moved to the
Los Angeles, CA, survey area effective for local wage surveys beginning
in November 2026;
<bullet> San Luis Obispo County, CA, from the Santa Barbara, CA,
area of application to the Los Angeles, CA, area of application based
on employment interchange measures favoring the Los Angeles, CA, wage
area;
<bullet> Orange and Ventura Counties, CA, to the Los Angeles, CA,
survey area effective for local wage surveys beginning in November 2026
because more than 100 FWS employees work in each county.
Sacramento, CA, Wage Area
This proposed rule would change the name of the Sacramento, CA,
wage area to the Sacramento-Roseville, CA, wage area. This proposed
rule would redefine the following counties away from the Sacramento,
CA, wage area based on the application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Alpine County, CA, from the Sacramento, CA, area of
application to the Reno, NV, area of application. Alpine County is part
of the Reno-Carson City-Gardnerville Ranchos, NV-CA, CSA;
<bullet> Del Norte County, CA, from the Sacramento, CA, area of
application to the Southwestern Oregon area of application. Del Norte
County is part of the Brookings-Crescent City, OR-CA, CSA, and
employment interchange measures for this CSA favor the Southwestern
Oregon wage area over the Sacramento-Roseville, CA, wage area.
Salinas-Monterey, CA, Wage Area
With the redefinition of Monterey County, CA, to the San Jose-San
Francisco-Oakland, CA, wage area, the Salinas-Monterey, CA, wage area
would lose the entirety of its survey area. This proposed rule would
abolish the Salinas-Monterey wage area, which contains no additional
counties.
San Bernardino-Riverside-Ontario, CA, Wage Area
With the redefinition of Riverside County (does not include the
Joshua Tree National Monument portion) and San Bernardino County (only
that portion occupied by, and south and west of, the Angeles and San
Bernardino National Forests), CA, the San Bernardino-Riverside-Ontario,
CA, wage area would lose the entirety of its survey
[[Page 82881]]
area. This proposed rule would abolish the San Bernardino-Riverside-
Ontario, CA, wage area, which contains no additional counties.
San Diego, CA, Wage Area
This proposed rule would redefine the following county within the
San Diego, CA, wage area based on application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Yuma County, AZ, to the San Diego, CA, survey area
effective for local wage surveys beginning in September 2027 because
more than 100 FWS employees work in Yuma County.
San Francisco, CA, Wage Area
This proposed rule would change the name of the San Francisco, CA,
wage area to the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA, wage area. This
proposed rule would redefine the following counties to the San Jose-San
Francisco-Oakland, CA, wage area based on the application of the new
criteria:
<bullet> Monterey County, CA, from the Salinas-Monterey, CA, survey
area to the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA, area of application
based on employment interchange measures favoring the San Jose-San
Francisco-Oakland, CA, wage area. This county would subsequently be
moved to the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA, survey area effective
for local wage surveys beginning in October 2027;
<bullet> San Joaquin County, CA, from the Stockton, CA, survey area
to the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland area of application because San
Joaquin County is part of the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA, CSA.
This county would subsequently be moved to the San Jose-San Francisco-
Oakland, CA, survey area effective for local wage surveys beginning in
October 2027;
<bullet> Merced and Stanislaus Counties, CA, from the Stockton, CA,
area of application to the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA, area of
application because these counties are part of the San Jose-San
Francisco-Oakland, CA, CSA;
<bullet> Tuolumne (not including Yosemite National Park portion)
and Calaveras Counties, CA, from the Stockton, CA, area of application
to the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA, area of application based on
employment interchange measures favoring the San Jose-San Francisco-
Oakland, CA, wage area over the Fresno, CA, wage area.
Santa Barbara, CA, Wage Area
With the redefinition of Santa Barbara County, CA, to the Los
Angeles, CA, wage area, the Santa Barbara, CA, wage area would lose the
entirety of its survey area. This proposed rule would abolish the Santa
Barbara wage area and redefine Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo
Counties, CA, to the Los Angeles, CA, wage area.
Stockton, CA, Wage Area
With the redefinition of San Joaquin County, CA, to the San Jose-
San Francisco-Oakland, CA, wage area, the Stockton, CA, wage area would
lose the entirety of its survey area. This proposed rule would abolish
the Stockton, CA, wage area and redefine its remaining counties to
either the Fresno or San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA, wage areas.
Denver, CO, Wage Area
This proposed rule would redefine the following county to the
Denver, CO, wage area based on application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Lincoln County, CO, from the Southern Colorado area of
application to the Denver, CO, area of application based on employment
interchange measures favoring the Denver, CO, wage area.
Southern Colorado, CO, Wage Area
This proposed rule would redefine the following county away from
the Southern Colorado wage area based on application of the new
criteria:
<bullet> Lincoln County, CO, from the Southern Colorado area of
application to the Denver, CO, area of application based on employment
interchange measures favoring the Denver, CO, wage area over the
Southern Colorado wage area.
New Haven-Hartford, CT, Wage Area
This proposed rule would move the following counties to and away
from the New Haven-Hartford, CT, wage area based on application of the
new criteria:
<bullet> The entirety of the Springfield-Amherst Town-Northampton,
MA, CSA, would be defined to the New Haven-Hartford, CT, wage area
based on employment interchange measures favoring the New Haven-
Hartford, CT, wage area. To effectuate this change, the following
towns, cities, and counties that are part of the Springfield-Amherst
Town-Northampton CSA would be redefined in the following manner:
[cir] Hampden County, MA (the portion that contains the cities and
towns of Agawam, Chicopee, East Longmeadow, Feeding Hills, Hampden,
Holyoke, Longmeadow, Ludlow, Monson, Palmer, Southwick, Springfield,
Three Rivers, Westfield, West Springfield, and Wilbraham, MA), from the
Central and Western Massachusetts survey area to the New Haven-
Hartford, CT, area of application;
[cir] Hampden County, MA (the portion that contains the cities and
towns of Blandford, Brimfield, Chester, Granville, Holland, Montgomery,
Russell, Tolland, and Wales, MA), from the Central and Western
Massachusetts area of application to the New Haven-Hartford, CT, area
of application;
[cir] Hampden County, MA (entire county), to the New Haven-
Hartford, CT, survey area effective for local wage surveys beginning in
April 2027;
[cir] Hampshire County, MA (the portion that contains the cities
and towns of Easthampton, Granby, Hadley, Northampton, and South
Hadley, MA), from the Central and Western Massachusetts survey area to
the New Haven-Hartford, CT, area of application;
[cir] Hampshire County, MA (the portion that contains the cities
and towns of Amherst, Belchertown, Chesterfield, Cummington, Goshen,
Hatfield, Huntington, Middlefield, Pelham, Plainfield, Southampton,
Ware, Westhampton, Williamsburg, and Worthington, MA), from the Central
and Western Massachusetts area of application to the New Haven-
Hartford, CT, area of application;
[cir] Hampshire County, MA (entire county), to the New Haven-
Hartford survey area effective for local wage surveys beginning in
April 2027;
[cir] Franklin County, MA, from the Central and Western
Massachusetts area of application to the New Haven-Hartford, CT, area
of application;
<bullet> Fairfield County, CT, from the New Haven-Hartford, CT,
area of application to the New York-Newark, NY, area of application
because all FWS employees who work in Fairfield County are located in
the New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA, CSA;
<bullet> New London County, CT, from the New London, CT, survey
area to the New Haven-Hartford, CT, area of application because New
London County is part of the New Haven-Hartford-Waterbury, CT, CSA.
This county would subsequently be moved to the New Haven-Hartford, CT,
survey area effective for local wage surveys beginning in April 2027.
<bullet> Windham County, CT, from the Central and Western
Massachusetts area of application to the New Haven-Hartford, CT, area
of application.
New London, CT, Wage Area
With the redefinition of New London County, CT, to the New Haven-
Hartford, CT, survey area, the New London, CT, wage area would lose the
entirety of its survey area. This proposed rule would abolish the New
London, CT, wage area, which contains no additional counties.
[[Page 82882]]
Washington, DC, Wage Area
This proposed rule would change the name of the Washington, DC,
wage area to the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington wage area listed under
the District of Columbia. This proposed rule would redefine the
following cities and counties to the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington
wage area based on application of the new criteria:
<bullet> The entirety of the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-
VA-WV-PA, CSA, would be defined to the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington
wage area. To effectuate this change, the following cities and counties
that are part of the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington CSA would be
redefined in the following manner:
[cir] Baltimore (city), MD, and Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll,
Harford, and Howard Counties, MD, from the Baltimore, MD, survey area
to the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington area of application. This city
and these counties would subsequently be moved to the Washington-
Baltimore-Arlington survey area effective for local wage surveys
beginning in July 2027;
[cir] Queen Anne's County, MD, from the Baltimore, MD, area of
application to the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington area of application;
[cir] Washington County, MD, from the Hagerstown-Martinsburg-
Chambersburg, MD, survey area to the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington
area of application. This county would subsequently be moved to the
Washington-Baltimore-Arlington survey area effective for local wage
surveys beginning in July 2027;
[cir] Franklin County, PA, from the Hagerstown-Martinsburg-
Chambersburg, MD, survey area to the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington
area of application. This county would subsequently be moved to the
Washington-Baltimore-Arlington survey area effective for local wage
surveys beginning in July 2027;
[cir] Berkeley County, WV, from the Hagerstown-Martinsburg-
Chambersburg, MD, survey area to the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington
area of application. This county would subsequently be moved to the
Washington-Baltimore-Arlington survey area effective for local wage
surveys beginning in July 2027;
[cir] Winchester (city), VA, and Frederick County, VA, from the
Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg, MD, area of application to the
Washington-Baltimore-Arlington area of application;
[cir] Hampshire and Morgan Counties, WV, from the Hagerstown-
Martinsburg-Chambersburg, MD, area of application to the Washington-
Baltimore-Arlington area of application;
[cir] Orange County, VA, from the Richmond, VA, area of application
to the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington area of application;
[cir] Dorchester and Talbot Counties, MD, from the Wilmington, DE,
area of application to the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington area of
application;
<bullet> The entirety of the Harrisonburg-Staunton-Stuarts Draft,
VA, CSA, would be defined to the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington wage
area based on employment interchange measures favoring the Washington-
Baltimore-Arlington wage area. To effectuate this change, the following
cities and counties that are part of the Harrisonburg-Staunton-Stuarts
Draft CSA would be redefined in the following manner:
[cir] Harrisonburg (city) and Rockingham (does not include the
Shenandoah National Park portion) County, VA, from the Hagerstown-
Martinsburg-Chambersburg, MD, area of application to the Washington-
Baltimore-Arlington area of application;
[cir] Staunton and Waynesboro (cities), VA, and Augusta (does not
include the Shenandoah National Park portion) County, VA, from the
Roanoke, VA, area of application to the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington
area of application;
<bullet> Allegany and Garrett Counties, MD, would be defined from
the Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg, MD, area of application to the
Washington-Baltimore-Arlington area of application based on employment
interchange rates favoring the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington wage
area;
<bullet> Fulton County, PA, would be defined from the Hagerstown-
Martinsburg-Chambersburg, MD, area of application to the Washington-
Baltimore-Arlington area of application based on employment interchange
measures favoring the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington wage area;
<bullet> Page (does not include the Shenandoah National Park
portion) and Shenandoah Counties, VA, would be defined from the
Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg, MD, area of application to the
Washington-Baltimore-Arlington area of application based on employment
interchange measures favoring the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington wage
area;
<bullet> Hardy and Mineral Counties, WV, would be defined from the
Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg, MD, area of application to the
Washington-Baltimore-Arlington area of application based on employment
interchange measures favoring the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington wage
area;
<bullet> Caroline and Westmoreland Counties, VA, would be defined
from the Richmond, VA, area of application to the Washington-Baltimore-
Arlington area of application based on employment interchange measures
favoring the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington wage area over the Richmond
wage area;
<bullet> Caroline and Kent Counties, MD, would be defined from the
Wilmington, DE, area of application to the Washington-Baltimore-
Arlington area of application based on employment interchange measures
favoring the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington wage area;
<bullet> King George County, VA, would be defined to the
Washington-Baltimore-Arlington survey area because more than 100 FWS
employees work in King George County, effective for local wage surveys
beginning in July 2027.
Cocoa Beach-Melbourne, FL, Wage Area
This proposed rule would redefine Indian River County, FL, from the
Cocoa Beach area of application to the Miami-Port St. Lucie-Fort
Lauderdale area of application because Indian River County is part of
the Miami-Port St. Lucie-Fort Lauderdale, FL, CSA.
Jacksonville, FL, Wage Area
This proposed rule would redefine the following counties to and
within the Jacksonville, FL, wage area based on the application of the
new criteria:
<bullet> Polk County, FL, from the Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL, area
of application to the Jacksonville, FL, area of application;
<bullet> Columbia, Orange, and Sumter Counties, FL, to the
Jacksonville, FL, survey area because more than 100 FWS employees work
in each of these counties, effective for local wage surveys beginning
in January 2027;
<bullet> Camden County, GA, to the Jacksonville, FL, survey area
because more than 100 FWS employees work in Camden County, effective
for local wage surveys beginning in January 2027.
Miami, FL, Wage Area
This proposed rule would change the name of the Miami, FL, wage
area to the Miami-Port St. Lucie-Fort Lauderdale, FL, wage area. This
proposed rule would redefine the following counties to and within the
Miami, FL, wage area based on the application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Indian River County, FL, from the Cocoa Beach-Melbourne,
FL, area of application to the Miami-Port St. Lucie-Fort Lauderdale,
FL, area of application because Indian River County is part of the
Miami-Port St. Lucie-Fort Lauderdale, FL, CSA;
<bullet> Lee County, FL, from the Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL, area of
application to the
[[Page 82883]]
Miami-Port St. Lucie-Fort Lauderdale, FL, area of application. Lee
County is part of the Cape Coral-Fort Myers-Naples, FL, CSA, and
employment interchange measures for this CSA favor the Miami-Port St.
Lucie-Fort Lauderdale, FL, wage area over the Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL,
wage area;
<bullet> Palm Beach County, FL,to the Miami-Port St. Lucie-Fort
Lauderdale, FL, survey area because it has over 100 FWS employees,
effective for local wage surveys beginning in January 2027.
Panama City, FL, Wage Area
This proposed rule would redefine the following county to the
Panama City, FL, wage area based on the application of the new
criteria:
<bullet> Decatur County, GA, from the Albany, GA, area of
application to the Panama City, FL, area of application.
Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL, Wage Area
This proposed rule would redefine the following counties away from
the Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL, wage area based on the application of the
new criteria:
<bullet> Lee County, FL, from the Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL, area of
application to the Miami-Port St. Lucie-Fort Lauderdale, FL, area of
application. Lee County is part of the Cape Coral-Fort Myers-Naples,
FL, CSA, and employment interchange measures for this CSA favor the
Miami-Port St. Lucie-Fort Lauderdale, FL, wage area over the Tampa-St.
Petersburg, FL, wage area;
<bullet> Polk County, FL, from the Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL, area
of application to the Jacksonville, FL, area of application.
Albany, GA, Wage Area
This proposed rule would redefine the following counties to and
away from the Albany, GA, wage area based on the application of the new
criteria:
<bullet> Quitman, Schley, and Webster Counties, GA, from the
Columbus, GA, area of application to the Albany, GA, wage area based on
employment interchange measures being most favorable to the Albany, GA,
wage area;
<bullet> Decatur County, GA, from the Albany, GA, area of
application to the Panama City, FL, area of application.
Atlanta, GA, Wage Area
The proposed rule would redefine the following counties to and away
from the Atlanta, GA, wage area based on the application of the new
criteria:
<bullet> Cherokee, Cleburne, and Randolph Counties, AL, from the
Anniston-Gadsden, AL, area of application to the Atlanta, GA, area of
application based on employment interchange measures favoring the
Atlanta wage area;
<bullet> Elbert, Hart, and Taliaferro Counties, GA, from the
Augusta, GA, area of application to the Atlanta, GA, area of
application based on employment interchange measures favoring the
Atlanta, GA, wage area over the Augusta, GA, wage area;
<bullet> Putnam County, GA, from the Macon, GA, area of application
to the Atlanta, GA, area of application based on employment interchange
measures favoring the Atlanta, GA, wage area over the Macon, GA, wage
area;
<bullet> Upson County, GA, from the Macon, GA, area of application
to the Atlanta, GA, area of application because Upson County is part of
the Atlanta-Athens-Clarke County-Sandy Springs, GA-AL, CSA;
<bullet> Chambers County, AL, from the Columbus, GA, area of
application to the Atlanta, GA, area of application because Chambers
County is part of the Atlanta-Athens-Clarke County-Sandy Springs, GA-
AL, CSA;
<bullet> Troup County, GA, from the Columbus, GA, area of
application to the Atlanta, GA, area of application because Troup
County is part of the Atlanta-Athens-Clarke County-Sandy Springs, GA-
AL, CSA;
<bullet> The entirety of the Columbus-Auburn-Opelika, GA-AL, CSA,
from the Columbus, GA, wage area to the Atlanta, GA, wage area based on
employment interchange measures favoring the Atlanta, GA, wage area
over the Montgomery-Selma, AL, wage area. To effectuate this change,
the following counties, which comprise the Columbus-Auburn-Opelika CSA,
would be redefined in the following manner:
[cir] Lee, Macon, and Russell Counties, AL, from the Columbus, GA,
survey area to the Atlanta, GA, area of application. These counties
would subsequently be moved to the Atlanta, GA, survey area effective
for local wage surveys beginning in May 2027;
[cir] Chattahoochee and Muscogee Counties, GA, from the Columbus,
GA, survey area to the Atlanta, GA, area of application. (Muscogee
County, GA, includes the area referred to as Columbus County, GA, in
previous wage area definitions.) These counties would subsequently be
moved to the Atlanta, GA, survey area effective for local wage surveys
beginning in May 2027;
[cir] Tallapoosa County, AL, from the Columbus, GA, area of
application to the Atlanta, GA, area of application;
[cir] Harris, Marion, Stewart, and Talbot Counties, GA, from the
Columbus, GA, area of application to the Atlanta, GA, area of
application;
<bullet> Chattooga, Murray, and Whitfield Counties, GA, from the
Atlanta, GA, area of application to the Nashville, TN, area of
application.
Augusta, GA, Wage Area
The proposed rule would redefine the following counties to and away
from the Augusta GA, wage area based on application of the new
criteria:
<bullet> Elbert, Hart, and Taliaferro Counties, GA, from the
Augusta, GA, area of application to the Atlanta, GA, area of
application based on employment interchange measures favoring the
Atlanta, GA, wage area over the Augusta, GA, wage area.
Columbus, GA, Wage Area
This wage area is being decreased in size under this proposed rule
and would be renamed the Montgomery-Selma, AL, wage area and move the
wage area listing alphabetically under the State of Alabama. This
proposed rule would redefine the following counties away from the
Columbus, GA, wage area based on the application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Quitman, Schley, and Webster Counties, GA, from the
Columbus, GA, area of application to the Albany, GA, wage area based on
employment interchange measures favoring the Albany wage area;
<bullet> Chambers County, AL, from the Columbus, GA, area of
application to the Atlanta, GA, area of application because Chambers
County is part of the Atlanta-Athens-Clarke County-Sandy Springs, GA-
AL, CSA;
<bullet> Troup County, GA, from the Columbus, GA, area of
application to the Atlanta, GA, area of application because Troup
County is part of the Atlanta-Athens-Clarke County-Sandy Springs, GA-
AL, CSA;
<bullet> The entirety of the Columbus-Auburn-Opelika, GA-AL, CSA,
from the Columbus, GA, wage area to the Atlanta, GA, wage area based on
employment interchange measures favoring the Atlanta wage area over the
Montgomery-Selma, AL, wage area. To effectuate this change, the
following counties, which comprise the Columbus-Auburn-Opelika CSA,
would be redefined in the following manner:
[cir] Lee, Macon, and Russell Counties, AL, from the Columbus, GA,
survey area to the Atlanta, GA, area of application. These counties
would subsequently be moved to the Atlanta, GA, survey area effective
for local wage surveys beginning in May 2027;
[cir] Chattahoochee and Muscogee Counties, GA, from the Columbus,
GA, survey area to the Atlanta, GA, area of application. (Muscogee
County, GA, includes the area referred to as Columbus County, GA, in
previous
[[Page 82884]]
wage area definitions.) These counties would subsequently be moved to
the Atlanta, GA, survey area effective for local wage surveys beginning
in May 2027;
[cir] Tallapoosa County, AL, from the Columbus, GA, area of
application to the Atlanta, GA, area of application;
[cir] Harris, Marion, Stewart, and Talbot Counties, GA, from the
Columbus, GA, area of application to the Atlanta, GA, area of
application;
<bullet> Coosa County, AL, from the Columbus, GA, area of
application to the Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, AL, area of
application because Coosa County is part of the Birmingham-Cullman-
Talladega, AL, CSA;
<bullet> Taylor County, GA, from the Columbus, GA, area of
application to the Macon, GA, area of application based on employment
interchange measures favoring the Macon, GA, wage area.
Macon, GA, Wage Area
The proposed rule would redefine the following county to the Macon,
GA, wage area based on application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Taylor County, GA, from the Columbus, GA, area of
application to the Macon, GA, area of application based on employment
interchange measures favoring the Macon, GA, wage area.
Savannah, GA, Wage Area
The proposed rule would redefine the following counties to and
within the Savannah, GA, wage area based on application of the new
criteria:
<bullet> Beaufort County, SC (the portion north of Broad River),
from the Charleston, SC, area of application to the Savannah, GA, area
of application. Beaufort County is part of the Hilton Head Island-
Bluffton-Port Royal, SC, MSA, and employment interchange measures for
this MSA favor the Savannah, GA, wage area over the Charleston, SC,
wage area;
<bullet> Beaufort County, SC, to the Savannah, GA, survey area
effective for local wage surveys beginning in May 2027 because more
than 100 FWS employees work in Beaufort County.
Bloomington-Bedford-Washington, IN, Wage Area
This proposed rule would change the name of the Bloomington-
Bedford-Washington, IN, wage area to the Evansville-Henderson, IN, wage
area. This proposed rule would redefine the following counties away
from the Bloomington-Bedford-Washington, IN wage area based on
application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Jackson County, IN, from the Bloomington-Bedford-
Washington, IN, area of application to the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie,
IN, area of application because Jackson County is part of the
Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, CSA;
<bullet> Lawrence and Monroe Counties, IN, from the Bloomington-
Bedford-Washington, IN, survey area to the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie,
IN, area of application. Lawrence and Monroe Counties are in the
Bloomington-Bedford, IN, CSA, and employment interchange measures for
this CSA favor the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, wage area over the
Evansville-Henderson, IN, wage area. These counties would subsequently
be moved from tto the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, survey area
effective for local wage surveys beginning in October 2026;
<bullet> Owen County, IN, from the Bloomington-Bedford-Washington,
IN, area of application to the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, area of
application. Owen County is in the Bloomington-Bedford, IN, CSA, and
employment interchange measures for this CSA favor the Indianapolis-
Carmel-Muncie, IN, wage area over the Evansville-Henderson, IN, wage
area;
<bullet> Livingston County, KY, from the Bloomington-Bedford-
Washington, IN, area of application to the Nashville, TN, area of
application. Livingston County is part of the Paducah-Mayfield, KY-IL,
CSA, and employment interchange measures for this CSA favor the
Nashville, TN, wage area over the Evansville-Henderson, IN, wage area.
Central Illinois, IL, Wage Area
This proposed rule would change the name of the Central Illinois
wage area to the Bloomington-Pontiac, IL, wage area. This proposed rule
would redefine the following counties to and away from the Central
Illinois wage area based on application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Livingston County, IL, from the Chicago, IL, area of
application to the Bloomington-Pontiac, IL, area of application because
Livingston County is part of the Bloomington-Pontiac, IL, CSA;
<bullet> Morgan and Scott Counties, IL, from the St. Louis, MO,
area of application to the Bloomington-Pontiac, IL, area of
application. Morgan and Scott Counties area part of the Springfield-
Jacksonville-Lincoln, IL, CSA, and employment interchange measures for
this CSA favor the Bloomington-Pontiac, IL, wage area over the St.
Louis, MO, wage area.
Chicago, IL, Wage Area
This proposed rule would change the name of the Chicago, IL, wage
area to the Chicago-Naperville, IL, wage area. This proposed rule would
redefine the following counties to and away from the Chicago, IL, wage
area based on the application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Bureau and Putnam Counties, IL, from the Davenport-Rock
Island-Moline, IA, area of application to the Chicago-Naperville, IL,
area of application because these counties are part of the Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI, CSA;
<bullet> Livingston County, IL, from the Chicago area of
application to the Bloomington-Pontiac, IL, area of application because
Livingston County is part of the Bloomington-Pontiac CSA;
<bullet> Lee County, IL from the Chicago area of application to the
Davenport-Moline, IA, area of application. Lee County is part of the
Dixon-Sterling, IL, CSA, and employment interchange measures for this
CSA favor the Davenport-Moline wage area over the Chicago-Naperville
wage area.
Ft. Wayne-Marion, IN, Wage Area
This proposed rule would define the following counties away from
the Ft. Wayne-Marion, IN, wage area based on application of the new
criteria:
<bullet> Allen, Mercer, and Van Wert Counties, OH, from the Ft.
Wayne-Marion, IN, area of application to the Dayton, OH, area of
application. Allen, Mercer, and Van Wert Counties are part of the Lima-
Van Wert-Celina, OH, CSA, and employment interchange measures for this
CSA favor the Dayton, OH, wage area over the Ft. Wayne-Marion, IN, wage
area;
<bullet> Grant County, IN, from the Ft. Wayne-Marion, IN, survey
area to the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, area of application based
on employment interchange measures favoring the Indianapolis-Carmel-
Muncie, IN, wage area over the Ft. Wayne-Marion, IN, wage area. The
county would subsequently be moved to the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie,
IN, survey area effective for local wage surveys beginning in October
2026;
<bullet> Miami County, IN, from the Ft. Wayne-Marion, IN, area of
application to the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, area of application
because Miami county is part of the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN,
CSA. Over 100 FWS employees work in Miami County, and the county would
subsequently be moved to the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, survey
area effective for local wage surveys beginning in October 2026;
<bullet> White County, IN, from the Ft. Wayne-Marion, IN, area of
application to the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, area of application.
White County is part of the Lafayette-West Lafayette-
[[Page 82885]]
Frankfort, IN, CSA, and employment interchange measures for this CSA
favor the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, wage area over the Ft. Wayne-
Marion, IN, wage area;
<bullet> Blackford County, IN, from the Ft. Wayne-Marion, IN, area
of application to the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, area of
application based on employment interchange measures favoring the
Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, wage area over the Ft. Wayne-Marion,
IN, wage area.
Indianapolis, IN, Wage Area
This proposed rule would change the name of the Indianapolis, IN,
wage area to the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, wage area. This
proposed rule would define the following counties to and within the
Indianapolis, IN, wage area based on application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Randolph County, IN, from the Dayton, OH, area of
application to the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, area of application
based on employment interchange measures favoring the Indianapolis-
Carmel-Muncie, IN, wage area over the Dayton, OH, wage area;
<bullet> Wayne County, IN, from the Dayton, OH, area of application
to the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, area of application. Wayne
County is part of the Richmond-Connersville, IN, CSA, and employment
interchange measures for this CSA favor the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie,
IN, wage area over the Dayton, OH, wage area;
<bullet> Lawrence and Monroe Counties, IN, from the Bloomington-
Bedford-Washington, IN, survey area to the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie,
IN, area of application. Lawrence and Monroe Counties are in the
Bloomington-Bedford, IN, CSA, and employment interchange measures for
this CSA favor the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, wage area over the
Evansville-Henderson, IN, wage area. These counties would subsequently
be moved fto the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, survey area effective
for local wage surveys beginning in October 2026;
<bullet> Owen County, IN, from the Bloomington-Bedford-Washington,
IN, area of application to the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, area of
application. Owen County is in the Bloomington-Bedford, IN, CSA, and
employment interchange measures for this CSA favor the Indianapolis-
Carmel-Muncie, IN, wage area over the Evansville-Henderson, IN, wage
area;
<bullet> Jackson County, IN, from the Bloomington-Bedford-
Washington, IN, area of application to the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie,
IN, area of application because Jackson County is part of the
Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, CSA;
<bullet> Grant County, IN, from the Ft. Wayne-Marion, IN, survey
area to the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, area of application based
on employment interchange measures favoring the Indianapolis-Carmel-
Muncie, IN, wage area over the Ft. Wayne-Marion, IN, wage area. Grant
County would subsequently be moved to the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie,
IN, survey area effective for local wage surveys beginning in October
2026;
<bullet> Miami County, IN, from the Ft. Wayne-Marion, IN, area of
application to the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, area of application
because Miami County is part of the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN,
CSA. Because more than 100 FWS employees work in Miami County, the
county would subsequently be moved to the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie,
IN, survey area effective for local wage surveys beginning in October
2026;
<bullet> White County, IN, from the Ft. Wayne-Marion, IN, area of
application to the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, area of application.
White County is part of the Lafayette-West Lafayette-Frankfort, IN,
CSA, and employment interchange measures for this CSA favor the
Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, wage area over the Ft. Wayne-Marion,
IN, wage area;
<bullet> Blackford County, IN, from the Ft. Wayne-Marion, IN, area
of application to the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, area of
application based on employment interchange measures favoring the
Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, wage area over the Ft. Wayne-Marion,
IN, wage area;
<bullet> Jennings County, IN, from the Louisville, KY, area of
application to the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, area of application
based on employment interchange measures favoring the Indianapolis-
Carmel-Muncie, IN, wage area over the Louisville, KY, wage area.
<bullet> Vigo County, IN, to the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN,
survey area because the county has over 100 FWS employees effective for
local wage surveys beginning in October 2026.
Davenport-Rock Island-Moline, IA, Wage Area
This proposed rule would change the name of the Davenport-Rock
Island-Moline, IA, wage area to the Davenport-Moline, IA, wage area.
This proposed rule would define the following counties to and away from
the Davenport-Rock Island-Moline, IA, wage area based on application of
the new criteria:
<bullet> Lee County, IL from the Chicago, IL, area of application
to the Davenport-Moline, IA, area of application. Lee County is part of
the Dixon-Sterling, IL, CSA, and employment interchange measures for
this CSA favor the Davenport-Moline, IA, wage area over the Chicago-
Naperville, IL, wage area;
<bullet> Bureau and Putnam Counties, IL, from the Davenport-Rock
Island-Moline, IA, area of application to the Chicago-Naperville, IL,
area of application because these counties are part of the Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI, CSA;
<bullet> Adams County, IL, from the Davenport-Rock Island-Moline,
IA, area of application to the St. Louis, MO, area of application.
Adams County is part of the Quincy-Hannibal, IL-MO, CSA, and employment
interchange measures for this CSA favor the St. Louis, MO, wage area
over the Davenport-Moline, IA, wage area.
Topeka, KS, Wage Area
The current Topeka, KS, wage area would become smaller under this
proposed rule and would be renamed as the Manhattan, KS, wage area.
This proposed rule would redefine the following counties away from and
within the Topeka, KS, wage area based on application of the new
criteria:
<bullet> Jefferson, Osage, and Shawnee Counties, KS, from the
Topeka, KS, survey area to the Kansas City, MO, area of application.
Jefferson, Osage, and Shawnee Counties are part of the Topeka, KS, MSA,
and employment interchange measures for this MSA favor the Kansas City
wage area. These counties would subsequently be moved to the Kansas
City, MO, survey area effective for local wage surveys beginning in
October 2026;
<bullet> Jackson and Wabaunsee Counties, KS, from the Topeka, KS,
area of application to the Kansas City, MO, area of application.
Jackson and Wabaunsee Counties are part of the Topeka, KS, MSA, and
employment interchange measures for this MSA favor the Kansas City, MO,
wage area;
<bullet> Riley County, KS, to the Manhattan, KS, survey area
effective for local wage surveys beginning in November 2027 because the
county has over 100 FWS employees.
Lexington, KY, Wage Area
This proposed rule would redefine the following counties away from
the Lexington, KY, wage area based on application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Owen and Robertson Counties, KY, from the Lexington area
of application to the Cincinnati-Wilmington, OH, area of application
based on employment interchange measures favoring the Cincinnati-
Wilmington, OH, wage area over the Lexington, KY, wage area.
[[Page 82886]]
Louisville, KY, Wage Area
This proposed rule would define the following county away from the
Louisville, KY, wage area based on application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Jennings County, IN, from the Louisville, KY, area of
application to the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, area of application
based on employment interchange measures favoring the Indianapolis-
Carmel-Muncie, IN, wage area over the Louisville, KY, wage area.
Shreveport, LA, Wage Area
This proposed rule would redefine the following county away from
the Shreveport, LA, wage area based on application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Cherokee County, TX, from the Shreveport, LA, area of
application to the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, area of application. Cherokee
County is part of the Tyler-Jacksonville, TX, CSA, and employment
interchange measures for this CSA favor the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, wage
area over the Shreveport, LA, wage area.
Baltimore, MD, Wage Area
With the redefinition of Baltimore (city) and Anne Arundel,
Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, and Howard Counties, MD, to the
Washington-Baltimore-Arlington survey area, the Baltimore wage area
would lose the entirety of its survey area. This proposed rule would
abolish the Baltimore wage area and redefine its remaining counties to
the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington wage area.
Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg, MD, Wage Area
With the redefinition of Washington County, MD; Franklin County,
PA; and Berkeley County, WV, to the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington
survey area, the Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg, MD, wage area
would lose the entirety of its survey area. This proposed rule would
abolish the Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg, MD, wage area and
redefine its remaining counties to the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington
wage area.
Boston, MA, Wage Area
This proposed rule would change the name of the Boston, MA, wage
area to the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, wage area. The Boston wage
area is currently defined primarily by New England cities and towns
rather than by counties with some counties divided between wage areas.
This proposed rule would redefine the following counties to and within
the Boston, MA, wage area based on the application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Coos County, NH, from the Portsmouth, NH, area of
application to the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, area of application
due to employment interchange measures favoring the Boston-Worcester-
Providence, MA, wage area;
<bullet> Rockingham County, NH, would be part of the Boston-
Worcester-Providence, MA, wage area because Rockingham County is part
of the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH, CSA. To effectuate this
change, the cities and towns that comprise Rockingham County, NH, would
be redefined in the following manner:
[cir] Rockingham County, NH (all cities and towns except Newton,
Plaistow, Salem, and Westville, NH), would be redefined from the
Portsmouth, NH, survey area to the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA,
area of application;
[cir] Rockingham County, NH (the portion that contains the cities
and towns of Newton, Plaistow, Salem, and Westville, NH), would be
redefined from the Portsmouth, NH, area of application to the Boston-
Worcester-Providence, MA, area of application;
[cir] Rockingham County, NH, in its entirety would subsequently be
moved to the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, survey area effective for
local wage surveys beginning in August 2026;
<bullet> Strafford County, NH, would be redefined from the
Portsmouth, NH, survey area to the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA,
area of application because Strafford County is part of the Boston-
Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH, CSA. Strafford County would
subsequently be moved to the Boston-Worcester-Providence survey area
effective for local wage surveys beginning in August 2026;
<bullet> Belknap, Hillsborough, and Merrimack Counties, NH, would
be redefined from the Central and Western Massachusetts area of
application to the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, area of application
because these counties are part of the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-
RI-NH, CSA;
<bullet> Cheshire County, NH, would be redefined from the Central
and Western Massachusetts area of application to the Boston-Worcester-
Providence, MA, area of application. Cheshire County is part of the
Keene-Brattleboro, NH-VT, CSA, and employment interchange measures for
this CSA favor the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, wage area;
<bullet> Carroll, Grafton, and Sullivan Counties, NH, would be
redefined from the Central and Western Massachusetts area of
application to the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, area of application
based on employment interchange measures favoring the Boston-Worcester-
Providence, MA, wage area;
<bullet> Androscoggin, Cumberland, Sagadahoc, and York Counties,
ME, would be redefined from the Portsmouth, NH, survey area to the
Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, area of application area.
Androscoggin, Cumberland, Sagadahoc, and York Counties, ME, are part of
the Portland-Lewiston-South Portland, ME, CSA, and employment
interchange measures for this CSA favors defining it to the Boston-
Worcester-Providence, MA, wage area. These counties would subsequently
be moved to the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, survey area effective
for local wage surveys beginning in August 2026;
<bullet> Franklin and Oxford Counties, ME, would be redefined from
the Portsmouth, NH, area of application to the Boston-Worcester-
Providence, MA, area of application based on employment interchange
measures favoring the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, wage area;
<bullet> Barnstable County, MA, would be defined to the Boston-
Worcester-Providence, MA, survey area effective for local wage surveys
beginning in August 2026 because the county has over 100 FWS employees;
<bullet> Bristol County, MA, would be defined in its entirety to
the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, wage area because it is part of
the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH, CSA. To effectuate this
change, the following cities and towns in Bristol County would be
redefined in the following manner:
[cir] Bristol County, MA (the portion that contains the town the
cities and towns of Attleboro, Fall River, North Attleboro, Rehoboth,
Seekonk, Somerset, Swansea, and Westport, MA), would be redefined from
the Narragansett Bay, RI, survey area to the Boston-Worcester-
Providence, MA, area of application;
[cir] Bristol County, MA (the portion that contains the cities and
towns of Acushnet, Berkley, Dartmouth, Dighton, Fairhaven, Freetown,
Mansfield, New Bedford, Norton, Raynham, and Taunton, MA), from the
Narragansett Bay, RI, area of application to the Boston-Worcester-
Providence, MA, area of application;
[cir] Bristol County, MA, would subsequently be moved to the
Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, survey area effective for local wage
surveys beginning in August 2026.
<bullet> Essex County, MA, in its entirety would be part of the
Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, survey area because the county is part
of the Boston-
[[Page 82887]]
Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH, CSA, and portions of the county are
currently included the Boston and Portsmouth survey areas. To
effectuate this change, the following cities and towns in Essex County
would be redefined:
[cir] Essex County, MA (the portion that contains the cities and
towns of Andover, Essex, Gloucester, Ipswich, Lawrence, Methuen,
Rockport, and Rowley, MA), would be moved to the Boston-Worcester-
Providence, MA, survey area effective for local wage surveys beginning
in August 2026;
[cir] Essex County, MA (the portion that contains the cities and
towns of Amesbury, Georgetown, Groveland, Haverhill, Merrimac, Newbury,
Newburyport, North Andover, Salisbury, South Byfield, and West Newbury,
MA), would be redefined from the Portsmouth, NH, survey area to the
Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, area of application. Essex County, MA
(the portion that contains the cities and towns of Amesbury,
Georgetown, Groveland, Haverhill, Merrimac, Newbury, Newburyport, North
Andover, Salisbury, South Byfield, and West Newbury, MA), would
subsequently be moved to the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, survey
area effective for local wage surveys beginning in August 2026.
<bullet> Middlesex County, MA, in its entirety would be part of the
Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, survey area because the county is part
of the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH, CSA, and portions of the
county are included in a survey area. To effectuate this change, the
following cities and towns in Middlesex County would be redefined:
[cir] Middlesex County, MA (the portion that contains the cities
and towns of Ayer, Billerica, Chelmsford, Dracut, Dunstable, Groton,
Hopkinton, Hudson, Littleton, Lowell, Marlborough, Maynard, Pepperell,
Stow, Tewksbury, Tyngsborough, and Westford, MA), would subsequently be
moved to the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, survey area effective for
local wage surveys beginning in August 2026;
[cir] Middlesex County, MA (the portion that contains the cities
and towns of Ashby, Shirley, and Townsend, MA), would be redefined from
the Central and Western Massachusetts area of application to the
Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, area of application. Middlesex County,
MA (the portion that contains the cities and towns of Ashby, Shirley,
and Townsend, MA), would be subsequently moved to the Boston-Worcester-
Providence, MA, survey area effective for local wage surveys beginning
in August 2026.
<bullet> Norfolk County, MA, in its entirety would be part of the
Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, survey area because the county is part
of the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH, CSA, and portions of the
county are included in a survey area. To effectuate this change, the
following cities and towns in Norfolk County would be redefined:
[cir] Norfolk County, MA (the portion that contains the town of
Avon, MA) would be defined to the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA,
survey area effective for local wage surveys beginning in August 2026;
[cir] Norfolk County, MA (the portion that contains the cities and
towns of Caryville, Plainville, and South Bellingham, MA) from the
Narragansett Bay, RI, survey area to the Boston-Worcester-Providence,
MA, area of application. Norfolk County, MA (the portion that contains
the cities and towns of Caryville, Plainville, and South Bellingham,
MA) would subsequently be defined to the Boston-Worcester-Providence,
MA, survey area effective for local wage surveys beginning in August
2026.
<bullet> Plymouth County, MA (nonsurvey area part), would be moved
to the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, survey area effective for local
wage surveys beginning in August 2026 because the county has more than
100 FWS workers;
<bullet> Worcester County, MA, in its entirety would be part of the
Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, survey area because the county is part
of the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH, CSA, and portions of the
county are included in a survey area. To effectuate this change, the
following cities and towns in Worcester County would be redefined:
[cir] Worcester County, MA (the portion that contains the cities
and towns of Blackstone and Millville, MA) would be redefined from the
Narragansett Bay, RI, survey area to the Boston-Worcester-Providence,
MA, area of application. Worcester County, MA (the portion that
contains the cities and towns of Blackstone and Millville, MA) would
subsequently be moved to the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, survey
area effective for local wage surveys beginning in August 2026;
[cir] Worcester County, MA (the portion that contains the cities
and towns of Warren and West Warren, MA) would be redefined from the
Central and Western Massachusetts survey area to the Boston-Worcester-
Providence, MA, area of application. Worcester County, MA (the portion
that contains the cities and towns of Warren and West Warren, MA) would
subsequently be moved to the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, survey
area effective for local wage surveys beginning in August 2026;
[cir] Worcester County, MA (all cities and towns except Blackstone,
Millville, Warren, and West Warren, MA) would be redefined from the
Central and Western Massachusetts area of application to the Boston-
Worcester-Providence, MA, area of application. Worcester County, MA
(all cities and towns except Blackstone, Millville, Warren, and West
Warren, MA) would subsequently be moved to the Boston-Worcester-
Providence, MA, survey area effective for local wage surveys beginning
in August 2026.
<bullet> Bristol County, RI, from the Narragansett Bay, RI, survey
area to the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, area of application
because Bristol County, RI, is part of the Boston-Worcester-Providence,
MA-RI-NH, CSA. Bristol County, RI, would subsequently be moved to the
Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, survey area effective for local wage
surveys beginning in August 2026.
<bullet> Kent County, RI, would be part of the Boston-Worcester-
Providence, MA, wage area because the county is part of the Boston-
Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH, CSA. To effectuate this change, the
cities and towns that comprise Kent County, RI, would be redefined in
the following manner:
[cir] Kent County, RI (the portion that contains the cities and
towns of Anthony, Coventry, East Greenwich, Greene, Warwick, and West
Warwick, RI), would be redefined from the Narragansett Bay, RI, survey
area to the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, area of application;
[cir] Kent County, RI (the portion that contains the town of West
Greenwich, RI), would be redefined from the Narragansett Bay, RI, area
of application to the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, area of
application;
[cir] Kent County, RI, would subsequently be moved to the Boston-
Worcester-Providence, MA, survey area effective for local wage surveys
beginning in August 2026.
<bullet> Newport County, RI, would be redefined from the
Narragansett Bay, RI, survey area to the Boston-Worcester-Providence,
MA, area of application because the county is part of the Boston-
Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH, CSA. Newport County, RI, would
subsequently be moved to the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, survey
area effective for local wage surveys beginning in August 2026;
[[Page 82888]]
<bullet> Providence County, RI, would be part of the Boston-
Worcester-Providence, MA, wage area because the county is part of the
Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH, CSA. To effectuate this change,
the cities and towns that comprise Providence County would be redefined
in the following manner:
[cir] Providence County, RI (the portion that contains the cities
and towns of Ashton, Burrillville, Central Falls, Cranston, Cumberland,
Cumberland Hill, East Providence, Esmond, Forestdale, Greenville,
Harrisville, Johnston, Lincoln, Manville, Mapleville, North Providence,
North Smithfield, Oakland, Pascoag, Pawtucket, Providence, Saylesville,
Slatersville, Smithfield, Valley Falls, Wallum Lake, and Woonsocket,
RI), would be redefined from the Narragansett Bay, RI, survey area to
the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, area of application;
[cir] Providence County, RI (the portion that contains the cities
and towns of Foster, Glocester, and Scituate, RI), would be redefined
from the Narragansett Bay, RI, area of application to the Boston-
Worcester-Providence, MA, area of application;
[cir] Providence County, RI, would subsequently be moved in its
entirety to the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, survey area effective
for local wage surveys beginning in August 2026.
<bullet> Washington County, RI, would be part of the Boston-
Worcester-Providence, MA, wage area because the county is part of the
Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH, CSA. To effectuate this change,
the cities and towns that comprise Washington County would be redefined
in the following manner:
[cir] Washington County, RI (the portion that contains the cities
and towns of Davisville, Galilee, Lafayette, Narragansett, North
Kingstown, Point Judith, Quonset Point, Saunderstown, and Slocum, RI),
would be redefined from the Narragansett Bay, RI, survey area to the
Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, area of application;
[cir] Washington County, RI (the portion that contains the cities
and towns of Charlestown, Exeter, Hopkinton, New Shoreham, Richmond,
South Kingstown, and Westerly, RI), would be redefined from the
Narragansett Bay, RI, area of application to the Boston-Worcester-
Providence, MA, area of application;
[cir] Washington County, RI, would subsequently be moved in its
entirety to the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, survey area effective
for local wage surveys beginning in August 2026.
<bullet> Windham County, VT, would be redefined from the Central
and Western Massachusetts area of application to the Boston-Worcester-
Providence, MA, area of application. Windham County is part of the
Keene-Brattleboro, NH-VT, CSA, and employment interchange measures for
this CSA favor the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, wage area;
<bullet> Orange and Windsor Counties, VT, would be redefined from
the Central and Western Massachusetts area of application to the
Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, area of application based on
employment interchange measures favoring the Boston-Worcester-
Providence, MA, wage area.
Central and Western Massachusetts, MA, Wage Area
With the redefinition of Hampden and Hampshire Counties, MA, to the
New Haven-Hartford, CT, wage area and Worcester County, MA, to the
Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, wage area, the Central and Western
Massachusetts wage area would lose the entirety of its survey area.
This proposed rule would abolish the Central and Western Massachusetts
wage area and redefine its remaining counties to neighboring wage
areas.
Detroit, MI, Wage Area
This proposed rule would change the name of the Detroit, MI, wage
area to the Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, MI, wage area. This proposed rule
would redefine the following counties to, away from, and within the
Detroit, MI, wage area based on application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Jackson County, MI, from the Southwestern Michigan area of
application to the Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, MI, area of application
based on employment interchange measures favoring the Detroit-Warren-
Ann Arbor, MI, wage area;
<bullet> Ottawa County, OH, from the Detroit, MI, area of
application to the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH, area of application
because Ottawa County is part of the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH, CSA;
<bullet> Lucas County, OH, and Washtenaw County, MI, to the
Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, MI, survey area effective for local wage
surveys beginning in January 2027 because more than 100 FWS employees
work in each county.
Northwestern Michigan Wage Area
This proposed rule would redefine the following counties to the
Northwestern Michigan wage area based on application of the new
criteria:
<bullet> Florence and Marinette Counties, WI, from the Southwestern
Wisconsin area of application to the Northwestern Michigan area of
application. Florence and Marinette Counties are part of the Marinette-
Iron Mountain, WI-MI, CSA, and distance criteria for this CSA favor the
Northwestern Michigan wage area over the Southwestern Wisconsin wage
area.
Southwestern Michigan Wage Area
This proposed rule would define the following county away from the
Southwestern Michigan wage area based on application of the new
criteria:
<bullet> Jackson County, MI, from the Southwestern Michigan area of
application to the Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, MI, area of application
based on employment interchange measures favoring the Detroit-Warren-
Ann Arbor, MI, wage area.
Duluth, MN, Wage Area
This proposed rule would redefine the follow county away from the
Duluth, MN, wage area based on application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Pine County, MN, from the Duluth, MN, area of application
to the Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN, area of application based on
employment interchange measures favoring the Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN,
wage area over the Duluth, MN, wage area.
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN, Wage Area
This proposed rule would redefine the following counties to and
within the Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN, wage area based on application of
the new criteria:
<bullet> Pine County, MN, from the Duluth, MN, area of application
to the Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN, area of application based on
employment interchange measures favoring the Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN,
wage area over the Duluth, MN, wage area;
<bullet> Winona County, MN, from the Southwestern Wisconsin area of
application to the Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN, area of application.
Winona County is part of the Rochester-Austin-Winona, MN, CSA, and
employment interchange measures for this CSA favor the Minneapolis-St.
Paul, MN, wage area over the Southwestern Wisconsin wage area;
<bullet> Morrison and Stearns Counties, MN, to the Minneapolis-St.
Paul, MN, survey area effective for local wage surveys beginning in
April 2027 because more than 100 FWS employees work in each county.
Kansas City, MO, Wage Area
This proposed rule would redefine the following counties to, away
from, and within the Kansas City, MO, wage area based on application of
the new criteria:
[[Page 82889]]
<bullet> Jefferson, Osage, and Shawnee Counties, KS, from the
Topeka, KS, survey area to the Kansas City, MO, area of application.
Jefferson, Osage, and Shawnee Counties are part of the Topeka, KS, MSA,
and employment interchange measures for this MSA favor the Kansas City
wage area. These counties would subsequently be moved to the Kansas
City, MO, survey area effective for local wage surveys beginning in
October 2026;
<bullet> Jackson and Wabaunsee Counties, KS, from the Topeka, KS,
area of application to the Kansas City, MO, area of application.
Jackson and Wabaunsee Counties are part of the Topeka, KS, MSA, and
employment interchange measures for this MSA favor the Kansas City, MO,
wage area;
<bullet> Cooper and Howard Counties, MO, from the Kansas City, MO,
area of application to the St. Louis, MO, area of application. Cooper
and Howard Counties are part of the Columbia-Jefferson City-Moberly,
MO, CSA, and employment interchange measures for this CSA favor the St.
Louis, MO, wage area over the Kansas City, MO, wage area;
<bullet> Johnson County, MO, to the Kansas City, MO, survey area
effective for local wage surveys beginning in October 2026 because more
than 100 FWS employees work in Johnson County.
St. Louis, MO, Wage Area
This proposed rule would redefine the following counties to, away
from, and within the St. Louis, MO, wage area based on application of
the new criteria:
<bullet> Adams County, IL, from the Davenport-Rock Island-Moline,
IA, area of application to the St. Louis, MO, area of application.
Adams County is part of the Quincy-Hannibal, IL-MO, CSA, and employment
interchange measures for this CSA favor the St. Louis, MO, wage area
over the Davenport-Moline, IA, wage area.
<bullet> Cooper and Howard Counties, MO, from the Kansas City, MO,
area of application to the St. Louis, MO, area of application. Cooper
and Howard Counties are part of the Columbia-Jefferson City-Moberly,
MO, CSA, and employment interchange measures for this CSA favor the St.
Louis, MO, wage area over the Kansas City, MO, wage area;
<bullet> Mississippi and Scott Counties, MO, from the Southern
Missouri area of application to the St. Louis, MO, area of application.
Mississippi and Scott Counties are part of the Cape Girardeau-Sikeston,
MO-IL, CSA, and employment interchange measures for this CSA favor the
St. Louis, MO, wage area over the Southern Missouri wage area;
<bullet> Iron and Madison Counties, MO, from the Southern Missouri
area of application to the St. Louis, MO, area of application based on
employment interchange measures favoring the St. Louis, MO, wage area
over the Southern Missouri wage area;
<bullet> Morgan and Scott Counties, IL, from the St. Louis, MO,
area of application to the Bloomington-Pontiac, IL, area of
application. Morgan and Scott counties are part of the Springfield-
Jacksonville-Lincoln, IL, CSA, and employment interchange measures for
this CSA favor the Bloomington-Pontiac, IL, wage area over the St.
Louis, MO, wage area;
<bullet> Massac County, IL, from the St. Louis, MO, area of
application to the Nashville, TN, area of application. Massac County is
part of the Paducah-Mayfield, KY-IL, CSA, and employment interchange
measures for this CSA favor the Nashville, TN, wage area over the St.
Louis, MO, wage area;
<bullet> Boone County, MO, to the St. Louis, MO, survey area
effective for local wage surveys beginning in October 2026 because more
than 100 FWS employees work in Boone County;
<bullet> Williamson County, IL, to the St. Louis, MO, survey area
effective for local wage surveys beginning in October 2026 because more
than 100 FWS employees work in Williamson County.
Southern Missouri Wage Area
This proposed rule would redefine the following counties away from
the Southern Missouri wage area based on application of the new
criteria:
<bullet> Mississippi and Scott Counties, MO, from the Southern
Missouri area of application to the St. Louis, MO, area of application.
Mississippi and Scott Counties are part of the Cape Girardeau-Sikeston,
MO-IL, CSA, and employment interchange measures for this CSA favor the
St. Louis, MO, wage area over the Southern Missouri wage area;
<bullet> Iron and Madison Counties, MO, from the Southern Missouri
area of application to the St. Louis, MO, area of application based on
employment interchange measures favoring the St. Louis, MO, wage area
over the Southern Missouri wage area.
Reno, NV, Wage Area
This proposed rule would redefine the following counties to, away
from, and within the Reno, NV, wage area based on application of the
new criteria:
<bullet> Alpine County, CA, from the Sacramento, CA, area of
application to the Reno, NV area of application because Alpine County
is part of the Reno-Carson City-Gardnerville Ranchos, NV-CA, CSA;
<bullet> Madera County, CA (Devils Postpile National Monument
portion) from the Reno, NV, area of application to the Fresno, CA, area
of application because Madera County is part of the Fresno-Hanford-
Corcoran, CA, CSA;
<bullet> Lassen County, CA, to the Reno, NV, survey area effective
for local wage surveys beginning in March 2026 because more than 100
FWS employees work in Lassen County.
Portsmouth, NH, Wage Area
With the redefinition of Androscoggin, Cumberland, Sagadahoc, and
York Counties, ME; Essex County, MA; and Rockingham and Stafford
Counties, NH, to the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, survey area, the
Portsmouth, NH, wage area would lose the entirety of its survey area.
This proposed rule would abolish the Portsmouth, NH, wage area and
redefine its remaining counties to neighboring wage areas.
Albuquerque, NM, Wage Area
This proposed rule would change the name from the Albuquerque, NM,
wage area to the Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Los Alamos, NM, wage area. This
proposed rule would also redefine the following county to the
Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Los Alamos wage area based on the application of
the new criteria:
<bullet> McKinley County, NM, from the Northeastern Arizona survey
area to the Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Los Alamos, NM, area of application
based on employment interchange measures being more favorable to the
Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Los Alamos, NM, than to the Northeastern Arizona
wage area. This county would subsequently be moved to the Albuquerque-
Santa Fe-Los Alamos, NM, survey area effective for local wage surveys
beginning in April 2027.
Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY, Wage Area
This proposed rule would change the name of the Albany-Schenectady-
Troy, NY, wage area to the Albany-Schenectady, NY, wage area. The
proposed rule would redefine the following counties to and from the
Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY, wage area based on the application of the
new criteria:
<bullet> Berkshire County, MA, from the Central and Western
Massachusetts area of application to the Albany-Schenectady, NY, area
of application based on employment interchange measures favoring the
Albany-Schenectady, NY, wage area;
<bullet> Bennington and Rutland Counties, VT, from the Central and
Western
[[Page 82890]]
Massachusetts area of application to the Albany-Schenectady, NY, area
of application based on employment interchange measures favoring the
Albany-Schenectady, NY, wage area;
<bullet> Hamilton County, NY, from the Syracuse-Utica-Rome, NY,
area of application to the Albany-Schenectady, NY, area of application
based on employment interchange measures favoring the Albany-
Schenectady, NY, wage area over the Syracuse-Utica-Rome, NY, wage area;
<bullet> Ulster County, NY, from the Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY,
area of application to the New York-Newark, NY, area of application
because Ulster County is part of the New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA, CSA.
Buffalo, NY, Wage Area
The proposed rule would redefine the following counties to the
Buffalo, NY, wage area based on application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Allegany and Wyoming Counties, NY, from the Rochester, NY,
area of application to the Buffalo area of application based on
employment interchange measures favoring the Buffalo wage area over the
Rochester wage area.
New York, NY, Wage Area
This proposed rule would change the name of the New York, NY, wage
area to the New York-Newark, NY, wage area. This proposed rule would
redefine the following counties to and within the New York-Newark, NY,
wage area based on application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Fairfield County, CT, from the New Haven-Hartford, CT,
area of application to the New York-Newark, NY, area of application
because all FWS employees who work in Fairfield County are located in
the New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA, CSA;
<bullet> Mercer County, NJ, from the Philadelphia, PA, area of
application to the New York-Newark, NY, area of application because
Mercer County is part of the New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA, CSA;
<bullet> Warren County, NJ, from the Philadelphia, PA, area of
application to the New York-Newark, NY, area of application. Warren
County is part of the Allentown-Bethlehem-East Stroudsburg, PA-NJ, CSA
and employment interchange measures for this CSA favor the New York-
Newark, NY, wage area;
<bullet> Sullivan County, NY, from the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA,
area of application to the New York-Newark, NY, area of application
because Sullivan County is part of the New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA,
CSA;
<bullet> Ulster County, NY, from the Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY,
area of application to the New York-Newark, NY, area of application
because Ulster County is part of the New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA, CSA;
<bullet> Carbon, Lehigh, and Northampton Counties, PA, from the
Philadelphia, PA, area of application to the New York-Newark, NY, area
of application. Carbon, Lehigh, and Northampton Counties are part of
the Allentown-Bethlehem-East Stroudsburg, PA-NJ, CSA and employment
interchange measures for this CSA favor the New York-Newark, NY, wage
area;
<bullet> Monroe County, PA, from the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA,
survey area to the New York-Newark, NY, area of application. Monroe
County is part of the Allentown-Bethlehem-East Stroudsburg, PA-NJ, CSA
and employment interchange measures for this CSA favor the New York-
Newark, NY, wage area. This county would subsequently be moved to the
New York-Newark, NY, survey area effective for local wage surveys
beginning in January 2028;
<bullet> Wayne County, PA, from the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA, area
of application to the New York-Newark, NY, area of application.
Although analysis of some of the wage area criteria, such as distance,
for Wayne County favors defining it to the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA,
wage area the United States Penitentiary Canaan, in Wayne County, is
just 36 miles away from Tobyhanna Army Depot, the largest Federal
employer in Northeastern Pennsylvania which will be defined to the New
York-Newark, NY, wage area. GS employees at USP Canaan and Tobyhanna
Army Depot are in the New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA GS locality pay area
based on employment interchange measures. OPM is therefore making a
decision to move Wayne County to the New York-Newark, NY, wage area's
area of application based on an analysis of all of revised wage area
criteria;
<bullet> Monmouth and Ocean Counties, NJ, to the New York-Newark,
NY, survey area effective for local wage surveys beginning in January
2028 because more than 100 FWS employees work in each county;
<bullet> Dutchess County, NY, to the New York-Newark, NY, survey
area effective for local wage surveys beginning in January 2028 because
more than 100 FWS employees work in Dutchess County.
Northern New York Wage Area
This proposed rule would redefine the following counties to the
Northern New York wage area based on application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Washington County, VT, from the Central and Western
Massachusetts area of application to the Northern New York area of
application. Washington County is part of the Burlington-South
Burlington-Barre, VT, CSA, and employment interchange measures for this
CSA favor the Northern New York wage area;
<bullet> Addison, Caledonia, Essex, Lamoille, and Orleans Counties,
VT, from the Central and Western Massachusetts area of application to
the Northern New York area of application because employment
interchange measures favor the Northern New York wage area.
Rochester, NY, Wage Area
The proposed rule would redefine the following counties away from
the Rochester, NY, wage area based on application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Allegany and Wyoming Counties, NY, from the Rochester, NY,
area of application to the Buffalo, NY, area of application based on
employment interchange measures favoring the Buffalo, NY, wage area
over the Rochester, NY, wage area.
Syracuse-Utica-Rome, NY, Wage Area
The proposed rule would redefine the following county away from the
Syracuse-Utica-Rome, NY, wage area based on application of the new
criteria:
<bullet> Hamilton County, NY, from the Syracuse-Utica-Rome, NY,
wage area to the Albany-Schenectady, NY, wage area based on employment
interchange measures favoring the Albany-Schenectady, NY, wage area
over the Syracuse-Utica-Rome, NY, wage area.
Asheville, NC, Wage Area
The proposed rule would redefine the following counties away from
the Asheville, NC, wage area based on application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Alexander, Burke, Caldwell, Catawba, and McDowell
Counties, NC, from the Asheville area of application to the Charlotte-
Concord, NC, area of application because these counties are part of the
Charlotte-Concord, NC-SC, CSA.
Charlotte, NC, Wage Area
This proposed rule would change the name of the Charlotte, NC, wage
area to the Charlotte-Concord, NC, wage area. The proposed rule would
redefine the following counties to the Charlotte-Concord, NC, wage area
based on application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Alexander, Burke, Caldwell, Catawba, and McDowell
Counties, NC,
[[Page 82891]]
from the Asheville, NC, area of application to the Charlotte-Concord,
NC, area of application because these counties are part of the
Charlotte-Concord, NC-SC, CSA.
Southeastern North Carolina Wage Area
This proposed rule would redefine the following counties away from
the Southeastern North Carolina wage area based on application of the
new criteria:
<bullet> Horry County, SC from the Southeastern North Carolina area
of application to the Charleston, SC, area of application. Horry County
is part of the Myrtle Beach-Conway, SC, CSA, and employment interchange
measures for this CSA favor the Charleston, SC, wage area over the
Southeastern North Carolina wage area;
<bullet> Dare County, NC, from the Southeastern North Carolina area
of application to the Virginia Beach-Chesapeake, VA, area of
application because Dare County is part of the Virginia Beach-
Chesapeake, VA-NC, CSA;
<bullet> Hertford and Tyrrell Counties, NC, from the Southeastern
North Carolina area of application to the Virginia Beach-Chesapeake,
VA, area of application based on employment interchange measures
favoring the Virginia Beach-Chesapeake, VA, wage area over the
Southeastern North Carolina wage area.
Cincinnati, OH, Wage Area
This proposed rule would change the name of the Cincinnati, OH,
wage area to the Cincinnati-Wilmington, OH, wage area. This proposed
rule would redefine the following counties to the Cincinnati-
Wilmington, OH, wage area based on application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Clinton County, OH, from the Dayton, OH, area of
application to the Cincinnati-Wilmington, OH, area of application
because Clinton County is part of the Cincinnati-Wilmington, OH-KY-IN,
CSA;
<bullet> Owen and Robertson Counties, KY, from the Lexington, KY,
area of application to the Cincinnati-Wilmington, OH, area of
application based on employment interchange measures favoring the
Cincinnati-Wilmington, OH, wage area over the Lexington, KY, wage area;
<bullet> Lewis County, KY, from the West Virginia area of
application to the Cincinnati-Wilmington, OH, area of application based
on employment interchange measures favoring the Cincinnati-Wilmington,
OH, wage area.
Cleveland, OH, Wage Area
This proposed rule would change the name of the Cleveland, OH, wage
area to the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH, wage area. The proposed rule
would redefine the following counties to, away from, and within the
Cleveland, OH, wage area based on application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Coshocton County, OH, from the Columbus, OH, area of
application to the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH, area of application
because Coshocton County is part of the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH,
CSA;
<bullet> Ottawa County, OH, from the Detroit, MI, area of
application to the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH, area of application
because Ottawa County is part of the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH, CSA;
<bullet> Tuscarawas County, OH, from the Pittsburgh, PA, area of
application to the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH, area of application
because Tuscarawas County is part of the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH,
CSA;
<bullet> Crawford and Richland Counties, OH, from the Columbus, OH,
area of application to the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH, area of
application. Crawford and Richland Counties are part of the Mansfield-
Ashland-Bucyrus, OH, CSA, and employment interchange measures for this
CSA favor the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH, wage area over the Columbus-
Marion-Zanesville wage area;
<bullet> Holmes County, OH, from the Columbus, OH, area of
application to the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH, area of application
based on employment interchange measures favoring the Cleveland-Akron-
Canton, OH, wage area over the Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, OH, wage
area;
<bullet> Seneca County, OH, from the Cleveland, OH, area of
application to the Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, OH, area of application.
Seneca County is part of the Findlay-Tiffin, OH, CSA, and employment
interchange measures for this CSA favor the Columbus-Marion-Zanesville,
OH, wage area over the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH, wage area;
<bullet> Mercer County, PA, from the Cleveland, OH, area of
application to the Pittsburgh, PA, area of application because Mercer
County is part of the Pittsburgh-Weirton-Steubenville, PA-OH-WV, CSA;
<bullet> Mahoning County, OH, to the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH,
survey area effective for local wage surveys beginning in April 2027
because the county has over 100 FWS employees.
Columbus, OH, Wage Area
This proposed rule would change the name of the Columbus, OH, wage
area to the Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, OH, wage area. The proposed
rule would redefine the following counties to, away from, and within
the Columbus, OH, wage area based on application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Athens County, OH, from the West Virginia area of
application to the Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, OH, area of application
because Athens County is part of the Columbus-Marion-Zanesville CSA;
<bullet> Logan County, OH, from the Dayton, OH, area of application
to the Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, OH, area of application because
Logan County is part of the Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, OH, CSA;
<bullet> Seneca County, OH, from the Cleveland, OH, area of
application to the Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, OH, area of application.
Seneca County is part of the Findlay-Tiffin, OH, CSA, and employment
interchange measures for this CSA favor the Columbus-Marion-Zanesville,
OH, wage area over the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH, wage area;
<bullet> Morgan, Noble, Pike, and Vinton Counties, OH, from the
West Virginia area of application to the Columbus-Marion-Zanesville,
OH, area of application based on employment interchange measures
favoring the Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, OH, wage area;
<bullet> Coshocton County, OH, from the Columbus, OH, area of
application to the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH, area of application
because Coshocton County is part of the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH,
CSA;
<bullet> Crawford and Richland Counties, OH, from the Columbus, OH,
area of application to the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH, area of
application. Crawford and Richland Counties are part of the Mansfield-
Ashland-Bucyrus, OH, CSA, and employment interchange measures for this
CSA favor the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH, wage area over the Columbus-
Marion-Zanesville, OH, wage area;
<bullet> Holmes County, OH, from the Columbus, OH, area of
application to the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH, area of application
based on employment interchange measures favoring the Cleveland-Akron-
Canton, OH, wage area over the Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, OH, wage
area;
<bullet> Ross County, OH, to the Columbus-Marion-Zanesville OH,
survey area effective for local wage surveys beginning in January 2027
because the county has over 100 FWS employees.
Dayton, OH, Wage Area
This proposed rule would redefine the following counties to and
away from
[[Page 82892]]
the Dayton, OH, wage area based on application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Allen, Mercer, and Van Wert Counties, OH, from the Ft.
Wayne-Marion, IN, area of application to the Dayton, OH, area of
application. Allen, Mercer, and Van Wert Counties are part of the Lima-
Van Wert-Celina, OH, CSA, and employment interchange measures for this
CSA favor the Dayton, OH, wage area over the Ft. Wayne-Marion, IN, wage
area;
<bullet> Clinton County, OH, from the Dayton, OH, area of
application to the Cincinnati-Wilmington, OH, area of application
because Clinton County is part of the Cincinnati-Wilmington, OH-KY-IN,
CSA;
<bullet> Logan County, OH, from the Dayton, OH, area of application
to the Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, OH, area of application because
Logan County is part of the Columbus-Marion-Zanesville CSA;
<bullet> Wayne County, IN, from the Dayton, OH, area of application
to the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, area of application. Wayne
County is part of the Richmond-Connersville, IN, CSA, and employment
interchange measures for this CSA favor the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie,
IN, wage area over the Dayton, OH, wage area;
<bullet> Randolph County, IN, from the Dayton, OH, area of
application to the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN, area of application
based on employment interchange measures favoring the Indianapolis-
Carmel-Muncie, IN, wage area over the Dayton, OH, wage area.
Oklahoma City, OK, Wage Area
This proposed rule would redefine the following counties away from
the Oklahoma City, OK, wage area based on application of the new
criteria:
<bullet> Bryan County, OK, from the Oklahoma City, OK, area of
application to the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, area of application because
Bryan County is part of the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK, CSA;
<bullet> Carter and Love Counties, OK, from the Oklahoma City, OK,
area of application to the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, area of application
based on employment interchange measures favoring the Dallas-Fort
Worth, TX, wage area over the Oklahoma City, OK, wage area.
Portland, OR, Wage Area
This proposed rule would change the name of the Portland, OR, wage
area to the Portland-Vancouver-Salem, OR, wage area. The proposed rule
would redefine the following counties to and away from the Portland,
OR, wage area based on application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Linn and Benton Counties, OR, from the Southwestern Oregon
area of application to the Portland-Vancouver-Salem, OR, area of
application because these counties are part of the Portland-Vancouver-
Salem, OR, CSA;
<bullet> Pacific County, WA, from the Portland, OR area of
application to the Seattle-Tacoma, WA, area of application based on
employment interchange measures favoring the Seattle-Tacoma, WA, wage
area over the Portland-Vancouver-Salem, OR, wage area.
Southwestern Oregon, OR, Wage Area
This proposed rule would redefine the following counties to and
away from the Southwestern Oregon wage area based on application of the
new criteria:
<bullet> Del Norte County, CA, from the Sacramento, CA, area of
application to the Southwestern Oregon area of application. Del Norte
County is part of the Brookings-Crescent City, OR-CA, CSA, and
employment interchange measures for this CSA favor the Southwestern
Oregon wage area over the Sacramento-Roseville, CA, wage area;
<bullet> Linn and Benton Counties, OR, from the Southwestern Oregon
area of application to the Portland-Vancouver-Salem, OR, area of
application because these counties are part of the Portland-Vancouver-
Salem CSA.
Harrisburg, PA, Wage Area
This proposed rule would change the name of the Harrisburg, PA,
wage area to the Harrisburg-York-Lebanon, PA, wage area. Because Adams
and York Counties, PA, are part of the Harrisburg-York-Lebanon, PA, CSA
they would be defined to this wage area rather than to the Washington-
Baltimore-Arlington, DC, wage area to avoid splitting the CSA. Adams
and York Counties are defined to the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington GS
locality pay area based on a Federal Salary Council recommendation and
Pay Agent decision to keep the counties defined to that locality pay
area after a new GS locality pay area was established for Harrisburg.
The proposed rule would redefine the following counties to, away from,
and within the Harrisburg, PA, wage area based on application of the
new criteria:
<bullet> Northumberland, Snyder, and Union Counties, PA, from the
Harrisburg, PA, area of application to the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA,
area of application. Northumberland, Snyder, and Union Counties are
part of the Bloomsburg-Berwick-Sunbury, PA, CSA, and employment
interchange measures for this CSA favor the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA,
wage area;
<bullet> Clinton County, PA, from the Pittsburgh, PA, area of
application to the Harrisburg-York-Lebanon, PA, area of application.
Clinton County is part of the Williamsport-Lock Haven, PA, CSA, and
employment interchange measures for this CSA favor the Harrisburg-York-
Lebanon, PA, wage area;
<bullet> Lycoming County (does not include the Allenwood Federal
Prison Camp portion) from the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA, area of
application to the Harrisburg-York-Lebanon, PA, area of application.
Lycoming County is part of the Williamsport-Lock Haven, PA, CSA, and
employment interchange measures for this CSA favor the Harrisburg-York-
Lebanon, PA, wage area;
<bullet> Berks County, PA, from the Harrisburg-, PA, area of
application to the Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA, area of application
because Berks County is part of the Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-
DE-MD, CSA;
<bullet> Schuylkill County, PA, from the Harrisburg, PA, area of
application to the Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA, area of application
based on employment interchange measures favoring the Philadelphia-
Reading-Camden, PA, wage area over the Harrisburg-York-Lebanon, PA,
wage area;
<bullet> Union County, PA, to the Harrisburg-Lebanon-York, PA,
survey area effective for local wage surveys beginning in May 2026
because the county has over 100 FWS employees.
Philadelphia, PA, Wage Area
This proposed rule would change the name of the Philadelphia, PA,
wage area to the Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA, wage area. This
proposed rule would redefine the following counties to and away from
the Philadelphia, PA, wage area based on application of the new
criteria:
<bullet> Kent and New Castle Counties, DE, from the Wilmington, DE,
survey area to the Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA, area of application
because Kent and New Castle Counties are part of the Philadelphia-
Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD, CSA. These counties would subsequently be
moved to the Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA, survey area effective for
local wage surveys beginning in October 2027;
<bullet> Sussex County, DE, from the Wilmington, DE, area of
application to the Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA, area of application
because employment interchange measures favor the Philadelphia-Reading-
Camden, PA, wage area;
<bullet> Cecil County, MD, from the Wilmington, DE, survey area to
the Philadelphia-Camden-Reading, PA, area
[[Page 82893]]
of application because Cecil County is part of the Philadelphia-
Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD, CSA. This county would subsequently be
moved to the Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA, survey area effective for
local wage surveys beginning in October 2027;
<bullet> Somerset, Wicomico, and Worcester (does not include the
Assateague Island portion) Counties, MD, from the Wilmington, DE, area
of application to the Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA, area of
application. Somerset, Wicomico, and Worcester Counties, MD, are part
of the Salisbury-Ocean Pines, MD, CSA;
<bullet> Salem County, NJ, from the Wilmington, DE, survey area to
the Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA, area of application because Salem
County is part of the Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD, CSA.
This county would subsequently be moved to the Philadelphia-Reading-
Camden, PA, survey area effective for local wage surveys beginning in
October 2027;
<bullet> Berks County, PA, from the Harrisburg, PA, area of
application to the Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA, area of application
because Berks County is part of the Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-
DE-MD, CSA;
<bullet> Schuylkill County, PA, from the Harrisburg, PA, area of
application to the Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA, area of application
because employment interchange measures favor the Philadelphia-Reading-
Camden, PA, wage area;
<bullet> Mercer County, NJ, from the Philadelphia, PA, area of
application to the New York-Newark, NY, area of application because
Mercer County is part of the New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA, CSA;
<bullet> Warren County, NJ, from the Philadelphia, PA, area of
application to the New York-Newark, NY, area of application. Warren
County is part of the Allentown-Bethlehem-East Stroudsburg, PA-NJ, and
employment interchange measures for this CSA favor the New York-Newark,
NY, wage area;
<bullet> Carbon, Lehigh, and Northampton Counties, PA, from the
Philadelphia, PA, area of application to the New York-Newark, NY, area
of application. Carbon, Lehigh, and Northampton Counties are part of
the Allentown-Bethlehem-East Stroudsburg, PA-NJ, and employment
interchange measures for this CSA favor the New York-Newark, NY, wage
area.
Pittsburgh, PA, Wage Area
This proposed rule would redefine the following counties to, away
from, and within the Pittsburgh, PA, wage area based on application of
the new criteria:
<bullet> Mercer County, PA, from the Cleveland, OH, area of
application to the Pittsburgh, PA, area of application because Mercer
County is part of the Pittsburgh-Weirton-Steubenville, PA-OH-WV, CSA;
<bullet> Tuscarawas Counties, OH, from the Pittsburgh, PA, area of
application to the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH, area of application
because Tuscarawas County is part of the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH,
CSA;
<bullet> Clinton County, PA, from the Pittsburgh, PA, area of
application to the Harrisburg-York-Lebanon, PA, area of application.
Clinton County is part of the Williamsport-Lock Haven, PA, CSA, and
employment interchange measures for this CSA favor the Harrisburg-York-
Lebanon, PA, wage area;
<bullet> Cambria County, PA, to the Pittsburgh, PA, survey area
effective for local wage surveys beginning in July 2027 because more
than 100 FWS employees work in Cambria County.
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA, Wage Area
This proposed rule would redefine the following counties away from
the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA, wage area based on application of the
new criteria:
<bullet> Sullivan County, NY, from the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA,
area of application to the New York-Newark, NY, area of application
because Sullivan County is part of the New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA,
CSA;
<bullet> Lycoming County (does not include the Allenwood Federal
Prison Camp portion) from the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA, area of
application to the Harrisburg-York-Lebanon, PA, area of application.
Lycoming County is part of the Williamsport-Lock Haven, PA, CSA, and
employment interchange measures for this CSA favor the Harrisburg-York-
Lebanon, PA, wage area;
<bullet> Monroe County, PA, from the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA,
survey area to the New York-Newark, NY, area of application. Monroe
County is part of the Allentown-Bethlehem-East Stroudsburg, PA-NJ, CSA
and employment interchange measures for this CSA favor the New York-
Newark, NY, wage area. This county would subsequently be moved to the
New York-Newark, NY, survey area effective for local wage surveys
beginning in January 2028;
<bullet> Northumberland, Snyder, and Union Counties, PA, from the
Harrisburg, PA, area of application to the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA,
area of application. Northumberland, Snyder, and Union Counties are
part of the Bloomsburg-Berwick-Sunbury, PA, CSA, and employment
interchange measures for this CSA favor the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA,
wage area;
<bullet> Wayne County, PA, from the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre area of
application to the New York-Newark area of application as explained for
the New York-Newark wage area definition above.
Narragansett Bay, RI, Wage Area
With the redefinition of Bristol, Norfolk, and Worcester Counties,
MA; and Bristol, Kent, Newport, Providence and Washington Counties, RI,
to the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA, survey area, the Narragansett
Bay, RI, wage area would lose the entirety of its survey area. This
proposed rule would abolish the Narragansett Bay, RI, wage area and
redefine its remaining counties to the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA,
wage area.
Charleston, SC, Wage Area
The proposed rule would redefine the following counties to and away
from the Charleston, SC, wage area based on application of the new
criteria:
<bullet> Horry County, SC from the Southeastern North Carolina area
of application to the Charleston, SC, area of application. Horry County
is part of the Myrtle Beach-Conway, SC, CSA, and employment interchange
measures for this CSA favor the Charleston, SC, wage area over the
Southeastern North Carolina wage area;
<bullet> Beaufort County, SC (the portion north of Broad River),
from the Charleston, SC, area of application to the Savannah, GA, area
of application. Beaufort County is part of the Hilton Head Island-
Bluffton-Port Royal, SC, MSA, and employment interchange measures for
this MSA favor the Savannah, GA, wage area over the Charleston, SC,
wage area. Beaufort County would subsequently be moved to the Savannah,
GA, survey area effective for local wage surveys beginning in May 2027
because more than 100 FWS employees work in Beaufort County.
Nashville, TN, Wage Area
This proposed rule would redefine the following counties to the
Nashville, TN, wage area based on the application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Jackson County, AL, from the Huntsville, AL, area of
application to the Nashville, TN, area of application. Jackson County
is part of the Chattanooga-Cleveland-Dalton, TN-GA-AL, CSA. Most of
this CSA is currently defined to the Nashville wage area;
<bullet> Chattooga, Murray, and Whitfield Counties, GA, from the
Atlanta-, GA,
[[Page 82894]]
area of application to the Nashville, TN, area of application;
<bullet> Massac County, IL, from the St. Louis, MO, area of
application to the Nashville, TN, area of application. Massac County is
part of the Paducah-Mayfield, KY-IL, CSA, and employment interchange
measures for this CSA favor the Nashville, TN, wage area over the St.
Louis, MO, wage area;
<bullet> Livingston County, KY, from the Bloomington-Bedford-
Washington, IN, area of application to the Nashville, TN, area of
application. Livingston County is part of the Paducah-Mayfield, KY-IL,
CSA, and employment interchange measures for this CSA favor the
Nashville, TN, wage area over the Evansville-Henderson, IN, wage area.
<bullet> Franklin, Lawrence, and Moore Counties, TN, from the
Huntsville, AL, area of application to the Nashville, TN, area of
application because these counties are part of the Nashville-Davidson-
Murfreesboro, TN, CSA.
Corpus Christi, TX, Wage Area
This proposed rule would change the name of the Corpus Christi, TX,
wage area to the Corpus Christi-Kingsville-Alice, TX, wage area. The
proposed rule would redefine the following counties to and within the
Corpus Christi, TX, wage area based on application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Duval County, TX, from the San Antonio, TX, area of
application to the Corpus Christi-Kingsville-Alice, TX, area of
application based on employment interchange measures favoring the
Corpus Christi-Kingsville-Alice, TX, wage area over the San Antonio,
TX, wage area;
<bullet> Hidalgo County, TX, to the Corpus Christi-Kingsville-
Alice, TX, survey area effective for local wage surveys beginning in
June 2026 because the county has over 100 FWS employees.
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Wage Area
The proposed rule would redefine the following counties to the
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, wage area based on application of the new
criteria:
<bullet> Bryan County, OK, from the Oklahoma City, OK, area of
application to the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, area of application because
Bryan County is part of the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK, CSA;
<bullet> Carter and Love Counties, OK, from the Oklahoma City, OK,
area of application to the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, area of application
based on employment interchange measures favoring the Dallas-Fort Worth
wage area over the Oklahoma City, OK, wage area;
<bullet> Cherokee County, TX, from the Shreveport, LA, area of
application to the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, area of application. Cherokee
County is part of the Tyler-Jacksonville, TX, CSA, and employment
interchange measures for this CSA favor the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, wage
area over the Shreveport, LA, wage area;
<bullet> Hill County, TX, from the Waco, TX, area of application to
the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, area of application based on employment
interchange measures favoring the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, wage area over
the Waco, TX, wage area.
San Antonio, TX, Wage Area
The proposed rule would redefine the following counties away from
the San Antonio, TX, wage area based on application of the new
criteria:
<bullet> Duval County, TX, from the San Antonio, TX, area of
application to the Corpus Christi-Kingsville-Alice, TX, area of
application based on employment interchange measures favoring the
Corpus Christi-Kingsville-Alice, TX, wage area over the San Antonio,
TX, wage area.
Waco, TX, Wage Area
This proposed rule would redefine the following county away from
the Waco, TX, wage area based on application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Hill County, TX, from the Waco, TX, area of application to
the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, area of application based on employment
interchange measures favoring the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, wage area over
the Waco, TX, wage area.
Norfolk-Portsmouth-Newport News-Hampton, VA, Wage Area
This proposed rule would change the name of the Norfolk-Portsmouth-
Newport News-Hampton, VA, wage area to the Virginia Beach-Chesapeake,
VA, wage area. This proposed rule would redefine the following counties
to and within the Norfolk-Portsmouth-Newport News-Hampton, VA, wage
area based on application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Dare County, NC, from the Southeastern North Carolina area
of application to the Virginia Beach-Chesapeake, VA, area of
application because Dare County is part of the Virginia Beach-
Chesapeake, VA-NC, CSA;
<bullet> Hertford and Tyrrell Counties, NC, from the Southeastern
North Carolina area of application to the Virginia Beach-Chesapeake,
VA, area of application based on employment interchange measures
favoring the Virginia Beach-Chesapeake, VA, wage area over the
Southeastern North Carolina wage area;
<bullet> Middlesex County, VA, from the Richmond, VA, area of
application to the Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA, wage area because
employment interchange measures favor the Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA,
wage area over the Richmond, VA, wage area;
<bullet> Pasquotank County, NC, to the Virginia Beach-Chesapeake,
VA, survey area effective for local wage surveys beginning in May 2026
because more than 100 FWS employees work in Pasquotank County.
Richmond, VA, Wage Area
This proposed rule would redefine the following counties away from
the Richmond, VA, wage area based on application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Orange County, VA, from the Richmond, VA, area of
application to the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington area of application
because Orange County is part of the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington,
DC-MD-VA-WV-PA, CSA;
<bullet> Caroline and Westmoreland Counties, VA, from the Richmond,
VA, area of application to the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington area of
application because employment interchange measures favor the
Washington-Baltimore-Arlington wage area over the Richmond, VA, wage
area;
<bullet> Middlesex County, VA, from the Richmond, VA, area of
application to the Virginia Beach-Chesapeake, VA, wage area because
employment interchange measures favor the Virginia Beach-Chesapeake,
VA, wage area over the Richmond, VA, wage area.
Roanoke, VA, Wage Area
This proposed rule would redefine the following counties away from
the Roanoke, VA, wage area based on application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Staunton and Waynesboro (cities), VA, and Augusta (does
not include the Shenandoah National Park portion) County, VA, from the
Roanoke, VA, area of application to the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington
area of application. Staunton and Waynesboro (cities) and Augusta
County are in the Harrisonburg-Staunton-Stuarts Draft, VA, CSA, and
employment interchange measures for this CSA favor the Washington-
Baltimore-Arlington wage area.
Seattle-Everett-Tacoma, WA, Wage Area
This proposed rule would change the name of the Seattle-Everett-
Tacoma, WA, wage area to the Seattle-Tacoma, WA, wage area. This
proposed rule would redefine the following counties to and within the
Seattle-Everett-
[[Page 82895]]
Tacoma, WA, wage area based on application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Pacific County, WA, from the Portland, OR, area of
application to the Seattle-Tacoma, WA, area of application based on
employment interchange measures favoring the Seattle-Tacoma, WA, wage
area over the Portland-Vancouver-Salem, OR, wage area;
<bullet> Island County, WA, to the Seattle-Tacoma, WA, survey area
effective for local wage surveys beginning in September 2026 because
more than 100 FWS employees work in Island County.
West Virginia, WV, Wage Area
This proposed rule would redefine the following counties away from
the West Virginia, WV, wage area based on application of the new
criteria:
<bullet> Lewis County, KY, from the West Virginia area of
application to the Cincinnati-Wilmington, OH, area of application based
on employment interchange measures favoring the Cincinnati-Wilmington,
OH, wage area;
<bullet> Athens County, OH, from the West Virginia area of
application to the Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, OH, area of application
because Athens County is part of the Columbus-Marion-Zanesville CSA;
<bullet> Morgan, Noble, Pike, and Vinton Counties, OH, from the
West Virginia area of application to the Columbus-Marion-Zanesville,
OH, area of application based on employment interchange measures
favoring the Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, OH, wage area.
Madison, WI, Wage Area
This proposed rule would redefine the following counties away from
the Madison, WI, wage area based on application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Dodge and Jefferson Counties, WI, from the Madison, WI,
area of application to the Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI, area of
application because Dodge and Jefferson Counties are part of the
Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI, CSA.
Milwaukee, WI, Wage Area
This proposed rule would change the name of the Milwaukee, WI, wage
area to the Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI, wage area. This proposed
rule would redefine the following counties to the Milwaukee-Racine-
Waukesha, WI, wage area based on application of the new criteria:
<bullet> Dodge and Jefferson Counties, WI, from the Madison, WI,
area of application to the Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha area of
application because Dodge and Jefferson Counties are part of the
Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI, CSA;
<bullet> Menominee and Shawano Counties, WI, from the Southwestern
Wisconsin area of application to the Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI,
area of application. Menominee and Shawano Counties are part of the
Green Bay-Shawano, WI, CSA, and employment interchange measures for
this CSA favor the Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI, wage area over the
Southwestern Wisconsin wage area.
Southwestern Wisconsin Wage Area
This proposed rule would redefine the following counties away from
the Southwestern Wisconsin wage area based on application of the new
criteria:
<bullet> Menominee and Shawano Counties, WI, from the Southwestern
Wisconsin area of application to the Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI,
area of application. Menominee and Shawano Counties are part of the
Green Bay-Shawano, WI, CSA, and employment interchange measures for
this CSA favor the Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI, wage area over the
Southwestern Wisconsin wage area;
<bullet> Winona County, MN, from the Southwestern Wisconsin area of
application to the Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN, area of application.
Winona County is part of the Rochester-Austin-Winona, MN, CSA, and
employment interchange measures for this CSA favor the Minneapolis-St.
Paul, MN, wage area over the Southwestern Wisconsin wage area;
<bullet> Florence and Marinette Counties, WI, from the Southwestern
Wisconsin area of application to the Northwestern Michigan area of
application. Florence and Marinette Counties are part of the Marinette-
Iron Mountain, WI-MI, CSA, and distance criteria for this CSA favor the
Northwestern Michigan wage area over the Southwestern Wisconsin wage
area.
Miscellaneous Corrections
In addition, this proposed rule would make the following minor
corrections to the spellings of certain names in current wage area
listings:
<bullet> Revise the name of ``Case'' County, IN, in the Fort-Wayne-
Marion, IN, wage area to read ``Cass.''
<bullet> Revise the name of ``Lagrange'' County, IN, in the Fort-
Wayne-Marion, IN, wage area to read ``LaGrange.''
<bullet> Revise the name of ``Holly Spring'' National Forest
portion of the Pontotoc County, MS, in the Northern Mississippi wage
area to read ``Holly Springs.''
<bullet> Revise the name of ``La Moure'' County, ND, in the North
Dakota wage area to read ``LaMoure.''
<bullet> Revise the name of ``Leflore'' County, OK, in the Tulsa,
OK, wage area to read ``Le Flore.''
<bullet> Revise the name of ``De Witt'' County, TX, in the San
Antonio, TX, wage area to read ``DeWitt.''
<bullet> Revise the name of ``Lunenberg'' County, VA, in the
Richmond, VA, wage area to read ``Lunenburg.''
<bullet> Delete the name of ``South Boston'', VA, from the list of
area of application cities in the Roanoke, VA, FWS wage area. In 1995,
South Boston, VA, changed from city status to town status and was
incorporated into Halifax County, VA.
<bullet> Delete the name of ``Clifton Forge,'' VA, from the list of
area of application cities in the Roanoke, VA, FWS wage area. In 2001,
Clifton Forge, VA, changed from city status to town status and was
incorporated into Halifax County, VA.
<bullet> Delete the name of ``Bedford,'' VA, from the list of area
of application cities in the Roanoke, VA, FWS wage area. In 2013,
Bedford, VA, reverted from city status to town status and was
incorporated into Bedford County, VA.
<bullet> Delete the entry ``Assateague Island Part of Worcester
County'' from the list of area of application counties in the Virginia
Beach-Chesapeake, VA, wage area and replace it with ``Worchester (Only
includes the Assateague Island portion)'' to be consistent with how we
list other counties.
<bullet> Revise the name of ``Shannon County'', SD, in the Wyoming,
WY, FWS wage area because the name of Shannon County is now Oglala
Lakota County.
Expected Impact of This Rulemaking
1. Statement of Need
OPM is issuing this proposed rule pursuant to its authority to
issue regulations governing the FWS in 5 U.S.C. 5343. The purpose of
these proposed changes is to address longstanding inequities between
the Federal government's two main pay systems. While the pay systems
are different in some ways, the concept of geographic pay differentials
based on local labor market conditions is a key feature of both
systems. In limited circumstances, such as with Adams and York
Counties, PA, ``this proposed rule would not result in all non-RUS
locality pay areas no longer including more than one FWS wage area. The
Harrisburg, PA, wage area, would continue to coincide with the
Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA and the Harrisburg-
Lebanon, PA GS locality pay areas. As stated previously, Adams and York
Counties, PA, are currently part of
[[Page 82896]]
the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington GS locality pay area, based on a
Federal Salary Council recommendation and Pay Agent decision to keep
these counties defined to that locality pay area after a new GS
locality pay area was later established for Harrisburg. Adams and York
Counties would continue to be defined to the Harrisburg, PA, wage area
because they are part of the Harrisburg-York-Lebanon, PA CSA and to
avoid splitting this CSA as would be required by the proposed
regulatory criteria.
2. Impact
Per available data, OPM expects such a change would impact
approximately 17,000 FWS employees nationwide or about 10 percent of
the appropriated fund FWS workforce. The proposed amendments to current
regulatory criteria used to define and maintain FWS wage areas would
result in numerous changes in the composition of many of these wage
areas. As a result, several FWS wage areas would no longer be viable
separately, and the counties in those abolished wage areas would have
to be defined to another wage area.
Most employees affected by this approach would receive increases in
pay, but some would be placed on pay retention if moved to a lower wage
schedule. As such, about 85 percent of the affected employees (roughly
14,500 employees) would receive pay increases, about 11 percent
(roughly 1,800 employees) would be placed on pay retention, around 3
percent (about 500 employees) would be placed at a lower wage level,
and around 1 (less than 200 employees) percent would see no change in
their wage level.
This proposed rule would primarily affect FWS employees of DOD and
its components, although employees of many other agencies, including
the VA, would be impacted. For example, the Anniston-Gadsden, AL, wage
area would be abolished and most of its counties would be added to the
Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega, AL wage area. FWS employees working in
these counties would see their pay increased at most grades. For
example, at grades WG-01 through WG-04 there would be no change in pay
while at grades WG-05 through WG-15, pay increases would vary from $.72
per hour to $5.99 per hour. Likewise, based on these proposed changes,
Monroe County, PA, would be moved to the New York, NY wage area. As
such, pay increases for FWS employees in Monroe County would vary from
$.49 per hour at grade WG-01 to $7.85 per hour at grade WG-15. However,
the Washington, DC, Baltimore, MD, and parts of the Hagerstown-
Martinsburg-Chambersburg, MD, wage areas would be combined into a
revised Washington, DC, based wage area. If this proposed rule is
finalized, FWS employees would be moved to the existing Washington, DC,
wage schedule, which would result in placement on a wage schedule with
lower rates than in the current Baltimore and Hagerstown wage areas at
lower grade levels, principally at the VA Medical Centers in these
areas. For example, WG-2, step 2, for the Washington, DC, wage schedule
is currently $18.47 per hour whereas it is $24.51 per hour for
Baltimore, which would be around a $6 an hour decrease once a final
rule would go into effect. Nonetheless, most employees would retain
their current wage rates if they are not under temporary or term
appointments. There are around 35 employees at the Baltimore VA Medical
Center under temporary appointments who would see an actual reduction
in pay if their appointments were not changed to be permanent. At
higher wage grades, employees would receive higher rates under a
Washington, DC, based wage schedule.
The Department of the Army, the only FPRAC member voting against
the majority recommendation, filed a minority report (Attachment 1
\8\), as permitted by the Committee rules. According to the minority
report, the FPRAC recommendation would cause ``profound changes to the
FWS pays system.'' In fact, as previously stated, the proposed change
affects about 10 percent of FWS appropriated fund workers, and there
would still be 118 separate appropriated fund wage areas versus 130
today. The changes are limited in scope with most FWS employees seeing
no impact at all on their wage levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Attachment 1 is available in the online docket for this
rulemaking at [insert link].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the minority report, no ``business case'' for
implementing the recommendation has been presented. FPRAC heard
testimony from local Federal managers, local union representatives, and
employees from across the country who made a strong case over the
course of several years for implementation based on perceived disparate
treatment impacting business operations at Federal installations. In
addition, numerous Members of Congress have expressed their views in
support of addressing the different pay treatment between their
constituents under the FWS and GS pay systems. A majority of the
committee members argued more than a decade ago that the perceived
disparate treatment of employees between the GS and FWS was corrosive
to morale and presented a strong business-based reason to address the
inequities. OPM has also continued recently to receive bipartisan
letters of support for implementing these changes.
According to the minority report, the proposed changes would have
major budgetary impacts, and therefore would reduce training funds and
lead to the potential loss of approximately 300 civilian employees. OPM
acknowledges that this proposed rule has potential budgetary impacts
affecting three major Army Depots, in particular, that would need to be
managed appropriately and effectively by employing agencies. It is
noteworthy, however, that the overall budget impact of revising wage
area boundaries under this proposed rule equates to about $141 million
per year--only around 1 percent of the current base payroll for the FWS
appropriated fund workforce as a whole.
According to the minority report, the proposed changes to the
criteria used to define and maintain wage areas ``would create
inequitable pay situations and the perception of loss of future
earnings for employees placed on pay retention, which could result in
recruitment and retention issues.'' As mentioned above, 14 percent of
the affected employees would be placed on retained pay status but this
is not a strong argument against implementation of this proposed rule,
intended to equalize geographic pay area treatment across the Federal
government's two main pay systems, since a vast majority--about 85
percent--would receive a pay increase. The pay retention law exists to
alleviate potential decreases in wage rates caused by management
actions such as changes in wage area boundaries. We note that Federal
agencies have considerable discretionary authority to provide pay and
leave flexibilities to address significant recruitment and retention
problems. Pay and leave flexibilities are always an option to address
recruitment or retention challenges at any time. Agency headquarters
staff may contact OPM for assistance with understanding and
implementing pay and leave flexibilities when appropriate. Information
on those flexibilities is available on the OPM website at <a href="http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-and-leave-flexibilities-for-recruitment-and-retention">http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-and-leave-flexibilities-for-recruitment-and-retention</a>.
Considering that a fairly small number of employees is affected,
OPM does not anticipate this rule will have a substantial impact on the
local economies or a large impact in the local labor markets. However,
OPM is
[[Page 82897]]
requesting comment in this rule regarding the impact. OPM will continue
to study the implications of such impacts in this or future rules as
needed, as this and future changes in wage area definitions may impact
higher volumes of employees in geographical areas and could rise to the
level of impacting local labor markets.
3. Baseline
The geographic boundaries of FWS wage areas and of GS locality pay
areas are not the same. Around 1.5 million GS employees are in 58
locality pay areas and around 170,000 appropriated fund FWS employees
are in 130 wage areas. However, since 2004, appropriations legislation
has required that FWS employees receive the same percentage adjustment
amount that GS employees receive where they work.\9\ This provision is
known as the floor increase provision. Consequently, the floor increase
provision requires pay adjustments each FY that result in certain FWS
wage areas having more than one wage schedule in effect where there are
multiple wage areas within the boundaries of a single non-RUS GS
locality pay area. Although a majority of FWS wage areas coincide only
with part of the RUS GS locality pay area, many FWS wage areas coincide
with parts of more than one GS locality pay area. In each situation
where the boundary of a prevailing rate wage area coincides with the
boundary of a single GS locality pay area boundary, DOD must establish
one wage schedule applicable in the wage area. For example, the New
Orleans, LA, FWS wage area coincides with part of the RUS GS locality
pay area. In this case, the minimum prevailing rate adjustment for the
New Orleans wage area in FY 2024 was the same as the RUS GS locality
pay area adjustment, 4.99 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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), Pub. L. 118-47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
<a href="https://www.chcoc.gov/content/fiscal-year-2024-prevailing-rate-pay-adjustments">https://www.chcoc.gov/content/fiscal-year-2024-prevailing-rate-pay-adjustments</a>.
Furthermore, at Tobyhanna Army Depot, the largest employer in
Monroe County, PA, more than 1,000 Federal employees paid under the GS
work in close proximity to more than 1,500 Federal employees paid under
the FWS. Prior to 2005, Monroe County was part of the RUS GS locality
pay area, while the county was (and is) part of the Scranton-Wilkes-
Barre FWS wage area. In January 2005, Monroe County was reassigned from
RUS to the New York GS locality pay area. As a result, all GS employees
at Tobyhanna got an immediate 12 percent pay increase, of which 8
percent was attributable to the reassignment of Monroe County to the
New York locality pay area. This led to a deep sense of unfairness on
the part of FWS employees at Tobyhanna which continues to this day.
This rulemaking would address most of the differences in pay among
FWS employees within the same wage area and between FWS employees and
GS employees working at the same location. It would align FWS wage
areas and GS locality pay areas and address observable geographic pay
disparities between FWS and GS employees that are caused by using
different sets of rules to define FWS wage areas and GS locality pay
areas.
4. Costs
OPM employs four full-time staff, at grades GS-12 through GS-15, to
discharge its responsibilities under the FWS. The cost is annualized at
$753,215 based on an average salary of $188,304 and includes wages,
benefits, and overhead. This estimate is based on the 2024 GS salary
pay rate for the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA
locality pay area. We do not anticipate an increase in administrative
costs for OPM if the proposed changes are implemented.
During FPRAC discussions on methods to address the House Report
language, it became apparent that DOD might need to hire additional
staff members to conduct surveys in the expanded wage areas. However,
there would also be fewer wage surveys to conduct each year because 12
wage areas would be abolished, and their survey counties moved to
neighboring wage areas. Currently, DOD's operating costs for conducting
FWS wage surveys and issuing wage schedules are estimated at $12
million, but it is reasonable to expect that additional specialist wage
survey staff members may be needed to complete local wage survey work
in the wage areas that would become larger in the time allotted \10\ by
statute for local wage surveys to be completed. OPM estimates that an
average wage specialist at around the GS-9 level with a $70,000 a year
salary in the Washington, DC, area could have a fully burdened cost of
$140,000 to carry out the additional wage survey work with six new
employees potentially increasing government costs by around $840,000
per year. OPM invites comments on this aspect of the costs of wage
survey administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Local wage surveys are scheduled in advance, with surveys
scheduled by regulation to begin in a certain month in each wage
area. The beginning month of appropriated fund wage surveys and the
fiscal year during which full-scale surveys are conducted are set
out as Appendix A to subpart B of part 532. Under 5 U.S.C. 5344(a),
any increase in rates of basic pay is effective not later than the
first day of the first pay period on or after the 45th day,
excluding Saturdays and Sundays, after a survey was ordered to begin
in a wage area. For example, the January wage schedule is ordered in
January and becomes effective in March of each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FWS wage surveys are conducted under the information collection
titled ``Establishment Information Form,'' ``Wage Data Collection
Form,'' and ``Wage Data Collection Continuation Form'' OMB Control
number 3260-0036. DOD wage specialist data collectors survey about
21,760 businesses annually. Based on past experience with local wage
surveys, DOD estimates that each survey collection requires 1.5 hours
of respondent burden for collection forms, resulting in a total yearly
burden of 32,640 hours. (See the Paperwork Reduction Act section
below.) The changes in wage area boundaries in this proposed rule are
not expected to affect the public reporting burden of the current
information collection. This is because the number of counties included
in future survey areas would remain very similar to those included in
current survey areas. OPM invites public comment on this matter.
This proposed rule would affect the FWS employees of up to 30
Federal agencies--ranging from cabinet-level departments to small
independent agencies--affecting around 17,000 FWS
[[Page 82898]]
employees. The estimated first-year base payroll cost of this proposal,
including 36.70 percent fringe benefits,\11\ would be annualized at
around $141 million and its cumulative 10-year cost would be around
$1.5 billion for geographic areas being moved from one wage area to
another as a result of amending the criteria used to define FWS wage
area boundaries. The total first year base payroll cost represents
around 1 percent of the $10 billion overall annual base FWS payroll.
About half the overall cost would be incurred by the Department of the
Army, primarily at Tobyhanna, Letterkenny, and Anniston Army Depots
because a substantial number of the FWS employees who would be affected
by the proposed changes is concentrated at these large federal
installations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ DOD provides annual costs for civilian personnel fringe
benefits at <a href="https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/rates/fy2024/2024_d.pdf">https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/rates/fy2024/2024_d.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment 1 provides OPM's estimate of the payroll costs for the
first 10 years of implementation of this rule. This document was
developed by OPM staff who provide technical support to FPRAC. The cost
estimate lists the wage areas that will have counties added as a result
of the proposed rule and identifies the counties being added.
To calculate the estimated first year cost of around $141 million,
we used Wage Grade, Wage Leader, and Wage Supervisor employment numbers
in each impacted county and compared the difference in pay between the
grade's step-2 rate under the county's current wage schedule, the
prevailing wage grade level, and the wage schedule the county would be
defined under by this proposed rule. The overall costs were further
adjusted based on the average step rate for FWS employees being above
step 2.\12\ The ten cells to the right of each county provide the costs
for the first ten years of implementation. The ``Totals'' column
provides the estimated total cost for the increased payroll for the
first 10 years after implementation. The ``Emps'' column provides the
sum of Wage Grade, Wage Leader, and Wage Supervisor employees in the
county. The bottom row of each wage area section of Attachment 1
provides the total payroll costs associated with the proposed rule for
all counties being moved to the wage area listed. Estimated costs for
the second through tenth years were calculated using a 2 percent
adjustment factor, in line with the President's budget plan for FY 2025
and an estimated 36.7 percent fringe benefit factor. As these are only
estimates, actual future costs will vary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The step 2 rate is the prevailing wage level, or 100
percent of market, that DOD bases all the other step rates on. The
average step for employees changes over time and is different from
area to area and grade to grade within a wage area. Currently, the
average rate is just above step 3, which is 4 percent above step 2.
FPRAC has used this methodology for calculating costs for many years
and has found it to be a fairly accurate predictor of cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Future wage schedules would be based on local wage surveys that
would include survey counties that were previously survey counties in
wage areas with different prevailing wage levels. As such, the
measurable prevailing wage levels within a wage area are likely to be
different than those measured in the most recent local wage surveys.
For instance, starting with new full-scale wage surveys beginning in
October 2027, the proposed San 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 would be surveyed, it is not certain what, if any,
impact would occur on wage survey results until a full-scale wage
survey would be completed in the expanded wage area. It is reasonable
to anticipate that adding counties with lower prevailing wage levels to
a survey area with higher prevailing wage levels would result in
somewhat lower wage survey findings overall and lower wage schedules
absent the existence of the floor increase provision that has been
included in appropriations law each year since FY 2004. As long as a
floor increase provision provides for a minimum annual adjustment
amount for a wage schedule, the combining of counties with lower
prevailing wage levels into a wage area with higher prevailing wage
levels will have no impact on the payable wage rates in that wage area
should the floor increase amount continue to be higher than the pay cap
amount. In this case, the additional payroll costs that agencies would
incur in Monterey and San Joaquin counties would be because employees
there would be paid wage rates from the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland
wage schedule that are higher than wage rates applicable in their
current wage areas.
If this rulemaking is finalized, agency payroll providers would
need to properly assign official duty station codes within their
systems for impacted employees by reassigning the codes from one FWS
wage schedule to another. Although around 17,000 FWS employees would be
affected by the proposed changes in wage area boundaries, there are far
fewer official duty station codes that would need to be updated by the
four major payroll providers in their payroll systems. OPM estimates
this number of impacted official duty station codes to be around 254.
This is not anticipated to be a significant additional cost burden or
to require additional funding as agency payroll systems are often
updated as a routine business matter as pay area boundaries change and
as wage schedules are updated every year. For example, the payroll
providers implemented changes in GS locality pay area affecting around
34,000 employees in January 2024. However, OPM estimates that
implementing payroll changes in terms of the time required for the 254
official duty station codes across the four payroll providers at a cost
of around $7,800. OPM calculated this estimate by allowing for ten
minutes to manually update each duty station change in each of the four
payroll systems by a mid-range payroll processing staff member with an
average salary and benefits cost of around $96,000 per year, which
equates to a cost of around $7.66 per change per provider. OPM invites
public comment on this estimate.
5. Benefits
This proposed rule has important benefits. Employees have expressed
understandable equity concerns since the mid-1990s about why there are
different geographic boundaries defined for the Federal government's
two main pay systems. Over the years, Members of Congress have
expressed interest in this issue and written letters in support of
aligning FWS wage areas and GS locality pay areas. FPRAC heard
testimony from Congressional staff, local union and management
representatives, and employees in support of better aligning the
geographic boundaries of FWS wage areas and GS locality pay areas,
including testimony that a high rate of commuting interchange--which,
for example, triggered Monroe County's reassignment from the Rest of
U.S. GS locality pay area to the New York-Newark GS locality pay area
in 2005--should also be reflected in the FWS wage areas. These proposed
changes would address most of the internal equity and fairness concerns
found across the country that are unnecessarily damaging to employee
morale when an alternative and defensible approach is possible. This
can also be accomplished at a relatively low cost of an increase in
base payroll
[[Page 82899]]
of only around 1 percent. FPRAC acknowledged that, although around
2,000 FWS employees would be placed on lower wage schedules as a result
of these actions, around 1,870 of these employees would be entitled to
pay retention. Accordingly, FPRAC found that the benefits to FWS
employees overall outweighed the concerns regarding the limited number
of positions negatively impacted.
Further, FPRAC members, agency and union representatives, and
employees expressed concerns that the FWS no longer reflects modern
compensation practices for prevailing rate tradespeople and laborers
and that updating the wage area definition criteria to be more similar
to the GS locality pay area criteria will be a step in the right
direction to begin modernizing the prevailing rate system. Despite the
projection of continuing application of the floor and pay cap
provisions to the FWS wage schedules, implementation of the proposed
changes to the criteria used to define and maintain FWS wage areas, in
particular adopting the use of employment interchange measures and CSA
definitions, would better position the FWS to align with regional
prevailing wage practices because they better reflect current
commuting, employment, and recruitment patterns.
6. Alternatives
Over the course of 15 working group meetings, at which there was
extensive discussion, FPRAC considered various options to address the
FWS and GS pay equity concerns expressed in the House Report language.
These discussions had been taking place for many years previously
without consensus. One alternative to the present proposal was to make
no changes to the current FWS wage areas and encourage agencies to use
pay flexibilities when challenged with recruitment issues. However,
maintaining the status quo would not resolve employee equity concerns
or address the interests expressed by Congress.
Another option considered was conducting piecemeal reviews of wage
areas using the existing wage area definition criteria (distance,
commuting, demographic), only when employees or other stakeholders
raise concerns. This has been FPRAC's approach since 2012, but it has
not addressed the fundamental inequities resulting from managing the
FWS and GS with different sets of rules for defining pay area
boundaries. The current regulatory criteria were not designed to allow
for changing wage area definitions absent factors such as military base
closures or changes in MSAs.
FPRAC also considered adding CSA definitions alone as a criterion
to the existing regulatory criteria in 5 CFR 532.211. OMB published new
CSA and MSA definitions on July 21, 2023, in OMB Bulletin 23-01, and
FPRAC has a practice of using new MSA definitions when they become
available. The new OMB definitions and an analysis of the current FWS
regulatory criteria to define wage areas did not appear to result in
automatically moving some of the most contentious counties under FPRAC
discussion to match the definitions of GS locality pay areas. For
example, the 2023 OMB definitions moved Monroe County, PA, from the New
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 proposed
criteria, Monroe County is to be defined to a wage area consistent with
the rest of the Allentown-Bethlehem-East Stroudsburg, PA-NJ CSA.
Applying employment interchange analysis to better recognize regional
commuting patterns helps to clarify where best to define the Allentown-
Bethlehem-East Stroudsburg, PA-NJ CSA and results in the Allentown-
Bethlehem-East Stroudsburg, PA-NJ CSA, including Monroe County, being
defined as part of the New York, Newark wage area.
The committee also considered and decided against merely adopting
and applying GS locality pay area definitions to FWS wage areas. For GS
locality pay purposes, pay disparities with the non-Federal sector for
GS employees stationed in a locality pay area are based on data for the
entire locality pay area. The FWS continues the concept of using survey
areas and areas of application because FWS employees tend to be
employed in greater numbers at military installations and VA Medical
Centers and not throughout an entire wage area. GS employees have
different employment distributions as the FWS workforce is primarily
found at DOD and VA while the GS workforce is found widely distributed
geographically at all agencies.
FPRAC's members had disparate views on how future wage schedules
based on these geographic changes in wage area definitions could best
reflect prevailing wage levels. One view held that combining the survey
areas of two wage areas together should result in an entirely new wage
schedule being applied to FWS employees in the expanded wage area. This
method would not be appropriate given that the floor increase provision
in appropriations law each year requires that wage schedules be
adjusted upwards by the same percentage adjustment amount received by
GS employees in the area. It would also be contrary to longstanding
precedent to ignore statutory pay cap and floor increase provisions
when wage survey areas change. Consequently, in this proposed rule OPM
first adds counties moving between wage areas to the area of
application of the gaining wage area and subsequently adds counties to
survey areas for the next full-scale wage survey in the wage area.
The proposed regulations would not immediately expand survey areas
for continuing but enlarged wage areas. Instead, abolished wage areas
would first be merged into the areas of application of continuing wage
areas and subsequently added to the survey areas for the next full wage
surveys beginning in FY 2026, FY 2027, and FY 2028. This would provide
DOD time to allocate and train appropriate additional staff, if needed.
OPM invites comment on any additional alternative approaches that could
be considered that are in accordance with the permanent and
appropriations laws governing the development of FWS wage schedules.
Request for Comments
OPM requests public comments from local businesses on the
implementation and impacts of moving the small number of FWS employees
affected by this proposed rule to different wage schedules and whether
these changes would be likely to affect them. Such information will be
useful for better understanding the effect of FWS pay-setting on
private businesses in local wage areas.
Regulatory Review
OPM has examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive
Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094, which direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
[[Page 82900]]
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public,
health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). OMB has
designated this rule a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Director of OPM certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
because the rule will apply only to Federal agencies and employees.
Federalism
OPM has examined this rule in accordance with Executive Order
13132, Federalism, and has determined that this rule will not have any
negative impact on the rights, roles and responsibilities of State,
local, or tribal governments.
Civil Justice Reform
This regulation meets the applicable standard set forth in
Executive Order 12988.
Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary
under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required
to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure
to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA),
unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB
Control Number.
This proposed rule involves, but does not make any changes to, an
OMB approved collection of information subject to the PRA for the FWS
Program, OMB No. 3206-0036, Establishment Information Form, Wage Data
Collection Form, and Wage Data Collection Continuation Form. The public
reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 1.5 hours
per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection of information. The total
burden hour estimate for this collection is 32,640 hours. Additional
information regarding this collection--including all current background
materials--can be found at Information Collection Review (<a href="http://reginfo.gov">reginfo.gov</a>)
by using the search function to enter either the title of the
collection or the OMB Control Number.
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532
Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information,
Government employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages.
Office of Personnel Management.
Kayyonne Marston,
Federal Register Liaison.
Accordingly, OPM is proposing to amend 5 CFR part 532 as follows:
PART 532--PREVAILING RATE SYSTEMS
0
1. The authority citation for part 532 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5343, 5346; Sec. 532.707 also issued under
5 U.S.C. 552.
0
2. Revise Sec. 532.211 to read as follows:
Sec. 532.211 Criteria for appropriated fund wage areas.
(a) Each wage area shall consist of one or more survey areas along
with nonsurvey areas, if any.
(1) Survey area: A survey area is composed of the counties,
parishes, cities, townships, or similar geographic entities in which
survey data are collected. Survey areas are established and maintained
where there are a minimum of 100 or more wage employees subject to a
regular wage schedule and those employees are located close to
concentrations of private sector employment such as found in a Combined
Statistical Area or Metropolitan Statistical Area.
(2) Nonsurvey area: Nonsurvey counties, parishes, cities,
townships, or similar geographic entities may be combined with the
survey area(s) to form the wage area through consideration of criteria
including local commuting patterns such as employment interchange
measures, distance, transportation facilities, geographic features;
similarities in overall population, employment, and the kinds and sizes
of private industrial establishments; and other factors relevant to the
process of determining and establishing rates of pay for wage employees
at prevailing wage levels.
(b) Wage areas shall include wherever possible a recognized
economic community such as a Combined Statistical Area, a Metropolitan
Statistical Area, or a political unit such as a county. Two or more
economic communities or political units, or both, may be combined to
constitute a single wage area; however, except in unusual circumstances
and as an exception to the criteria, an individually defined Combined
Statistical Area,
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on October 11, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.