Prototype for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Built on public data; not an official OPM system.
Powered by Concourse
§ 532.219 Criteria for establishing nonappropriated fund wage areas
Regulation
5 CFR 532.219
Text
15 passages
5 CFR 532.219(a)(a) Each wage area shall consist of one or more survey areas along with nonsurvey areas, if any, having nonappropriated fund employees.
5 CFR 532.219(a)(1)(1) Survey area: A survey area is composed of the counties, parishes, cities, or townships in which survey data are collected.
5 CFR 532.219(a)(2)(2) Nonsurvey area: Nonsurvey counties, parishes, or townships may be combined with the survey area to form the wage area through consideration of the criteria in paragraph (c) of this section.
5 CFR 532.219(b)(b) Wage areas shall be established when:
5 CFR 532.219(b)(1)(1) There is a minimum of 26 NAF wage employees in the survey area and local activities have the capability to do the survey; and
5 CFR 532.219(b)(2)(2) There is within the survey area a minimum of 1,800 private enterprise employees in establishments within survey specifications.
5 CFR 532.219(c)(1)(c)(1) Two or more counties may be combined to constitute a single wage area through consideration of:
5 CFR 532.219(c)(1)(i)(i) Proximity of largest activity in each county;
5 CFR 532.219(c)(1)(ii)(ii) Transportation facilities and commuting patterns; and
5 CFR 532.219(c)(1)(iii)(iii) Similarities of the counties in:
5 CFR 532.219(c)(1)(iii)(A)(A) Overall population;
5 CFR 532.219(c)(1)(iii)(B)(B) Private employment in major industry categories; and
5 CFR 532.219(c)(1)(iii)(C)(C) Kinds and sizes of private industrial establishments.
5 CFR 532.219(c)(1)(iii)(C)(2)(2) Generally, the criteria listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this section are considered in the order listed.
5 CFR 532.219(d)(d) The nonappropriated fund wage and survey area definitions are set out as appendix D to this subpart and are incorporated in and made part of this section.
About
- Type
- Regulation section
- Citation
- 5 CFR 532.219
- Last amended
- 2016-12-27
Amendment history
- 2016-12-27Criteria for establishing nonappropriated fund wage areas
Cited by
- Prevailing Rate Systems; Abolishment of Hennepin, Minnesota, as a Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage AreaFederal Register · 2025-06-02
- Prevailing Rate Systems; Change in Criteria for Defining Appropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage AreasFederal Register · 2024-10-11
- Prevailing Rate Systems; Definition of Saratoga County, New York, to a Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage AreaFederal Register · 2024-08-21
- Prevailing Rate Systems; Abolishment of Calhoun, Alabama, as a Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage AreaFederal Register · 2024-05-30
- Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition of the Arapahoe-Denver, Colorado, Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage AreaFederal Register · 2024-05-03
- Prevailing Rate Systems; Abolishment of Frederick, Maryland, as a Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage AreaFederal Register · 2024-04-10
- Prevailing Rate Systems; Abolishment of Allegheny, Pennsylvania, as a Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage AreaFederal Register · 2023-08-15
- Prevailing Rate Systems; Definition of San Mateo County, California, to a Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage AreaFederal Register · 2022-09-21
- Prevailing Rate Systems; Definition of Pitt County, North Carolina, to a Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage AreaFederal Register · 2019-12-31
- Prevailing Rate Systems; Definition of Johnson County, Indiana, to a Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage Area Wage AreasFederal Register · 2019-09-20
- Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition of Certain Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage AreasFederal Register · 2019-06-10
- Prevailing Rate Systems; Definition of Brown County, Wisconsin, and Forsyth and Mecklenburg Counties, North Carolina, to Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage AreasFederal Register · 2017-05-15
- Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition of Certain Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage AreasFederal Register · 2017-01-12
- Prevailing Rate Systems; Definition of Kent County, Michigan, and Cameron County, Texas, to Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage AreasFederal Register · 2016-08-24
- Prevailing Rate Systems; Definition of Hancock County, Mississippi, to a Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage AreaFederal Register · 2015-08-27
- Prevailing Rate Systems; Definition of Vanderburgh County, Indiana, to a Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage AreaFederal Register · 2013-05-21
- Prevailing Rate Systems; Definition of Broward County, Florida, to a Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage AreaFederal Register · 2013-05-21
- Prevailing Rate Systems; Abolishment of Montgomery, PA, as a Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage AreaFederal Register · 2012-05-15
- Prevailing Rate Systems; Abolishment of Monmouth, NJ, as a Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage AreaFederal Register · 2011-08-25
- Prevailing Rate Systems; Abolishment of Cumberland, ME, as a Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage AreaFederal Register · 2011-06-02
- Prevailing Rate Systems; Definition of Tulsa County, OK, and Angelina County, TX, to Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage AreasFederal Register · 2010-08-03
- Prevailing Rate Systems; Abolishment of Santa Clara, CA, as a Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage AreaFederal Register · 2008-11-04
- Prevailing Rate Systems; Definition of the Municipality of Bayamon, Puerto Rico, to a Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage AreaFederal Register · 2007-11-14
- Prevailing Rate Systems; Abolishment of Rock Island, IL, as a Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage AreaFederal Register · 2007-11-14
- Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition of the Adams-Denver, CO; Nonappropriated Fund Wage AreaFederal Register · 2005-08-22