Notice of Reclassification of Four Investigative Field Offices to Regional Offices: Cleveland, OH; Baltimore, MD; Tampa, FL; and Seattle, WA, 53036-53038 [E8-21226]
Download as PDF
53036
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 178 / Friday, September 12, 2008 / Notices
Dated: August 28, 2008.
Jonathan R. Scharfen,
Acting Director, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services.
[FR Doc. E8–21083 Filed 9–11–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–97–P
[Docket No. FR–5186–N–37]
Federal Property Suitable as Facilities
To Assist the Homeless
Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Community Planning and
Development, HUD.
AGENCY:
Notice.
SUMMARY: This Notice identifies
unutilized, underutilized, excess, and
surplus Federal property reviewed by
HUD for suitability for possible use to
assist the homeless.
DATES:
Effective Date: August 12, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing
and Urban Development, 451 Seventh
Street, SW., Room 7262, Washington,
DC 20410; telephone (202) 708–1234;
TTY number for the hearing- and
speech-impaired (202) 708–2565, (these
telephone numbers are not toll-free), or
call the toll-free Title V information line
at 800–927–7588.
In
accordance with the December 12, 1988
court order in National Coalition for the
Homeless v. Veterans Administration,
No. 88–2503–OG (D.D.C.), HUD
publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis,
identifying unutilized, underutilized,
excess and surplus Federal buildings
and real property that HUD has
reviewed for suitability for use to assist
the homeless. Today’s Notice is for the
purpose of announcing that no
additional properties have been
determined suitable or unsuitable this
week.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Dated: September 4, 2008.
Mark R. Johnston,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs.
[FR Doc. E8–21002 Filed 9–10–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:18 Sep 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
[Docket No. FR–5261–N–01]
Notice of Reclassification of Four
Investigative Field Offices to Regional
Offices: Cleveland, OH; Baltimore, MD;
Tampa, FL; and Seattle, WA
Office of Inspector General,
Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD/OIG).
ACTION: Notice of reclassification of
field offices of investigation as regional
offices of investigation.
AGENCY:
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
ACTION:
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY: This notice advises the public
that the HUD/OIG Office of
Investigation plans to reclassify its
Cleveland; Baltimore; Tampa; and
Seattle field offices as regional offices.
The planned reclassification is intended
to: (1) Improve the alignment of limited
investigative resources, to promote more
efficient responses to HUD or
Congressional requests involving critical
program issues; (2) redeploy resources
to prevent and detect fraud in new
program delivery of CPD and FHA; and
(3) improve management control and
effectiveness, and reduce travel costs of
management by reducing region size.
The HUD/OIG Office of Audit, to the
extent that it maintains field offices in
these locations, has determined that
based upon the different nature of its
responsibilities it does not need to
reorganize. This notice also includes a
cost-benefit analysis supporting the
reclassification of the four field offices.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
McCarty, Assistant Inspector General for
Investigations, Room 8274, Department
of Housing and Urban Development,
451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC, 20410–4500, 202–708–0390 (This is
not a toll free number.) A
telecommunication device for hearing
and speech-impaired persons (TTY) is
available at 800–877–8339 (Federal
Information Relay Services). (This is a
toll free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
7(p) of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C.
3535(p)) provides that a plan for
reorganization, of any regional, area,
insuring, or other field office of the
Department of Housing and Urban
Development may take effect only upon
the expiration of 90 days after the
publication in the Federal Register of a
cost-benefit analysis of the effect of the
plan on the office involved. The
required cost-benefit analysis must
include: (1) An estimate of cost savings
anticipated; (2) an estimate of the
additional cost which will result from
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the reorganization; (3) a discussion of
the impact on the local economy; and
(4) an estimate of the effect of the
reorganization on the availability,
accessibility, and quality of services
provided for recipients of those services.
Legislative history pertaining to
section 7(p) indicates that not all
reorganizations are subject to the
requirements of section 7(p). Congress
stated that ‘‘[t]his amendment is not
intended to [apply] to or restrict the
internal operations or organization of
the Department (such as the
establishment of new or combination of
existing organization units within a
field office, the duty stationing of
employees in various locations to
provide on-site service, or the
establishment or closing, based on
workload, of small, informal offices
such as valuation stations).’’ (See House
Conference Report No. 95–1792,
October 14, 1978 at 58.) Although HUD/
OIG believes that the legislative history
of section 7(p) strongly suggests that the
legislation is inapplicable to a
reclassification of four field offices that
will in no way reduce the level of
services provided to areas served by
such offices, HUD/OIG nonetheless
voluntarily publishes the following the
cost-benefit analysis of its plan.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
A. Background
Since 2002, HUD/OIG staffing has
declined from a high of 750 full time
equivalents (FTEs) to a current level of
650 FTEs. Simultaneous with this
constriction of staff resources, HUD/OIG
has had to contend with additional,
extraordinary responsibilities associated
with the September 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks and the 2005 natural disasters
along the Gulf Coast. The staff
reductions and unforeseen additional
responsibilities have caused HUD/OIG
Office of Investigation to struggle to
address baseline fraud, waste, and abuse
in HUD programs. To more efficiently
and effectively address HUD/OIG’s core
mission and at the same time become
better prepared to respond to inevitable
but unpredictable events, HUD/OIG
plans to reclassify four field offices to
regional office status at the close of the
90-day period following the publication
of this notice.
B. Description of Proposed Changes
At the expiration of 90 days following
the publication of this notice, the HUD/
OIG Office of Investigation will
reclassify its Cleveland, Ohio;
Baltimore, Maryland; Tampa, Florida;
and Seattle, Washington field offices as
regional offices. The Cleveland Regional
E:\FR\FM\12SEN1.SGM
12SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 178 / Friday, September 12, 2008 / Notices
Office will supervise the operations of
the existing Cleveland, Columbus, and
Detroit Field Offices. The Baltimore
Regional Office will supervise the
operations of the Washington,
Baltimore, Richmond, Virginia, and
Greensboro, North Carolina Field
Offices. The Seattle Regional Office will
supervise the operations of the Seattle,
San Francisco, Billings, Montana, and
Sacramento, California Field Offices.
The Tampa Regional Office will
supervise the operations of the Tampa,
Miami, Jacksonville, Florida and San
Juan, Puerto Rico Field Offices.
Additionally, as part of this
reclassification, the New York, New
York Regional Office will no longer
supervise the operations of the Newark,
New Jersey Field Office; rather,
henceforth the Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania Regional Office will
supervise the operations of the Newark
Field Office. All other existing regional
and field office jurisdictional
boundaries will be unchanged, and the
HUD/OIG Office of Audit will not
participate in this reclassification.
Additionally, the Office of
Investigation’s headquarters
organization will not be affected by this
realignment.
Like all HUD/OIG Office of
Investigation regional offices, each of
the four new regional offices will be
managed by a GS–15 1811 Special
Agent-in-Charge (SAC). HUD/OIG
additionally plans to supplement the
management of each of the new regional
offices with a GS–14 1811 Assistant
Special Agent-in-Charge (ASAC);
currently, at least one ASAC is stationed
in the Baltimore, Tampa, and Cleveland
Field Offices.
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
C. Costs versus Benefits
1. One-Time Costs
(a) Personnel relocation costs
($500,000). It is prudent to plan for
potential relocations that may become
necessary to fill vacancies and/or back
filling of positions. Accordingly, HUD/
OIG’s plan contemplates that up to four
relocations may be necessary as a result
of selections of SAC/ASACs to manage
the new regions.
(b) Severance or unemployment
compensation costs ($0). No severance
costs are associated with this initiative
as it does not contemplate the
termination of any staff.
(c) Purchase/movement of furniture
and equipment ($0). Each of the field
offices that are being evaluated for
reclassification to regional office status
already exist and are fully equipped.
Additionally, the proposal does not
contemplate the creation of new field
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:18 Sep 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
offices or an increase in overall FTEs.
Thus, no purchase or movement of
furniture or equipment is involved.
(d) Space alteration costs (de
minimus). Some offices may require
space alterations and telephone changes
to accommodate any future changes of
assigned staff. However, HUD/OIG
estimates that any space alteration costs
that result will be minimal because
HUD/OIG has implemented and
encourages teleworking, and hoteling is
an option available to HUD/OIG.
No additional or supplemental
funding is expected to the current
appropriated budget. All costs will be
maintained within the current budget.
2. Permanent Increases in Operating
Costs
Cost to realign current FTEs ($30,000):
The reclassification of the four field
offices to regional offices will require
the creation of four SAC positions at the
GS–15 level. It is reasonable to presume
that existing ASACs will compete for
these positions, and, thus, the
likelihood is that the additional cost
involved will be limited to the pay
differential between GS–14 and GS–15
pay levels. Moreover, in light of Law
Enforcement Availability Pay (LEAP)
differentials payable to ASACs and
SACs, combined with the curtailing
effect that the overall GS–15 step 10
salary cap has on LEAP differentials
payable to GS–15 SACs, it is believed
that costs associated with the creation of
the SAC positions will be negligible, if
anything. Likewise, it is reasonable to
presume that existing GS–13s will
compete for ASAC, and, thus, the
additional cost involved will be limited
to the pay differential between GS–13
and GS–14 pay levels. HUD/OIG
estimates that this differential to be
approximately $30,000 annually.
No additional or supplemental
funding is expected. All additional costs
will be funded within the ordinary
budgets.
3. Dollar Savings Resulting From
Elevation of Offices
Management travel costs: A necessary
incident to the remote of field offices is
travel costs for supervisors to travel to
the office to supervise/review staff and
to liaison with stakeholders. HUD/OIG
believes that contracting the geographic
footprint of his regions—as is
contemplated by this plan—will
correspondingly reduce management
travel. However, in light of the current
volatile nature of energy and
transportation cost, HUD/OIG is unable
accurately quantify such savings.
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53037
D. Impact on Local Economies
The planned reclassification of four
field offices is not expected to have any
impact on the local economies of
Cleveland, Baltimore, Tampa, or Seattle.
The plan does not involve terminating
existing real estate leases prior to their
expiration date, nor does it involve
leasing addition real estate. Moreover,
the plan does not contemplate
appreciable relocation of staff to these
large metropolitan areas. Thus, any
impact on the local economies in terms
of housing, schools, public services,
taxes, employment, and traffic
congestion will be insignificant.
E. Effect of the Reclassifications on the
Availability, Accessibility, and Quality
of Services Provided for Recipients of
Those Services
The plan was designed to improve the
quality and level of service provided to
stakeholders and affected clients
nationwide. The new regions will
receive greater management emphasis
than prior to the reclassification.
Management in the new regions—
because it will be less dispersed and
remote—will be enabled to interact with
HUD management and clients and law
enforcement partners more frequently
and in greater scope than is now
possible. More interaction and attention
translates into more availability and
accessibility of higher quality services.
Similarly, the footprints of HUD/OIG’s
existing regions will shrink, and the
incumbent SACs will be empowered to
redirect attention that they currently
devote to Cleveland, Detroit,
Washington, Baltimore, Tampa, Miami,
Seattle, San Francisco, Columbus,
Sacramento, San Juan, Richmond,
Greensboro, and Jacksonville to the
remaining field offices under their
supervision. Again, under the
circumstances discussed in this notice,
more attention translates into more
availability and accessibility of higher
quality services.
For the reasons presented this notice,
HUD/OIG intends to proceed to
reclassify four investigative field offices
as regional offices—Cleveland, Ohio;
Baltimore, Maryland; Tampa, Florida;
and Seattle, Washington—at the
expiration of the 90-day period from the
date of publication of this notice. The
attachment to this notice presents the
proposed staffing, and geographic
coverage that will result from the
reclassification of the four field offices
of investigations.
Dated: September 8, 2008.
Kenneth M. Donohue,
Inspector General.
E:\FR\FM\12SEN1.SGM
12SEN1
53038
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 178 / Friday, September 12, 2008 / Notices
ATTACHMENT—PROPOSED STAFFING AND COVERAGE OF REALIGNMENT OF OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS
[BOLDED Cities are proposed new regional offices]
Projected FTEs by
region
Offices
Current states
Proposed states
Boston (12) .............
Boston, Manchester, Hartford ..............
New York City (19)
Philadelphia (19) .....
Baltimore (19) .........
New York City, Buffalo .........................
Philadelphia, Newark, Pittsburgh .........
Baltimore, Richmond, Greensboro .......
Atlanta (28) .............
Atlanta, Knoxville Birmingham, ............
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine,
Vermont.
New York only.
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware.
Maryland, DC, Virginia, West Virginia,
North Carolina.
Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Kentucky.
Tampa (16) .............
Tampa, Miami, Jacksonville, Puerto
Rico.
Chicago, Minneapolis, Indianapolis .....
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine,
Vermont.
New York, New Jersey ........................
...............................................................
Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,
DC, Virginia, West Virginia.
Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina,
North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Florida, Puerto Rico, Mississippi.
...............................................................
Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota,
Ohio, Michigan.
...............................................................
Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, New
Mexico.
Kansas, Missouri, Colorado, Utah,
Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota,
North Dakota, Wyoming.
California, Nevada, Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana,
Alaska Hawaii, Guam.
...............................................................
Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota.
Chicago (26) ...........
Cleveland (23) .........
Arlington (29) ..........
Kansas City (19) .....
Cleveland, Detroit, Columbus ..............
Arlington, Houston, San Antonio, Oklahoma City.
Kansas City, Denver, St. Louis, Salt
Lake City.
Los Angeles (13) .....
Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas .......
San Francisco (14)
San Francisco, Sacramento, Seattle,
Billings.
New Orleans, Jackson, Arlington, Hattiesburg.
New Orleans (15) ....
Louisiana, Mississippi ..........................
Florida, Puerto Rico, Virgin Island.
Ohio, Michigan.
Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, New
Mexico.
Kansas, Missouri, Colorado, Utah,
Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota,
North Dakota, Wyoming.
Southern California, Nevada, Arizona,
Hawaii, Guam.
Northern California, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Alaska.
Louisiana, Mississippi.
* New Orleans will remain staffed at 15 rather then projected needed of 24. Other 9 FTE will be used to adjust levels of other regions.
** Projected FTE includes administrative staff.
[FR Doc. E8–21226 Filed 9–11–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R8–ES–2008–N0136; 80221–1112–
0000–F2]
Coyote Springs Investment Planned
Development Project Multiple-Species
Habitat Conservation Plan
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability; final
environmental impact statement and
multi-species habitat conservation plan.
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) as
the lead agency, together with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as
cooperating agencies, advise the public
of the availability of the final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
on the application from Coyote Springs
Investment LLC (CSI) for a Section 10
incidental take permit pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (ESA), a section 404 permit
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:18 Sep 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
under the Clean Water Act, and
reconfiguration of CSI private and lease
lands in Lincoln County. In addition,
the EIS includes the proposed action of
BLM issuing a right-of-way within the
BLM utility corridor, located west of
U.S. Highway 93 in Lincoln County for
the construction of detention basins.
This notice also announces the
availability of the CSI Multiple-Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP),
which CSI has submitted as part of their
incidental take permit application, and
Implementing Agreement (legal contract
for the MSHCP). The permit would
authorize the incidental take of
specified covered species over 40 years,
including some that may become
federally-listed during the term of the
permit. The permit is needed because
take of species could occur during CSI’s
proposed urban development activities
located in a 21,454-acre area in southern
Lincoln County, Nevada. In addition,
take of species could occur during
recreation and resource management
activities within the 13,767-acre
proposed Coyote Springs Investment
Conservation Lands (CSICL) in Clark
and Lincoln counties. The CSICL is an
area leased by CSI from BLM, which
would be managed for the conservation
of the desert tortoise (Gopherus
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
agassizii) and other covered species
specified in the CSI MSHCP.
This notice is provided pursuant to
applicable NEPA regulations (40 CFR
1506.6) to inform the public of the
proposed action, and to make available
for 30 days’ review the final EIS, CSI
MSHCP, and Implementing Agreement.
DATES: A Record of Decision will be
signed no sooner than 30 days after the
publication of the Environmental
Protection Agency notice. Comments on
the final EIS must be received on or
before October 14, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
addressed to Robert D. Williams, Field
Supervisor, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, 1340
Financial Boulevard, Suite 234, Reno,
Nevada 89502, and fax number (775)
861–6301.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert D. Williams, Field Supervisor,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish
and Wildlife Office, 4701 N. Torrey
Pines Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89130,
telephone (702) 515–5230 and fax
number (702) 515–5231.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Documents
Copies of the EIS, CSI MSHCP, and
Implementing Agreement are available
E:\FR\FM\12SEN1.SGM
12SEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 178 (Friday, September 12, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53036-53038]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21226]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR-5261-N-01]
Notice of Reclassification of Four Investigative Field Offices to
Regional Offices: Cleveland, OH; Baltimore, MD; Tampa, FL; and Seattle,
WA
AGENCY: Office of Inspector General, Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD/OIG).
ACTION: Notice of reclassification of field offices of investigation
as regional offices of investigation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice advises the public that the HUD/OIG Office of
Investigation plans to reclassify its Cleveland; Baltimore; Tampa; and
Seattle field offices as regional offices. The planned reclassification
is intended to: (1) Improve the alignment of limited investigative
resources, to promote more efficient responses to HUD or Congressional
requests involving critical program issues; (2) redeploy resources to
prevent and detect fraud in new program delivery of CPD and FHA; and
(3) improve management control and effectiveness, and reduce travel
costs of management by reducing region size.
The HUD/OIG Office of Audit, to the extent that it maintains field
offices in these locations, has determined that based upon the
different nature of its responsibilities it does not need to
reorganize. This notice also includes a cost-benefit analysis
supporting the reclassification of the four field offices.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John McCarty, Assistant Inspector
General for Investigations, Room 8274, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20410-4500, 202-
708-0390 (This is not a toll free number.) A telecommunication device
for hearing and speech-impaired persons (TTY) is available at 800-877-
8339 (Federal Information Relay Services). (This is a toll free
number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 7(p) of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(p)) provides that a plan for
reorganization, of any regional, area, insuring, or other field office
of the Department of Housing and Urban Development may take effect only
upon the expiration of 90 days after the publication in the Federal
Register of a cost-benefit analysis of the effect of the plan on the
office involved. The required cost-benefit analysis must include: (1)
An estimate of cost savings anticipated; (2) an estimate of the
additional cost which will result from the reorganization; (3) a
discussion of the impact on the local economy; and (4) an estimate of
the effect of the reorganization on the availability, accessibility,
and quality of services provided for recipients of those services.
Legislative history pertaining to section 7(p) indicates that not
all reorganizations are subject to the requirements of section 7(p).
Congress stated that ``[t]his amendment is not intended to [apply] to
or restrict the internal operations or organization of the Department
(such as the establishment of new or combination of existing
organization units within a field office, the duty stationing of
employees in various locations to provide on-site service, or the
establishment or closing, based on workload, of small, informal offices
such as valuation stations).'' (See House Conference Report No. 95-
1792, October 14, 1978 at 58.) Although HUD/OIG believes that the
legislative history of section 7(p) strongly suggests that the
legislation is inapplicable to a reclassification of four field offices
that will in no way reduce the level of services provided to areas
served by such offices, HUD/OIG nonetheless voluntarily publishes the
following the cost-benefit analysis of its plan.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
A. Background
Since 2002, HUD/OIG staffing has declined from a high of 750 full
time equivalents (FTEs) to a current level of 650 FTEs. Simultaneous
with this constriction of staff resources, HUD/OIG has had to contend
with additional, extraordinary responsibilities associated with the
September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the 2005 natural disasters
along the Gulf Coast. The staff reductions and unforeseen additional
responsibilities have caused HUD/OIG Office of Investigation to
struggle to address baseline fraud, waste, and abuse in HUD programs.
To more efficiently and effectively address HUD/OIG's core mission and
at the same time become better prepared to respond to inevitable but
unpredictable events, HUD/OIG plans to reclassify four field offices to
regional office status at the close of the 90-day period following the
publication of this notice.
B. Description of Proposed Changes
At the expiration of 90 days following the publication of this
notice, the HUD/OIG Office of Investigation will reclassify its
Cleveland, Ohio; Baltimore, Maryland; Tampa, Florida; and Seattle,
Washington field offices as regional offices. The Cleveland Regional
[[Page 53037]]
Office will supervise the operations of the existing Cleveland,
Columbus, and Detroit Field Offices. The Baltimore Regional Office will
supervise the operations of the Washington, Baltimore, Richmond,
Virginia, and Greensboro, North Carolina Field Offices. The Seattle
Regional Office will supervise the operations of the Seattle, San
Francisco, Billings, Montana, and Sacramento, California Field Offices.
The Tampa Regional Office will supervise the operations of the Tampa,
Miami, Jacksonville, Florida and San Juan, Puerto Rico Field Offices.
Additionally, as part of this reclassification, the New York, New York
Regional Office will no longer supervise the operations of the Newark,
New Jersey Field Office; rather, henceforth the Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania Regional Office will supervise the operations of the
Newark Field Office. All other existing regional and field office
jurisdictional boundaries will be unchanged, and the HUD/OIG Office of
Audit will not participate in this reclassification. Additionally, the
Office of Investigation's headquarters organization will not be
affected by this realignment.
Like all HUD/OIG Office of Investigation regional offices, each of
the four new regional offices will be managed by a GS-15 1811 Special
Agent-in-Charge (SAC). HUD/OIG additionally plans to supplement the
management of each of the new regional offices with a GS-14 1811
Assistant Special Agent-in-Charge (ASAC); currently, at least one ASAC
is stationed in the Baltimore, Tampa, and Cleveland Field Offices.
C. Costs versus Benefits
1. One-Time Costs
(a) Personnel relocation costs ($500,000). It is prudent to plan
for potential relocations that may become necessary to fill vacancies
and/or back filling of positions. Accordingly, HUD/OIG's plan
contemplates that up to four relocations may be necessary as a result
of selections of SAC/ASACs to manage the new regions.
(b) Severance or unemployment compensation costs ($0). No severance
costs are associated with this initiative as it does not contemplate
the termination of any staff.
(c) Purchase/movement of furniture and equipment ($0). Each of the
field offices that are being evaluated for reclassification to regional
office status already exist and are fully equipped. Additionally, the
proposal does not contemplate the creation of new field offices or an
increase in overall FTEs. Thus, no purchase or movement of furniture or
equipment is involved.
(d) Space alteration costs (de minimus). Some offices may require
space alterations and telephone changes to accommodate any future
changes of assigned staff. However, HUD/OIG estimates that any space
alteration costs that result will be minimal because HUD/OIG has
implemented and encourages teleworking, and hoteling is an option
available to HUD/OIG.
No additional or supplemental funding is expected to the current
appropriated budget. All costs will be maintained within the current
budget.
2. Permanent Increases in Operating Costs
Cost to realign current FTEs ($30,000): The reclassification of the
four field offices to regional offices will require the creation of
four SAC positions at the GS-15 level. It is reasonable to presume that
existing ASACs will compete for these positions, and, thus, the
likelihood is that the additional cost involved will be limited to the
pay differential between GS-14 and GS-15 pay levels. Moreover, in light
of Law Enforcement Availability Pay (LEAP) differentials payable to
ASACs and SACs, combined with the curtailing effect that the overall
GS-15 step 10 salary cap has on LEAP differentials payable to GS-15
SACs, it is believed that costs associated with the creation of the SAC
positions will be negligible, if anything. Likewise, it is reasonable
to presume that existing GS-13s will compete for ASAC, and, thus, the
additional cost involved will be limited to the pay differential
between GS-13 and GS-14 pay levels. HUD/OIG estimates that this
differential to be approximately $30,000 annually.
No additional or supplemental funding is expected. All additional
costs will be funded within the ordinary budgets.
3. Dollar Savings Resulting From Elevation of Offices
Management travel costs: A necessary incident to the remote of
field offices is travel costs for supervisors to travel to the office
to supervise/review staff and to liaison with stakeholders. HUD/OIG
believes that contracting the geographic footprint of his regions--as
is contemplated by this plan--will correspondingly reduce management
travel. However, in light of the current volatile nature of energy and
transportation cost, HUD/OIG is unable accurately quantify such
savings.
D. Impact on Local Economies
The planned reclassification of four field offices is not expected
to have any impact on the local economies of Cleveland, Baltimore,
Tampa, or Seattle. The plan does not involve terminating existing real
estate leases prior to their expiration date, nor does it involve
leasing addition real estate. Moreover, the plan does not contemplate
appreciable relocation of staff to these large metropolitan areas.
Thus, any impact on the local economies in terms of housing, schools,
public services, taxes, employment, and traffic congestion will be
insignificant.
E. Effect of the Reclassifications on the Availability, Accessibility,
and Quality of Services Provided for Recipients of Those Services
The plan was designed to improve the quality and level of service
provided to stakeholders and affected clients nationwide. The new
regions will receive greater management emphasis than prior to the
reclassification. Management in the new regions--because it will be
less dispersed and remote--will be enabled to interact with HUD
management and clients and law enforcement partners more frequently and
in greater scope than is now possible. More interaction and attention
translates into more availability and accessibility of higher quality
services. Similarly, the footprints of HUD/OIG's existing regions will
shrink, and the incumbent SACs will be empowered to redirect attention
that they currently devote to Cleveland, Detroit, Washington,
Baltimore, Tampa, Miami, Seattle, San Francisco, Columbus, Sacramento,
San Juan, Richmond, Greensboro, and Jacksonville to the remaining field
offices under their supervision. Again, under the circumstances
discussed in this notice, more attention translates into more
availability and accessibility of higher quality services.
For the reasons presented this notice, HUD/OIG intends to proceed
to reclassify four investigative field offices as regional offices--
Cleveland, Ohio; Baltimore, Maryland; Tampa, Florida; and Seattle,
Washington--at the expiration of the 90-day period from the date of
publication of this notice. The attachment to this notice presents the
proposed staffing, and geographic coverage that will result from the
reclassification of the four field offices of investigations.
Dated: September 8, 2008.
Kenneth M. Donohue,
Inspector General.
[[Page 53038]]
Attachment--Proposed Staffing and Coverage of Realignment of Office of Investigations
[BOLDED Cities are proposed new regional offices]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected FTEs by region Offices Current states Proposed states
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boston (12)...................... Boston, Manchester, Massachusetts, Rhode Massachusetts, Rhode
Hartford. Island, Connecticut, Island, Connecticut,
New Hampshire, Maine, New Hampshire, Maine,
Vermont. Vermont.
New York City (19)............... New York City, Buffalo... New York, New Jersey.... New York only.
Philadelphia (19)................ Philadelphia, Newark, ........................ Pennsylvania, New
Pittsburgh. Jersey, Delaware.
Baltimore (19)................... Baltimore, Richmond, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, DC, Virginia,
Greensboro. Maryland, DC, Virginia, West Virginia, North
West Virginia. Carolina.
Atlanta (28)..................... Atlanta, Knoxville Georgia, Alabama, South Georgia, Alabama, South
Birmingham,. Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee,
Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky.
Kentucky, Florida,
Puerto Rico,
Mississippi.
Tampa (16)....................... Tampa, Miami, ........................ Florida, Puerto Rico,
Jacksonville, Puerto Virgin Island.
Rico.
Chicago (26)..................... Chicago, Minneapolis, Illinois, Indiana, Illinois, Indiana,
Indianapolis. Wisconsin, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Minnesota.
Ohio, Michigan.
Cleveland (23)................... Cleveland, Detroit, ........................ Ohio, Michigan.
Columbus.
Arlington (29)................... Arlington, Houston, San Texas, Oklahoma, Texas, Oklahoma,
Antonio, Oklahoma City. Arkansas, New Mexico. Arkansas, New Mexico.
Kansas City (19)................. Kansas City, Denver, St. Kansas, Missouri, Kansas, Missouri,
Louis, Salt Lake City. Colorado, Utah, Iowa, Colorado, Utah, Iowa,
Nebraska, South Dakota, Nebraska, South Dakota,
North Dakota, Wyoming. North Dakota, Wyoming.
Los Angeles (13)................. Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las California, Nevada, Southern California,
Vegas. Arizona, Washington, Nevada, Arizona,
Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Hawaii, Guam.
Alaska Hawaii, Guam.
San Francisco (14)............... San Francisco, ........................ Northern California,
Sacramento, Seattle, Washington, Oregon,
Billings. Idaho, Montana, Alaska.
New Orleans (15)................. New Orleans, Jackson, Louisiana, Mississippi.. Louisiana, Mississippi.
Arlington, Hattiesburg.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* New Orleans will remain staffed at 15 rather then projected needed of 24. Other 9 FTE will be used to adjust
levels of other regions.
** Projected FTE includes administrative staff.
[FR Doc. E8-21226 Filed 9-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P