Proposed Rule2025-09931
Prevailing Rate Systems; Abolishment of Hennepin, Minnesota, as a Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage Area
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
June 2, 2025
Issuing agencies
Personnel Management Office
Abstract
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is proposing a rule to abolish the Hennepin, Minnesota, nonappropriated fund (NAF) Federal Wage System (FWS) wage area and define most of its counties to the nearest NAF FWS wage areas. Those counties without NAF FWS employment would no longer be defined to a NAF wage area. These changes are necessary because NAF FWS employment in the survey area has been declining, and the local activities no longer have the capability to conduct local wage surveys.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 104 (Monday, June 2, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 104 (Monday, June 2, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23292-23294]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-09931]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 104 / Monday, June 2, 2025 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 23292]]
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
5 CFR Part 532
[Docket ID: OPM-2025-0010]
RIN 3206-AO83
Prevailing Rate Systems; Abolishment of Hennepin, Minnesota, as a
Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage Area
AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is proposing a rule
to abolish the Hennepin, Minnesota, nonappropriated fund (NAF) Federal
Wage System (FWS) wage area and define most of its counties to the
nearest NAF FWS wage areas. Those counties without NAF FWS employment
would no longer be defined to a NAF wage area. These changes are
necessary because NAF FWS employment in the survey area has been
declining, and the local activities no longer have the capability to
conduct local wage surveys.
DATES: Send comments on or before July 2, 2025.
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="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
All comments received must include the agency name and docket
number or RIN for this document. The general policy for comments from
members of the public is to make them available for public viewing at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> without change, including any personal
identifiers or contact information. However, OPM retains discretion to
redact personal or sensitive information from comments before they are
posted. As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule may
be found in the docket for this rulemaking at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ana Paunoiu, by telephone at (202)
606-2858 or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bcccddc5ccd3d0d5dfc5fcd3ccd192dbd3ca"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f282938b829d9e9b918bb29d829fdc959d84">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 5 CFR 532.219, OPM may establish a NAF
wage area when there are a minimum of 26 NAF wage employees in the
survey area, a local activity has the capability to host annual local
wage surveys, and the survey area has at least 1,800 private enterprise
employees in establishments within survey specifications. The Hennepin,
NAF FWS wage area is presently composed of one survey county, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, and eight area of application counties: Morrison,
Murray, Ramsey, Stearns, and St. Louis Counties, MN; and Juneau,
Monroe, and Polk Counties, Wisconsin. The Department of Defense (DOD)
notified OPM that there has been a continuing decline of NAF FWS
employment in the survey area and the local activities no longer have
the capability to conduct local wage surveys in Minneapolis. Currently,
18 NAF FWS employees work at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Air Reserve
Station and 17 NAF FWS employees at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center.
In addition, in the Hennepin NAF wage area, there are 63 FWS employees
who work outside the survey area: 6 in Morrison County, MN; 6 in
Stearns County, MN; and 51 in Monroe County, WI.
While Monroe County, WI, will have continuing NAF employment and
meets the regulatory criteria under 5 CFR 532.219 to be a separate
survey area, the lead agency does not consider it a robust option to be
a separate NAF wage area due to the rural nature of the area around Ft.
McCoy. As such, Monroe County must be defined as an area of application
to another wage area.
Section 532.219 lists the regulatory criteria OPM considers when
defining FWS wage area boundaries. This regulation allows consideration
of the following criteria: proximity of largest activity in each
county, transportation facilities and commuting patterns, and
similarities of the counties in overall population, private employment
in major industry categories, and kinds and sizes of private industrial
establishments.
In selecting a wage area to which Hennepin County, MN, should be
redefined, proximity favors the Grand Forks, North Dakota, NAF wage
area. All other criteria are indeterminate. Based on these findings,
OPM is defining Hennepin County as an area of application to the Grand
Forks NAF wage area.
In selecting a wage area to which Morrison County, MN, should be
redefined, proximity favors the Grand Forks, ND, NAF wage area. All
other criteria are indeterminate. Based on these findings, OPM is
defining Morrison County as an area of application to the Grand Forks
NAF wage area.
In selecting a wage area to which Stearns County, MN, should be
redefined, proximity favors the Grand Forks, ND, NAF wage area. All
other criteria are indeterminate. Based on these findings, OPM is
defining Stearns County as an area of application to the Grand Forks
NAF wage area.
In selecting a wage area to which Monroe County, WI, should be
redefined, proximity favors the Lake, Illinois, NAF wage area. All
other criteria are indeterminate. Based on these findings, OPM is
defining Monroe County as an area of application to the Lake NAF wage
area.
OPM is removing Murray, Ramsey and St. Louis Counties, MN; and
Juneau and Polk Counties, WI, from the wage area definition. There are
no longer NAF FWS employees working in these counties. Under 5 U.S.C.
5343(a)(1)(B)(i), NAF wage areas ``shall not extend beyond the
immediate locality in which the particular prevailing rate employees
are employed.'' Therefore, Murray, Ramsey and St. Louis Counties, MN;
and Juneau and Polk Counties, WI, cannot be defined as part of a NAF
wage area.
The Grand Forks, ND, wage area would consist of one survey county
(Grand Forks County, ND), and 7 area of application counties (Hennepin,
Morrison, and Stearns Counties, MN; and Cass, Cavalier, Pembina, and
Steele Counties, ND).
The Lake, IL, wage area would consist of one survey county (Lake,
IL) and 11 area of application counties (Cook, Rock Island, and
Vermilion Counties, IL; St. Joseph County, Indiana; Johnson County,
Iowa; Dickinson and Marquette Counties, Michigan; and Brown, Dane,
Milwaukee, and Monroe Counties, WI).
The Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee, the national labor-
[[Page 23293]]
management committee responsible for advising OPM on matters concerning
the pay of FWS employees, recommended these changes by consensus. These
changes would be effective on the first day of the first applicable pay
period beginning on or after 30 days following publication of the final
rule.
Miscellaneous Revisions
In addition, this proposed rule would make the following revisions
to the ``Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 532--Nationwide Schedule of
Nonappropriated Fund Regular Wage Surveys:''
Remove ``Allegheny'' under the State of Pennsylvania. On November
15, 2023, OPM published a final rule (88 FR 78223) abolishing the
Allegheny, PA, NAF FWS wage area. The final rule inadvertently omitted
deleting this entry from Appendix B.
Revise the name of the ``Arapahoe-Denver, Colorado,'' NAF FWS wage
area to read ``Arapahoe.'' On August 21, 2024, OPM published a final
rule (89 FR 67519) removing Denver County from the Arapahoe-Denver, CO,
NAF FWS wage area and changing the name of the Arapahoe-Denver NAF FWS
wage area to Arapahoe. The final rule inadvertently omitted revising
the name in Appendix B.
Remove ``Frederick'' under the State of Maryland. On August 22,
2024, OPM published a final rule (89 FR 67829) abolishing the
Frederick, MD, NAF FWS wage area. The final rule inadvertently omitted
deleting this entry from Appendix B.
Remove ``Calhoun'' under the State of Alabama. On November 26,
2024, OPM published a final rule (89 FR 93147) abolishing the Calhoun,
AL, NAF FWS wage area. The final rule inadvertently omitted deleting
this entry from Appendix B.
Expected Impact of This Rulemaking
Section 5343 of title 5, U.S. Code, provides OPM with the authority
and responsibility to define the boundaries of NAF FWS wage areas. Any
changes in wage area definitions can have the long-term effect of
increasing pay for Federal employees in affected locations. OPM expects
this rulemaking to impact approximately 98 NAF FWS employees.
Considering the small number of employees affected, OPM does not
anticipate that this proposed rule will substantially impact local
economies or have a large impact in local labor markets. However, OPM
is requesting comment in this rulemaking regarding the impact. As this
and future wage area changes may impact higher volumes of employees in
geographical areas and could rise to the level of impacting local labor
markets, OPM will continue to study the implications of such impacts in
this or future rules as needed.
Regulatory Review
OPM has examined the impact of this rulemaking as required by
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 which direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). This
rulemaking is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866. The rule is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action because it
is not significant under E.O. 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Acting Director of OPM certifies that this rulemaking will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Federalism
OPM has examined this rulemaking 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 rulemaking meets the applicable standard set forth in
Executive Order 12988.
Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995
This rulemaking 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 in 1995 dollars, updated annually for
inflation. That threshold is currently approximately $206 million. This
rulemaking 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
This rulemaking does not impose any reporting or record-keeping
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
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.
Jerson Matias,
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. In Appendix B to subpart B, amend the table by:
0
a. Revising the wage survey listings for Alabama, Colorado, and
Maryland;
0
b. Removing the wage survey listings for Minnesota, and;
0
c. Revising the wage survey listings for Pennsylvania.
The revisions read as follows:
Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 532--Nationwide Schedule of
Nonappropriated Fund Regular Wage Surveys
* * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calendar year of full-
State Wage area Beginning month of scale survey odd or
survey even
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.............................. Madison................ April.................. Even.
Montgomery............. April.................. Odd.
* * * * * * *
Colorado............................. Arapahoe............... July................... Even.
El Paso................ July................... Even.
* * * * * * *
[[Page 23294]]
* * * * * * *
Maryland............................. Anne Arundel........... August................. Even.
Charles-St. Mary's..... August................. Even.
Harford................ May.................... Even.
Montgomery-Prince August................. Even.
George's.
* * * * * * *
Pennsylvania......................... Cumberland............. May.................... Even.
York................... May.................... Even.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. In Appendix D to subpart B, amend the table by revising the wage
area listing for the States of Illinois and North Dakota to read as
follows:
Appendix D to Subpart B of Part 532--Nonappropriated Fund Wage and
Survey Areas
Definitions of Wage Areas and Wage Area Survey Areas
* * * * *
* * * * *
ILLINOIS
Lake
Survey Area
Illinois:
Lake
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Illinois:
Cook
Rock Island
Vermilion
Indiana:
St. Joseph
Iowa:
Johnson
Michigan:
Dickinson
Marquette
Wisconsin:
Brown
Dane
Milwaukee
Monroe
St. Clair
Survey Area
Illinois:
St. Clair
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Illinois:
Madison
Williamson
Indiana:
Vanderburgh
Missouri (City):
St. Louis
Missouri (County):
St. Louis
* * * * *
NORTH DAKOTA
Grand Forks
Survey Area
North Dakota:
Grand Forks
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Minnesota:
Hennepin
Morrison
Stearns
North Dakota:
Cass
Cavalier
Pembina
Steele
Ward
Survey Area
North Dakota:
Ward
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
North Dakota:
Divide
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2025-09931 Filed 5-30-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-39-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on June 2, 2025.
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.