This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

31694 

Vol. 83, No. 131 

Monday, July 9, 2018 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT 

5 CFR Part 531 

RIN 3206–AN64 

General Schedule Locality Pay Areas 

AGENCY: Office of Personnel 

Management. 

ACTION: Proposed rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: On behalf of the President’s 

Pay Agent, the Office of Personnel 

Management is issuing proposed 

regulations to establish four new 

General Schedule locality pay areas, 

make certain changes to the definitions 

of existing locality pay areas, and make 

minor clarifying changes to the names of 

two locality pay areas. The proposed 

changes in locality pay area definitions 

would be applicable on the first day of 

the first applicable pay period beginning 

on or after January 1, 2019, subject to 

issuance of final regulations. Locality 

pay rates for the four new locality pay 

areas would be set by the President after 

the new locality pay areas would be 

established by regulation. 

DATES: We must receive comments on or 

before August 8, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN 3206–AN64, by either 

of the following methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Email: pay-leave-policy@opm.gov. 

Include ‘‘RIN 3206–AN64’’ in the 

subject line of the message. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe 

Ratcliffe by email at pay-leave-policy@

opm.gov or by telephone at (202) 606– 

2838. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

5304 of title 5, United States Code, 

authorizes locality pay for General 

Schedule (GS) employees with duty 

stations in the United States and its 

territories and possessions. Section 

5304(f) of title 5, United States Code, 

authorizes the President’s Pay Agent 

(the Secretary of Labor, the Director of 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), and the Director of the Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM)) to 

determine locality pay areas. The 

boundaries of locality pay areas are 

based on appropriate factors, which may 

include local labor market patterns, 

commuting patterns, and the practices 

of other employers. The Pay Agent 

considers the views and 

recommendations of the Federal Salary 

Council, a body composed of experts in 

the fields of labor relations and pay 

policy and representatives of Federal 

employee organizations. The President 

appoints the members of the Council, 

which submits annual 

recommendations to the Pay Agent 

about the administration of the locality 

pay program, including the geographic 

boundaries of locality pay areas. (The 

Federal Salary Council’s 

recommendations are posted on the 

OPM website at https://www.opm.gov/ 

policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/paysystems/general-schedule/#url=FederalSalary-Council.) The establishment or 

modification of pay area boundaries 

conforms to the notice and comment 

provisions of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). 

This proposal provides notice and 

requests comments on proposed 

regulations to implement the Pay 

Agent’s plan to establish four new 

locality pay areas; to establish McKinley 

County, NM, as an area of application to 

the Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Las Vegas, 

NM, locality pay area; and to establish 

San Luis Obispo County, CA, as an area 

of application to the Los Angeles-Long 

Beach, CA, locality pay area. (Annual 

Pay Agent reports on locality pay are 

posted on the OPM website at https:// 

www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/ 

pay-leave/pay-systems/generalschedule/#url=Pay-Agent-Reports.) As 

further discussed below, those changes 

were tentatively approved, pending 

appropriate rulemaking, in recent 

annual reports of the President’s Pay 

Agent. In addition, the proposed 

regulations would link locality pay area 

definitions to metropolitan statistical 

areas (MSAs) and combined statistical 

areas (CSAs) defined in OMB Bulletin 

18–03 and would also make minor 

clarifying changes to the names of two 

locality pay areas, the geographic 

boundaries of which would not change. 

Establishing Four New Locality Pay 

Areas 

Locality pay is set by comparing GS 

and non-Federal pay rates for the same 

levels of work in each locality pay area. 

Non-Federal salary survey data used to 

set locality pay rates are collected by the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). BLS 

uses a method that permits 

Occupational Employment Statistics 

(OES) data to be used for locality pay. 

OES data are available for MSAs and 

CSAs throughout the Country and 

permit evaluation of salary levels in 

many more locations than could be 

covered under the prior National 

Compensation Survey alone. 

The Federal Salary Council has been 

monitoring pay comparisons of GS and 

non-Federal pay in ‘‘Rest of U.S.’’ MSAs 

and CSAs with 2,500 or more GS 

employees. Based on its review, the 

Federal Salary Council has 

recommended new locality pay areas be 

established for four metropolitan areas 

with pay gaps averaging more than 10 

percentage points above that for the 

‘‘Rest of U.S.’’ locality pay area over an 

extended period. The President’s Pay 

Agent has agreed to issue proposed 

regulations that would establish the four 

new locality pay areas by modifying 5 

CFR 531.603(b) accordingly. The four 

new locality pay areas proposed are 

Birmingham-Hoover-Talladega, AL; 

Burlington-South Burlington, VT; San 

Antonio-New Braunfels-Pearsall, TX; 

and Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA–NC. (In 

its December 2016 annual report on 

locality pay, the Pay Agent announced 

its plan to establish Burlington, VT, and 

Virginia Beach, VA, as new locality pay 

areas. In its December 2017 annual 

report on locality pay, the Pay Agent 

announced its plan to establish 

Birmingham, AL, and San Antonio, TX, 

as new locality pay areas.) Locality pay 

rates for the four new locality pay areas 

would be set by the President at a later 

date after they would be established by 

regulation. 

Criteria for Areas of Application 

Locality pay areas consist of (1) the 

MSA or CSA comprising the basic 

locality pay area and, where criteria 

recommended by the Federal Salary 

Council and approved by the Pay Agent 

are met, (2) areas of application. Areas 

of application are locations that are 

adjacent to the basic locality pay area 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules 31695 

and meet approved criteria for inclusion 

in the locality pay area. 

The Pay Agent’s current criteria for 

evaluating locations adjacent to a basic 

locality pay area for possible inclusion 

in the locality pay area as areas of 

application are as follows: For adjacent 

CSAs and adjacent multi-county MSAs 

the criteria are 1,500 or more GS 

employees and an employment 

interchange rate of at least 7.5 percent. 

For adjacent single counties, the criteria 

are 400 or more GS employees and an 

employment interchange rate of at least 

7.5 percent. The employment 

interchange rate is defined as the sum 

of the percentage of employed residents 

of the area under consideration who 

work in the basic locality pay area and 

the percentage of the employment in the 

area under consideration that is 

accounted for by workers who reside in 

the basic locality pay area. (The 

employment interchange rate is 

calculated by including all workers in 

assessed locations, not just Federal 

employees.) 

The Pay Agent also has criteria for 

evaluating Federal facilities that cross 

county lines into a separate locality pay 

area. To be included in an adjacent 

locality pay area, the whole facility 

must have at least 500 GS employees, 

with the majority of those employees in 

the higher-paying locality pay area, or 

that portion of a Federal facility outside 

of a higher-paying locality pay area 

must have at least 750 GS employees, 

the duty stations of the majority of those 

employees must be within 10 miles of 

the separate locality pay area, and a 

significant number of those employees 

must commute to work from the higherpaying locality pay area. 

New Commuting Patterns Data 

In its December 2016 

recommendations, the Federal Salary 

Council recommended using recently 

updated commuting patterns data in the 

locality pay program—i.e., commuting 

patterns data collected as part of the 

American Community Survey from 2009 

to 2013. In its December 2017 report, the 

Pay Agent agreed that it would consider 

using those commuting patterns data. 

The Pay Agent believes it would be 

appropriate to use the updated 

commuting patterns data for evaluating 

potential areas of application. Areas of 

application included in the locality pay 

area definitions in this proposed rule, at 

5 CFR 531.603(b), reflect use of the 

updated commuting patterns data for 

evaluating potential areas of 

application. 

Using the updated commuting 

patterns data and applying current 

criteria for evaluating ‘‘Rest of U.S.’’ 

locations as potential areas of 

application result in the addition of one 

location to an existing locality pay 

area—McKinley County, NM, would be 

included in the Albuquerque-Santa FeLas Vegas, NM, locality pay area. 

Regarding the four new locality pay 

areas proposed, using the updated 

commuting patterns data and applying 

current criteria for evaluating ‘‘Rest of 

U.S.’’ locations as potential areas of 

application result in the addition of one 

location to a proposed new locality pay 

area—Calhoun County, AL, would be 

included in the proposed BirminghamHoover-Talladega, AL, locality pay area. 

San Luis Obispo County, CA 

In the Federal Salary Council’s 

December 2016 recommendations, the 

Council made a special 

recommendation for San Luis Obispo 

County, CA. Because practically all of 

San Luis Obispo County’s land 

boundary is bordered by the Los 

Angeles-Long Beach, CA, and San JoseSan Francisco-Oakland, CA, locality pay 

areas, the Council recommended that 

the county be treated as have other 

‘‘Rest of U.S.’’ locations entirely 

bordered by separate locality pay 

areas—i.e., added to the separate 

locality pay area with which it has the 

most commuting. Specifically, the 

Council recommended that San Luis 

Obispo County be added to the Los 

Angeles-Long Beach, CA, locality pay 

area. 

As explained in its December 2017 

report, the Pay Agent views the 

situation regarding San Luis Obispo 

County as a geographic anomaly. Only 

a very small amount of the geographic 

boundary of San Luis Obispo County, 

CA, in a remote corner of the county, is 

not adjacent to the Los Angeles-Long 

Beach, CA, or San Jose-San FranciscoOakland, CA, locality pay areas. 

Because practically all of San Luis 

Obispo County’s land boundary is 

bordered by the Los Angeles-Long 

Beach, CA, and San Jose-San FranciscoOakland, CA, locality pay areas, the Pay 

Agent agrees with the Council that the 

county should be treated as ‘‘Rest of 

U.S.’’ locations entirely bordered by 

separate locality pay areas have been 

treated. Accordingly, the Pay Agent 

proposes adding San Luis Obispo 

County to the Los Angeles-Long Beach, 

CA, locality pay area as an area of 

application. 

Linking Locality Pay Area Boundaries 

to OMB-Defined Metropolitan Areas 

The Pay Agent has used statistical 

areas defined by OMB as a basis for 

locality pay area boundaries since 

locality pay began in 1994. Such OMBdefined statistical areas are called 

‘‘metropolitan statistical areas’’ (MSAs) 

and ‘‘combined statistical areas’’ (CSAs). 

On April 10, 2018, OMB issued a minor 

update to the definitions of MSAs and 

CSAs in OMB Bulletin 18–03. The 

proposed regulations would link the 

definitions of locality pay areas to the 

most current OMB definitions of MSAs 

and CSAs—i.e., those in OMB Bulletin 

18–03. The geographic boundaries of 

locality pay areas would not change 

automatically if OMB issues a new 

Bulletin to change the definitions of any 

MSAs or CSAs serving as the basis of 

the geographic boundaries of locality 

pay areas. The Pay Agent would instead 

assess what the impact of a future 

bulletin would be on locality pay areas 

before deciding whether to use the new 

statistical area definitions. 

Changing the Names of Two Locality 

Pay Areas for Clarification 

The Pay Agent proposes changing the 

names of two locality pay areas for 

clarification. The State abbreviation 

‘‘CT’’ would be removed from the name 

of the ‘‘Boston-Worcester-Providence, 

MA–RI–NH–CT–ME’’ locality pay area 

to clarify that no locations in 

Connecticut are included in that locality 

pay area, and the State abbreviation 

‘‘MA’’ would be added to the name of 

the ‘‘Albany-Schenectady, NY’’ locality 

pay area to clarify that Berkshire 

County, MA, is included in that locality 

pay area. These proposed name changes 

would not change the geographic 

boundaries of the two locality pay areas 

affected. 

Impact and Implementation 

The proposal to establish 4 new 

locality pay areas would impact about 

62,000 GS employees. Implementing 

that proposal would not automatically 

change locality pay rates now applicable 

in those areas. When locality pay 

percentages are adjusted, past practice 

has been to allocate a percent of the 

total GS payroll for locality pay raises 

and to have the overall dollar cost for 

such pay raises be the same, regardless 

of the number of locality pay areas. If a 

percent of the total GS payroll is 

allocated for locality pay increases, the 

addition of new areas results in a 

somewhat smaller amount to allocate for 

locality pay increases in existing areas. 

Implementing higher locality pay rates 

in the four new locality pay areas could 

thus result in relatively lower pay 

increases for employees in existing 

locality pay areas than they would 

otherwise receive. 

Establishing McKinley County, NM, 

as an area of application to the 

Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Las Vegas, NM, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
31696 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

locality pay area would impact about 

1,600 GS employees. Establishing San 

Luis Obispo County, CA, as an area of 

application to the Los Angeles-Long 

Beach, CA, locality pay area would 

impact about 100 GS employees. 

Using the definitions of MSAs and 

CSAs in OMB Bulletin 18–03 as the 

basis for locality pay area boundaries 

would have no effect on the definitions 

of locality pay areas or on GS 

employees. 

The changes proposed for the names 

of the Boston-Worcester-Providence, 

MA–RI–NH–CT–ME and AlbanySchenectady, NY, locality pay areas 

would have no impact on GS employees 

because the geographic boundaries of 

the two locality pay areas affected 

would remain the same. 

Executive Order 13563 and Executive 

Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has reviewed this rule in accordance 

with E.O. 13563 and E.O. 12866. 

Executive Order 13771 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

the requirements of E.O. 13771 (82 FR 

9339, February 3, 2017) because it is 

expected to be related to agency 

organization, management, or 

personnel. 

Due to the narrow scope of this 

proposed rule, affecting approximately 

63,700 GS employees, OPM does not 

anticipate this proposed rule would 

substantially impact local economies or 

have a large ripple effect in local labor 

markets. However, studies do suggest 

increasing wages can raise the wages of 

other workers when employers need to 

compete for personnel. Future locality 

pay rulemaking may impact higher 

volumes of employees in geographical 

areas and could rise to the level of 

impacting markets. OPM will address 

the implications of such impacts in E.O. 

13771 designations for future rules as 

needed. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

I certify that these regulations would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

because they would apply only to 

Federal agencies and employees. 

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 531 

Government employees, Law 

enforcement officers, Wages. 

Office of Personnel Management. 

Jeff T.H. Pon, 

Director. 

Accordingly, OPM proposes to amend 

5 CFR part 531 as follows: 

PART 531—PAY UNDER THE 

GENERAL SCHEDULE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 531 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5115, 5307, and 5338; 

sec. 4 of Public Law 103–89, 107 Stat. 981; 

and E.O. 12748, 56 FR 4521, 3 CFR, 1991 

Comp., p. 316; Subpart B also issued under 

5 U.S.C. 5303(g), 5305, 5333, 5334(a) and (b), 

and 7701(b)(2); Subpart D also issued under 

5 U.S.C. 5335 and 7701(b)(2); Subpart E also 

issued under 5 U.S.C. 5336; Subpart F also 

issued under 5 U.S.C. 5304, 5305, and 

5941(a), E.O. 12883, 58 FR 63281, 3 CFR, 

1993 Comp., p. 682; and E.O. 13106, 63 FR 

68151, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 224. 

Subpart F—Locality-Based 

Comparability Payments 

■ 2. In § 531.602, the definitions of CSA 

and MSA are revised to read as follows: 

§ 531.602 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

CSA means the geographic scope of a 

Combined Statistical Area, as defined by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) in OMB Bulletin No. 18–03. 

* * * * * 

MSA means the geographic scope of a 

Metropolitan Statistical Area, as defined 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) in OMB Bulletin No. 18– 

03. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 531.603, paragraph (b) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 531.603 Locality pay areas. 

* * * * * 

(b) The following are locality pay 

areas for the purposes of this subpart: 

(1) Alaska—consisting of the State of 

Alaska; 

(2) Albany-Schenectady, NY-MA— 

consisting of the Albany-Schenectady, 

NY CSA and also including Berkshire 

County, MA; 

(3) Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Las Vegas, 

NM—consisting of the AlbuquerqueSanta Fe-Las Vegas, NM CSA and also 

including McKinley County, NM; 

(4) Atlanta—Athens-Clarke County— 

Sandy Springs, GA-AL—consisting of 

the Atlanta—Athens-Clarke County— 

Sandy Springs, GA CSA and also 

including Chambers County, AL; 

(5) Austin-Round Rock, TX— 

consisting of the Austin-Round Rock, 

TX MSA; 

(6) Birmingham-Hoover-Talladega, 

AL—consisting of the BirminghamHoover-Talladega, AL CSA and also 

including Calhoun County, AL; 

(7) Boston-Worcester-Providence, 

MA-RI-NH-ME—consisting of the 

Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RINH-CT CSA, except for Windham 

County, CT, and also including 

Androscoggin County, ME, Cumberland 

County, ME, Sagadahoc County, ME, 

and York County, ME; 

(8) Buffalo-Cheektowaga, NY— 

consisting of the Buffalo-Cheektowaga, 

NY CSA; 

(9) Burlington-South Burlington, VT— 

consisting of the Burlington-South 

Burlington, VT MSA; 

(10) Charlotte-Concord, NC-SC— 

consisting of the Charlotte-Concord, NCSC CSA; 

(11) Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI— 

consisting of the Chicago-Naperville, ILIN-WI CSA; 

(12) Cincinnati-WilmingtonMaysville, OH-KY-IN—consisting of the 

Cincinnati-Wilmington-Maysville, OHKY-IN CSA and also including Franklin 

County, IN; 

(13) Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH— 

consisting of the Cleveland-AkronCanton, OH CSA and also including 

Harrison County, OH; 

(14) Colorado Springs, CO—consisting 

of the Colorado Springs, CO MSA and 

also including Fremont County, CO, and 

Pueblo County, CO; 

(15) Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, 

OH—consisting of the ColumbusMarion-Zanesville, OH CSA; 

(16) Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK— 

consisting of the Dallas-Fort Worth, TXOK CSA and also including Delta 

County, TX; 

(17) Davenport-Moline, IA-IL— 

consisting of the Davenport-Moline, IAIL CSA; 

(18) Dayton-Springfield-Sidney, OH— 

consisting of the Dayton-SpringfieldSidney, OH CSA and also including 

Preble County, OH; 

(19) Denver-Aurora, CO—consisting 

of the Denver-Aurora, CO CSA and also 

including Larimer County, CO; 

(20) Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, MI— 

consisting of the Detroit-Warren-Ann 

Arbor, MI CSA; 

(21) Harrisburg-Lebanon, PA— 

consisting of the Harrisburg-YorkLebanon, PA CSA, except for Adams 

County, PA, and York County, PA, and 

also including Lancaster County, PA; 

(22) Hartford-West Hartford, CT-MA— 

consisting of the Hartford-West 

Hartford, CT CSA and also including 

Windham County, CT, Franklin County, 

MA, Hampden County, MA, and 

Hampshire County, MA; 

(23) Hawaii—consisting of the State of 

Hawaii; 

(24) Houston-The Woodlands, TX— 

consisting of the Houston-The 

Woodlands, TX CSA and also including 

San Jacinto County, TX; 

(25) Huntsville-Decatur-Albertville, 

AL—consisting of the HuntsvilleDecatur-Albertville, AL CSA; 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules 31697 

(26) Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, 

IN—consisting of the IndianapolisCarmel-Muncie, IN CSA and also 

including Grant County, IN; 

(27) Kansas City-Overland ParkKansas City, MO-KS—consisting of the 

Kansas City-Overland Park-Kansas City, 

MO-KS CSA and also including Jackson 

County, KS, Jefferson County, KS, Osage 

County, KS, Shawnee County, KS, and 

Wabaunsee County, KS; 

(28) Laredo, TX—consisting of the 

Laredo, TX MSA; 

(29) Las Vegas-Henderson, NV-AZ— 

consisting of the Las Vegas-Henderson, 

NV-AZ CSA; 

(30) Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA— 

consisting of the Los Angeles-Long 

Beach, CA CSA and also including Kern 

County, CA, San Luis Obispo County, 

CA, and Santa Barbara County, CA; 

(31) Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Port St. 

Lucie, FL—consisting of the Miami-Fort 

Lauderdale-Port St. Lucie, FL CSA and 

also including Monroe County, FL; 

(32) Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, 

WI—consisting of the MilwaukeeRacine-Waukesha, WI CSA; 

(33) Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI— 

consisting of the Minneapolis-St. Paul, 

MN-WI CSA; 

(34) New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CTPA—consisting of the New YorkNewark, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA and also 

including all of Joint Base McGuire-DixLakehurst; 

(35) Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, 

FL—consisting of the Palm BayMelbourne-Titusville, FL MSA; 

(36) Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, 

PA-NJ-DE-MD—consisting of the 

Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJDE-MD CSA, except for Joint Base 

McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst; 

(37) Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ— 

consisting of the Phoenix-MesaScottsdale, AZ MSA; 

(38) Pittsburgh-New Castle-Weirton, 

PA-OH-WV—consisting of the 

Pittsburgh-New Castle-Weirton, PA-OHWV CSA; 

(39) Portland-Vancouver-Salem, ORWA—consisting of the PortlandVancouver-Salem, OR-WA CSA; 

(40) Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, 

NC—consisting of the Raleigh-DurhamChapel Hill, NC CSA and also including 

Cumberland County, NC, Hoke County, 

NC, Robeson County, NC, Scotland 

County, NC, and Wayne County, NC; 

(41) Richmond, VA—consisting of the 

Richmond, VA MSA and also including 

Cumberland County, VA, King and 

Queen County, VA, and Louisa County, 

VA; 

(42) Sacramento-Roseville, CA-NV— 

consisting of the Sacramento-Roseville, 

CA CSA and also including Carson City, 

NV, and Douglas County, NV; 

(43) San Antonio-New BraunfelsPearsall, TX—consisting of the San 

Antonio-New Braunfels-Pearsall, TX 

CSA; 

(44) San Diego-Carlsbad, CA— 

consisting of the San Diego-Carlsbad, 

CA MSA; 

(45) San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, 

CA—consisting of the San Jose-San 

Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA and also 

including Monterey County, CA; 

(46) Seattle-Tacoma, WA—consisting 

of the Seattle-Tacoma, WA CSA and 

also including Whatcom County, WA; 

(47) St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, 

MO-IL—consisting of the St. Louis-St. 

Charles-Farmington, MO-IL CSA; 

(48) Tucson-Nogales, AZ—consisting 

of the Tucson-Nogales, AZ CSA and also 

including Cochise County, AZ; 

(49) Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC— 

consisting of the Virginia BeachNorfolk, VA-NC CSA; 

(50) Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, 

DC-MD-VA-WV-PA—consisting of the 

Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DCMD-VA-WV-PA CSA and also including 

Kent County, MD, Adams County, PA, 

York County, PA, King George County, 

VA, and Morgan County, WV; and 

(51) Rest of U.S.—consisting of those 

portions of the United States and its 

territories and possessions as listed in 5 

CFR 591.205 not located within another 

locality pay area. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14542 Filed 7–6–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–39–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 357 

[Docket No. APHIS–2013–0055] 

RIN 0579–AD44 

Lacey Act Implementation Plan: De 

Minimis Exception 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Food, Conservation, and 

Energy Act of 2008 amended the Lacey 

Act to provide, among other things, that 

importers submit a declaration at the 

time of importation for certain plants 

and plant products. The declaration 

requirement of the Lacey Act became 

effective on December 15, 2008, and 

enforcement of that requirement is being 

phased in. We are proposing to establish 

an exception to the declaration 

requirement for products containing a 

minimal amount of plant materials. This 

action would relieve the burden on 

importers while continuing to ensure 

that the declaration requirement fulfills 

the purposes of the Lacey Act. We are 

also proposing that all Lacey Act 

declarations be submitted within 3 

business days of importation. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before September 

7, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docket

Detail;D=APHIS-2013-0055. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Send your comment to Docket No. 

APHIS–2013–0055, Regulatory Analysis 

and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 

3A–03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1238. 

Supporting documents and any 

comments we receive on this docket 

may be viewed at http://

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=

APHIS-2013-0055 or in our reading 

room, which is located in room 1141 of 

the USDA South Building, 14th Street 

and Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC. Normal reading room 

hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except holidays. To be 

sure someone is there to help you, 

please call (202) 799–7039 before 

coming. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Parul Patel, Senior Agriculturalist, 

Permitting and Compliance 

Coordination, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road Unit 60, Riverdale, MD 20737– 

1231; (301) 851–2351. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Executive Summary 

Need for the Regulatory Action 

Section 3 of the Lacey Act makes it 

unlawful to import certain plants, 

including plant products, without an 

import declaration. The import 

declaration serves as a tool for 

combatting the illegal trade in timber 

and timber products by ensuring 

importers provide required information. 

Through the declaration requirement, 

the importer maintains accountability 

for exercising reasonable care regarding 

the content of the shipment before it 

arrives in the United States. Information 

from the declaration is also used to 

monitor implementation of Lacey Act 

requirements. The declaration must 

contain the scientific name of the plant, 

value of the importation, quantity of the 

plant, and name of the country from 

which the plant was harvested. 

However, the Act does not explicitly 

address whether the declaration 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS