Prevailing Rate Systems; Change in Criteria for Defining Appropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage Areas, 82874-82922 [2024-22933]

Agencies

• Office of Personnel Management

[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 [www.gpo.gov]
[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 www.regulations.gov.

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:
     Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
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 https://regulations.gov, 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 [email protected].

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 (https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/federal-wage-system/#url=FPRAC).
    \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 https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/federal-wage-system/federal-prevailing-rate-advisory-committee/meetingtranscript609.pdf). 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 https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/federal-wage-system/federal-prevailing-rate-advisory-committee/meeting-transcript-644.pdf). 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 https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/federal-wage-system/federal-prevailing-rate-advisory-committee/meetingtranscript650.pdf).
    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 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-117hrpt79/pdf/CRPT-117hrpt79.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/federal-wage-system/federal-prevailing-rate-advisory-committee/meetingtranscript649.pdf.
    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:
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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:
     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;
     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;
     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.
     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:
     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:
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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:
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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:
     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;
     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:
     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:
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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:
     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:
     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:
     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;
     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;
     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.
     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:
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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:
     Polk County, FL, from the Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL, area 
of application to the Jacksonville, FL, area of application;
     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;
     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:
     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;
     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;
     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:
     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:
     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;
     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:
     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;
     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:
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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:
     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:
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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:
     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:
     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, 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:
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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:
     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;
     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:
     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;
     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;
     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:
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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:
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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.
     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:
     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;
     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;
     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:
     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;
     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;
     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:
     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:
     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:
     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:
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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;
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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]]

     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.
     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.
     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;
     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:
     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;
     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;
     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:
     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:
     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:
     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:
     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;
     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;
     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]]

     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;
     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;
     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;
     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:
     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.
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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:
     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;
     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:
     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;
     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;
     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:
     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:
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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:
     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:
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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:
     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;
     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:
     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:
     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:
     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:
     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:
     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;
     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;
     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:
     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;
     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;
     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:
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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:
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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:
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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:
     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;
     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:
     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;
     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:
     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;
     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:
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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:
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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:
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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:
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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:
     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;
     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:
     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;
     Chattooga, Murray, and Whitfield Counties, GA, from the 
Atlanta-, GA,

[[Page 82894]]

area of application to the Nashville, TN, area of application;
     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;
     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.
     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:
     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;
     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:
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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:
     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:
     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:
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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:
     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;
     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;
     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:
     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:
     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;
     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:
     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;
     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;
     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:
     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:
     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;
     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:
     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;
     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;
     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:
     Revise the name of ``Case'' County, IN, in the Fort-Wayne-
Marion, IN, wage area to read ``Cass.''
     Revise the name of ``Lagrange'' County, IN, in the Fort-
Wayne-Marion, IN, wage area to read ``LaGrange.''
     Revise the name of ``Holly Spring'' National Forest 
portion of the Pontotoc County, MS, in the Northern Mississippi wage 
area to read ``Holly Springs.''
     Revise the name of ``La Moure'' County, ND, in the North 
Dakota wage area to read ``LaMoure.''
     Revise the name of ``Leflore'' County, OK, in the Tulsa, 
OK, wage area to read ``Le Flore.''
     Revise the name of ``De Witt'' County, TX, in the San 
Antonio, TX, wage area to read ``DeWitt.''
     Revise the name of ``Lunenberg'' County, VA, in the 
Richmond, VA, wage area to read ``Lunenburg.''
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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 https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-and-leave-flexibilities-for-recruitment-and-retention.
    Considering that a fairly small number of employees is affected, 
OPM does not anticipate this rule will have a substantial impact on the 
local economies or a large impact in the local labor markets. 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 
https://www.chcoc.gov/content/fiscal-year-2024-prevailing-rate-pay-adjustments.
    Furthermore, at Tobyhanna Army Depot, the largest employer in 
Monroe County, PA, more than 1,000 Federal employees paid under the GS 
work in close proximity to more than 1,500 Federal employees paid under 
the FWS. Prior to 2005, Monroe County was part of the RUS GS locality 
pay area, while the county was (and is) part of the Scranton-Wilkes-
Barre FWS wage area. In January 2005, Monroe County was reassigned from 
RUS to the New York GS locality pay area. As a result, all GS employees 
at Tobyhanna got an immediate 12 percent pay increase, of which 8 
percent was attributable to the reassignment of Monroe County to the 
New York locality pay area. This led to a deep sense of unfairness on 
the part of FWS employees at Tobyhanna which continues to this day.
    This 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 https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/rates/fy2024/2024_d.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 (reginfo.gov) 
by using the search function to enter either the title of the 
collection or the OMB Control Number.
    List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532
    Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information, 
Government employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages.

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

    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, Metropolitan Statistical Area, county or similar 
geographic entity shall not be subdivided for the purpose of defining a 
wage area.
    (c) Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, wage areas 
shall be established and maintained when:
    (1) There is a minimum of 100 wage employees subject to the regular 
schedule and the lead agency indicates that a local installation has 
the capacity to do the survey; and
    (2) There is, within a reasonable commuting distance of the 
concentration of Federal employment,
    (i) A minimum of either 20 establishments within survey 
specifications having at least 50 employees each; or 10 establishments 
having at least 50 employees each, with a combined total of 1,500 
employees; and
    (ii) The total private enterprise employment in the industries 
surveyed in the survey area is at least twice the Federal wage 
employment in the survey area.
    (d)(1) Adjacent economic communities or political units meeting the 
separate wage area criteria in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section 
may be combined through consideration of local commuting patterns such 
as employment interchange measures, distance, transportation 
facilities, geographic features; similarities in overall population, 
employment, and the kinds and sizes of private industrial 
establishments; and other factors relevant to the process of 
determining and establishing rates of pay for wage employees at 
prevailing wage levels.
    (2) When two wage areas are combined, the survey area of either or 
both may be used, depending on the concentrations of Federal and 
private employment and locations of establishments, the proximity of 
the survey areas to each other, and the extent of economic similarities 
or differences as indicated by relative levels of wage rates in each of 
the potential survey areas.
    (e) Appropriated fund wage and survey area definitions are set out 
as appendix C to this subpart and are incorporated in and made part of 
this section.
    (f) A single contiguous military installation defined as a Joint 
Base that would otherwise overlap two separate wage areas shall be 
included in only a

[[Page 82901]]

single wage area. The wage area of such a Joint Base shall be defined 
to be the wage area with the most favorable payline based on an 
analysis of the simple average of the 15 nonsupervisory second step 
rates on each one of the regular wage schedules applicable in the 
otherwise overlapped wage areas.
0
3. Revise and republish Appendix A to subpart B as follows:

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

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

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

[[Page 82902]]

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

0
4. Revise and republish Appendix C to subpart B of Part 532 to read as 
follows:

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

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

[[Page 82903]]

Statistical Area or Metropolitan Statistical Area.
    (2) Survey area definition. Lists each county, independent city, 
or a similar geographic entity in the survey area.
    (3) Area of application definition. Lists each county, 
independent city, or a similar geographic entity which, in addition 
to the survey area, is in the area of application.

Definitions of Wage Areas and Wage Area Survey Areas

ALABAMA

Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Dothan

Survey Area

Alabama:
    Dale
    Houston
Georgia:
    Early

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Alabama:
    Barbour
    Coffee
    Geneva
    Henry
Georgia:
    Clay
    Miller
    Seminole

Huntsville

Survey Area

Alabama:
    Limestone
    Madison
    Marshall
    Morgan

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Alabama:
    Colbert
    DeKalb
    Franklin
    Lauderdale
    Lawrence
    Marion
Tennessee:
    Giles
    Lincoln
    Wayne

Montgomery-Selma

Survey Area

Alabama:
    Autauga
    Elmore
    Montgomery

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Alabama:
    Bullock
    Butler
    Crenshaw
    Dallas
    Lowndes
    Pike
    Wilcox

ALASKA

Anchorage

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Alaska:
    State of Alaska (except special area schedules)

ARIZONA

Northeastern Arizona

Survey Area

Arizona:
    Apache
    Coconino
    Navajo
New Mexico:
    San Juan

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Survey Area

Arizona:
    Gila
    Maricopa

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Arizona:
    Pinal
    Yavapai
    Tucson

Survey Area

Arizona:
    Pima

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Arizona:
    Cochise
    Graham
    Greenlee
    Santa Cruz

ARKANSAS

Little Rock

Survey Area

Arkansas:
    Jefferson
    Pulaski
    Saline

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Arkansas:
    Arkansas
    Ashley
    Baxter
    Boone
    Bradley
    Calhoun
    Chicot
    Clark
    Clay
    Cleburne
    Cleveland
    Conway
    Dallas
    Desha
    Drew
    Faulkner
    Franklin (Does not include the Fort Chaffee portion)
    Fulton
    Garland
    Grant
    Greene
    Hot Spring
    Independence
    Izard
    Jackson
    Johnson
    Lawrence
    Lincoln
    Logan
    Lonoke
    Marion
    Monroe
    Montgomery

[[Page 82904]]

    Newton
    Ouachita
    Perry
    Phillips
    Pike
    Polk
    Pope
    Prairie
    Randolph
    Scott
    Searcy
    Sharp
    Stone
    Union
    Van Buren
    White
    Woodruff
    Yell

CALIFORNIA

Fresno

Survey Area

California:
    Fresno
    Kings
    Tulare

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Los Angeles

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Sacramento-Roseville

Survey Area

California:
    Placer
    Sacramento
    Sutter
    Yolo
    Yuba

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

San Diego

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

COLORADO

Denver

Survey Area

Colorado:
    Adams
    Arapahoe
    Boulder
    Broomfield
    Denver
    Douglas
    Gilpin
    Jefferson

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Southern Colorado

Survey Area

Colorado:
    El Paso
    Pueblo
    Teller

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

CONNECTICUT

New Haven-Hartford

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Connecticut:

[[Page 82905]]

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

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Washington-Baltimore-Arlington

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

FLORIDA

Cocoa-Beach

Survey Area

Florida:
    Brevard

Area of Application. Survey area.

Jacksonville

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Miami-Port St. Lucie-Fort Lauderdale

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Area of Application. Survey area.

Panama City

Survey Area

Florida:
    Bay
    Gulf

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Pensacola

Survey Area

Florida:
    Escambia
    Santa Rosa

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Alabama:
    Baldwin
    Clarke
    Conecuh
    Covington
    Escambia
    Mobile
    Monroe

[[Page 82906]]

    Washington
Florida:
    Okaloosa
    Walton

Tampa-St. Petersburg

Survey Area

Florida:
    Hillsborough
    Pasco
    Pinellas

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Florida:
    Charlotte
    De Soto
    Hardee
    Hernando
    Manatee
    Sarasota

GEORGIA

Albany

Survey Area

Georgia:
    Colquitt
    Dougherty
    Lee
    Mitchell
    Worth

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Georgia:
    Atkinson
    Baker
    Ben Hill
    Berrien
    Brooks
    Calhoun
    Clinch
    Coffee
    Cook
    Echols
    Grady
    Irwin
    Lanier
    Lowndes
    Quitman
    Randolph
    Schley
    Sumter
    Terrell
    Thomas
    Tift
    Turner
    Ware
    Webster

Atlanta

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Augusta

Survey Area

Georgia:
    Columbia
    McDuffie
    Richmond
South Carolina:
    Aiken

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Macon

Survey Area

Georgia:
    Bibb
    Houston
    Jones
    Laurens
    Twiggs
    Wilkinson

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Savannah

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Georgia:
    Appling
    Bacon
    Brantley
    Bulloch
    Candler
    Evans
    Glynn
    Jeff Davis

[[Page 82907]]

    Long
    McIntosh
    Pierce
    Screven
    Tattnall
    Toombs
    Wayne
South Carolina:
    Beaufort (effective until May 2027)
    Hampton
    Jasper

HAWAII

Hawaii

Survey Area

Hawaii:
    Honolulu

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

IDAHO

Boise

Survey Area

Idaho:
    Ada
    Boise
    Canyon
    Elmore
    Gem

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Idaho:
    Adams
    Bannock
    Bear Lake
    Bingham
    Blaine
    Bonneville
    Butte
    Camas
    Caribou
    Cassia
    Clark
    Custer
    Fremont
    Gooding
    Jefferson
    Jerome
    Lemhi
    Lincoln
    Madison
    Minidoka
    Oneida
    Owyhee
    Payette
    Power
    Teton
    Twin Falls
    Valley
    Washington

ILLINOIS

Bloomington-Pontiac

Survey Area

Illinois:
    Champaign
    Menard
    Sangamon
    Vermilion

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Chicago-Naperville, IL

Survey Area

Illinois:
    Cook
    Du Page
    Kane
    Lake
    McHenry
    Will

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

INDIANA

Evansville-Henderson

Survey Area

Indiana:
    Daviess
    Greene
    Knox
    Martin
    Orange

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Fort Wayne-Marion

Survey Area

Indiana:
    Adams
    Allen
    DeKalb
    Huntington
    Wells

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie

Survey Area

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

[[Page 82908]]

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

IOWA

Cedar Rapids-Iowa City

Survey Area

Iowa:
    Benton
    Black Hawk
    Johnson
    Linn

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Davenport-Moline

Survey Area

Illinois:
    Henry
    Rock Island
Iowa:
    Scott

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Des Moines

Survey Area

Iowa:
    Polk
    Story
    Warren

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

KANSAS

Manhattan

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Wichita

Survey Area

Kansas:
    Butler
    Sedgwick

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Kansas:
    Barber
    Barton
    Chase
    Chautauqua
    Cheyenne
    Clark
    Comanche
    Cowley
    Decatur
    Edwards
    Elk
    Ellis
    Ellsworth
    Finney
    Ford
    Gove
    Graham
    Grant
    Gray
    Greeley
    Greenwood
    Hamilton
    Harper
    Harvey
    Haskell
    Hodgeman
    Jewell
    Kearny
    Kingman
    Kiowa
    Labette
    Lane
    Lincoln
    Logan
    McPherson

[[Page 82909]]

    Marion
    Meade
    Mitchell
    Montgomery
    Morton
    Neosho
    Ness
    Norton
    Osborne
    Pawnee
    Phillips
    Pratt
    Rawlins
    Reno
    Rice
    Rooks
    Rush
    Russell
    Scott
    Seward
    Sheridan
    Sherman
    Smith
    Stafford
    Stanton
    Stevens
    Sumner
    Thomas
    Trego
    Wallace
    Wichita
    Wilson
    Woodson

KENTUCKY

Lexington

Survey Area

Kentucky:
    Bourbon
    Clark
    Fayette
    Jessamine
    Madison
    Scott
    Woodford

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Louisville

Survey Area

Indiana:
    Clark
    Floyd
    Jefferson
Kentucky:
    Bullitt
    Hardin
    Jefferson
    Oldham

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

LOUISIANA

Lake Charles-Alexandria

Survey Area

Louisiana:
    Allen
    Beauregard
    Calcasieu
    Grant
    Rapides
    Sabine
    Vernon

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

New Orleans

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Shreveport

Survey Area

Louisiana:
    Bossier
    Caddo
    Webster

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

MAINE

Augusta

Survey Area

Maine:
    Kennebec
    Knox
    Lincoln

Area of Application. Survey area.

Central And Northern Maine

Survey Area

Maine:
    Aroostook
    Penobscot

[[Page 82910]]

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Maine:
    Hancock
    Piscataquis
    Somerset
    Waldo
    Washington

MASSACHUSETTS

Boston-Worcester-Providence

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

MICHIGAN

Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Northwestern Michigan

Survey Area

Michigan:
    Delta
    Dickinson
    Marquette

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Southwestern Michigan

Survey Area

Michigan:
    Barry
    Calhoun
    Kalamazoo
    Van Buren

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

MINNESOTA

Duluth

Survey Area

Minnesota:
    Carlton
    St. Louis
Wisconsin:
    Douglas

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Minnesota:
    Aitkin
    Becker (only includes the White Earth Indian Reservation 
portion)
    Beltrami
    Cass
    Clearwater
    Cook
    Crow Wing
    Hubbard
    Itasca
    Koochiching
    Lake
    Lake of the Woods
    Mahnomen

[[Page 82911]]

Wisconsin:
    Ashland
    Bayfield
    Burnett
    Iron
    Sawyer
    Washburn

Minneapolis-St. Paul

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Minnesota:
    Benton
    Big Stone
    Blue Earth
    Brown
    Chippewa
    Cottonwood
    Dodge
    Douglas
    Faribault
    Fillmore
    Freeborn
    Goodhue
    Grant
    Isanti
    Kanabec
    Kandiyohi
    Lac Qui Parle
    Le Sueur
    McLeod
    Martin
    Meeker
    Mille Lacs
    Morrison (effective until April 2027)
    Mower
    Nicollet
    Olmsted
    Pine
    Pope
    Redwood
    Renville
    Rice
    Sherburne
    Sibley
    Stearns (effective until April 2027)
    Steele
    Stevens
    Swift
    Todd
    Traverse
    Wabasha
    Wadena
    Waseca
    Watonwan
    Winona
    Yellow Medicine
Wisconsin:
    Pierce
    Polk

MISSISSIPPI

Biloxi

Survey Area

Mississippi:
    Hancock
    Harrison
    Jackson

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Mississippi:
    George
    Pearl River
    Stone

Jackson

Survey Area

Mississippi:
    Hinds
    Rankin
    Warren

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Meridian

Survey Area

Alabama:
    Choctaw
Mississippi:
    Forrest
    Lamar
    Lauderdale

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Northern Mississippi

Survey Area

Mississippi:
    Clay
    Grenada
    Lee
    Leflore
    Lowndes
    Monroe
    Oktibbeha

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

MISSOURI

Kansas City

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Kansas:
    Allen
    Anderson
    Atchison
    Bourbon
    Doniphan
    Douglas
    Franklin
    Jackson
    Jefferson (effective until October 2026)
    Linn
    Miami
    Osage (effective until October 2026)

[[Page 82912]]

    Shawnee (effective until October 2026)
    Wabaunsee
Missouri:
    Adair
    Andrew
    Atchison
    Bates
    Buchanan
    Caldwell
    Carroll
    Chariton
    Clinton
    Daviess
    DeKalb
    Gentry
    Grundy
    Harrison
    Henry
    Holt
    Johnson (effective until October 2026)
    Lafayette
    Linn
    Livingston
    Macon
    Mercer
    Nodaway
    Pettis
    Putnam
    Saline
    Schuyler
    Sullivan
    Worth

St. Louis

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Southern Missouri

Survey Area

Missouri:
    Christian
    Greene
    Laclede
    Phelps
    Pulaski
    Webster

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

MONTANA

Montana

Survey Area

Montana:
    Cascade
    Lewis and Clark
    Yellowstone

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

[[Page 82913]]

    Wheatland
    Wibaux
Wyoming:
    Big Horn
    Park
    Teton

NEBRASKA

Omaha

Survey Area

Iowa:
    Pottawattamie
Nebraska:
    Douglas
    Lancaster
    Sarpy

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Iowa:
    Adams
    Audubon
    Buena Vista
    Cass
    Cherokee
    Clay
    Crawford
    Fremont
    Harrison
    Ida
    Mills
    Monona
    Montgomery
    O'Brien
    Page
    Palo Alto
    Plymouth
    Pocahontas
    Sac
    Shelby
    Sioux
    Taylor
    Woodbury
Nebraska:
    Adams
    Antelope
    Arthur
    Blaine
    Boone
    Boyd
    Brown
    Buffalo
    Burt
    Butler
    Cass
    Cedar
    Chase
    Cherry
    Clay
    Colfax
    Cuming
    Custer
    Dakota
    Dawson
    Dixon
    Dodge
    Dundy
    Fillmore
    Franklin
    Frontier
    Furnas
    Gage
    Garfield
    Gosper
    Grant
    Greeley
    Hall
    Hamilton
    Harlan
    Hayes
    Hitchcock
    Holt
    Hooker
    Howard
    Jefferson
    Johnson
    Kearney
    Keith
    Keya Paha
    Knox
    Lincoln
    Logan
    Loup
    McPherson
    Madison
    Merrick
    Nance
    Nemaha
    Nuckolls
    Otoe
    Pawnee
    Perkins
    Phelps
    Pierce
    Platte
    Polk
    Red Willow
    Richardson
    Rock
    Saline
    Saunders
    Seward
    Sherman
    Stanton
    Thayer
    Thomas
    Thurston
    Valley
    Washington
    Wayne
    Webster
    Wheeler
    York
South Dakota:
    Union

NEVADA

Las Vegas

Survey Area

Nevada:
    Clark
    Nye

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Reno

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

NEW MEXICO

Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Los Alamos

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

NEW YORK

Albany-Schenectady

Survey Area

New York:
    Albany
    Montgomery
    Rensselaer
    Saratoga
    Schenectady

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Massachusetts:
    Berkshire
New York:
    Columbia
    Delaware
    Fulton
    Greene
    Hamilton

[[Page 82914]]

    Schoharie
    Warren
    Washington
Vermont:
    Bennington
    Rutland

Buffalo

Survey Area

New York:
    Erie
    Niagara

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

New York-Newark

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Northern New York

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Rochester

Survey Area

New York:
    Livingston
    Monroe
    Ontario
    Orleans
    Steuben
    Wayne

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

New York:
    Chemung
    Genesee
    Schuyler
    Seneca
    Yates
Pennsylvania:
    Tioga

Syracuse-Utica-Rome

Survey Area

New York:
    Herkimer
    Madison
    Oneida
    Onondaga
    Oswego

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

New York:
    Broome
    Cayuga
    Chenango
    Cortland
    Otsego
    Tioga
    Tompkins

NORTH CAROLINA

Asheville

Survey Area

North Carolina:
    Buncombe
    Haywood
    Henderson
    Madison
    Transylvania

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Central North Carolina

Survey Area

North Carolina:
    Cumberland
    Durham
    Harnett
    Hoke
    Johnston
    Orange
    Wake
    Wayne

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Charlotte-Concord

Survey Area

North Carolina:
    Cabarrus
    Gaston
    Mecklenburg
    Rowan

[[Page 82915]]

    Union

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Southeastern North Carolina

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

North Carolina:
    Beaufort
    Bertie
    Duplin
    Greene
    Hyde
    Martin
    Pitt
    Washington

NORTH DAKOTA

North Dakota

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

OHIO

Cincinnati

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Cleveland-Akron-Canton

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Columbus-Marion-Zanesville

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

[[Page 82916]]

Dayton

Survey Area

Ohio:
    Champaign
    Clark
    Greene
    Miami
    Montgomery
    Preble

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Ohio:
    Allen
    Auglaize
    Darke
    Mercer
    Shelby
    Van Wert

OKLAHOMA

Oklahoma City

Survey Area

Oklahoma:
    Canadian
    Cleveland
    McClain
    Oklahoma
    Pottawatomie

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Oklahoma:
    Alfalfa
    Atoka
    Beckham
    Blaine
    Caddo
    Coal
    Custer
    Dewey
    Ellis
    Garfield
    Garvin
    Grady
    Grant
    Harper
    Hughes
    Johnston
    Kingfisher
    Lincoln
    Logan
    Major
    Marshall
    Murray
    Noble
    Payne
    Pontotoc
    Roger Mills
    Seminole
    Washita
    Woods
    Woodward

Tulsa

Survey Area

Oklahoma:
    Creek
    Mayes
    Muskogee
    Osage
    Pittsburg
    Rogers
    Tulsa
    Wagoner

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

OREGON

Portland-Vancouver-Salem

Survey Area

Oregon:
    Clackamas
    Marion
    Multnomah
    Polk
    Washington
Washington:
    Clark

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Southwestern Oregon

Survey Area

Oregon:
    Douglas
    Jackson
    Lane

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

PENNSYLVANIA

Harrisburg-York-Lebanon

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Philadelphia-Reading-Camden

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

[[Page 82917]]

Pittsburgh

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Scranton-Wilkes-Barre

Survey Area

Pennsylvania:
    Lackawanna
    Luzerne

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Pennsylvania:
    Bradford
    Columbia
    Montour
    Northumberland
    Snyder
    Sullivan
    Susquehanna
    Union
    Wayne
    Wyoming

PUERTO RICO

Puerto Rico

Survey Area

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

Area of Application.

Puerto Rico

SOUTH CAROLINA

Charleston

Survey Area

South Carolina:
    Berkeley
    Charleston
    Dorchester

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

South Carolina:
    Colleton
    Georgetown
    Horry
    Williamsburg

Columbia

Survey Area

South Carolina:
    Darlington
    Florence
    Kershaw
    Lee
    Lexington
    Richland
    Sumter

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

SOUTH DAKOTA

Eastern South Dakota

Survey Area

South Dakota:
    Minnehaha

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

TENNESSEE

Eastern Tennessee

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Kentucky:
    Harlan

[[Page 82918]]

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

Memphis

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Arkansas:
    Craighead
    Cross
    Lee
    Poinsett
    St. Francis
Mississippi:
    Benton
    Lafayette (Only includes the Holly Springs National Forest 
portion)
    Marshall
    Panola
    Pontotoc (Only includes the Holly Springs National Forest 
portion)
    Tate
    Tippah
    Tunica
    Union (Only includes the Holly Springs National Forest portion)
Missouri:
    Dunklin
    Pemiscot
Tennessee:
    Carroll
    Chester
    Crockett
    Dyer
    Fayette
    Gibson
    Hardeman
    Hardin
    Haywood
    Lake
    Lauderdale
    Madison
    McNairy
    Obion

Nashville

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

TEXAS

Austin

Survey Area

Texas:
    Hays
    Milam
    Travis
    Williamson

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Corpus Christi-Kingsville-Alice

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Texas:
    Aransas
    Bee
    Brooks
    Calhoun
    Cameron
    Duval
    Goliad
    Hidalgo (effective until June 2026)
    Jim Wells
    Kenedy
    Kleberg

[[Page 82919]]

    Live Oak
    Refugio
    Starr
    Victoria
    Willacy

Dallas-Fort Worth

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

El Paso

Survey Area

New Mexico:
    Dona Ana
    Otero
Texas:
    El Paso

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Houston-Galveston-Texas City

Survey Area

Texas:
    Brazoria
    Fort Bend
    Galveston
    Harris
    Liberty
    Montgomery
    Waller

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

San Antonio

Survey Area

Texas:
    Bexar
    Comal
    Guadalupe

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Texarkana

Survey Area

Arkansas:
    Little River
    Miller
Texas:
    Bowie

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Waco

Survey Area

Texas:
    Bell
    Coryell
    McLennan

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Western Texas

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

New Mexico:
    Lea
Oklahoma:
    Beaver
    Cimarron
    Texas
Texas:
    Andrews
    Armstrong
    Bailey
    Borden
    Brewster
    Briscoe
    Brown
    Carson
    Castro
    Childress
    Cochran
    Coke
    Coleman

[[Page 82920]]

    Collingsworth
    Comanche
    Concho
    Cottle
    Crane
    Crockett
    Crosby
    Dallam
    Dawson
    Deaf Smith
    Dickens
    Donley
    Eastland
    Fisher
    Floyd
    Gaines
    Garza
    Glasscock
    Gray
    Hale
    Hall
    Hansford
    Hartley
    Haskell
    Hemphill
    Hockley
    Hutchinson
    Irion
    Jeff Davis
    Kent
    Kimble
    King
    Lamb
    Lipscomb
    Loving
    Lynn
    McCulloch
    Martin
    Menard
    Mitchell
    Moore
    Motley
    Ochiltree
    Oldham
    Parmer
    Pecos
    Potter
    Presidio
    Randall
    Reagan
    Reeves
    Roberts
    Runnels
    Schleicher
    Scurry
    Shackelford
    Sherman
    Stephens
    Sterling
    Stonewall
    Sutton
    Swisher
    Terrell
    Terry
    Throckmorton
    Upton
    Ward
    Wheeler
    Winkler
    Yoakum

Wichita Falls, Texas-Southwestern Oklahoma

Survey Area

Oklahoma:
    Comanche
    Cotton
    Stephens
    Tillman
Texas:
    Archer
    Clay
    Wichita

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

UTAH

Utah

Survey Area

Utah:
    Box Elder
    Davis
    Salt Lake
    Tooele
    Utah
    Weber

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

VIRGINIA

Richmond

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Roanoke

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Virginia (cities):
    Buena Vista
    Covington
    Danville
    Galax
    Lexington
    Lynchburg
    Martinsville
    Staunton
    Waynesboro
Virginia (counties):
    Alleghany
    Amherst
    Appomattox
    Augusta (Does not include the Shenandoah National Park portion)
    Bath
    Bedford
    Bland

[[Page 82921]]

    Campbell
    Carroll
    Floyd
    Franklin
    Giles
    Halifax
    Henry
    Highland
    Patrick
    Pittsylvania
    Pulaski
    Rockbridge
    Wythe

Virginia Beach-Chesapeake

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Maryland:
    Worcester (Only includes the Assateague Island portion)
North Carolina:
    Camden
    Chowan
    Dare
    Gates
    Hertford
    Pasquotank (effective until May 2026)
    Perquimans
    Tyrrell
Virginia (city):
    Franklin
Virginia (counties):
    Accomack
    Isle of Wight
    Mathews
    Middlesex
    Northampton
    Southampton
    Surry

WASHINGTON

Seattle-Tacoma

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Southeastern Washington-Eastern Oregon

Survey Area

Oregon:
    Umatilla
Washington:
    Benton
    Franklin
    Walla Walla
    Yakima

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Spokane

Survey Area

Washington:
    Spokane

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

WEST VIRGINIA

West Virginia

Survey Area

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

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

[[Page 82922]]

WISCONSIN

Madison

Survey Area

Wisconsin:
    Dane

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha

Survey Area

Wisconsin:
    Milwaukee
    Ozaukee
    Washington
    Waukesha

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

Southwestern Wisconsin

Survey Area

Wisconsin:
    Chippewa
    Eau Claire
    La Crosse
    Monroe
    Trempealeau

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

WYOMING

Wyoming

Survey Area

South Dakota:
    Pennington
Wyoming:
    Albany
    Laramie
    Natrona

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

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

[FR Doc. 2024-22933 Filed 10-7-24; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 6325-39-P