Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2004 / Notices 62717

recipients of funding awards, as set 

forth below.

List of Awardees for Grant Assistance 

Under the FY 2004 Hispanic-Serving 

Institutions Assisting Communities 

Program Funding Competition, by 

Institution, Address and Grant Amount 

Region VI 

1. Regents of the University of New 

Mexico-Taos, Mr. Philip Chandler 

Barrett, Regents of the University of 

New Mexico-Taos, 115 Civic Plaza 

Drive, Taos, NM 85751. Grant: 

$600,0000. 

2. The University of Texas El Paso, Dr. 

Paul Maxwell, The University of Texas 

El Paso, 500 West University, El Paso, 

TX 79968. Grant: $599,539. 

3. Regents of New Mexico State 

University, Dr. Anna M. Chieffo, 

Regents of New Mexico State 

University, 1620 Standley Drive, 

Academic Research A, Room 110, Las 

Cruces, NM 88003. Grant: $600,000. 

4. Houston Community College 

System, Mr. Andy Montez, Houston 

Community College System, 3100 Main, 

Suite 100, Houston, TX 77002. Grant: 

$597,149. 

5. Northern New Mexico Community 

College, Ms. Bernadette ChaviraMerriman, Northern New Mexico 

Community College, 921 Paseo de 

Onate, Espanola, NM 87532. Grant: 

$600,000. 

Region VIII 

6. Adams State College, Ms. Mary 

Carmel Hoffman, Adams State College, 

208 Edgemont Street, Room 115, 

Alamosa, CO 81102. Grant: $600,000. 

7. Otero Junior College, Mr. Gary 

Ashida, Otero Junior College, 1802 

Colorado Avenue, La Junta, CO 81050. 

Grant: $596,709. 

Region IX 

8. Allan Hancock College, Ms. Elaine 

Healy, Allan Hancock College, 800 

South College Drive, Santa Maria, CA 

93454. Grant: $600,000. 

9. West Hills Community College for 

West Hills College Lemoore, Ms Patty 

Scroggins, West Hills Community 

College for West Hills College Lemoore, 

9900 Cody Avenue, Coalinga, CA 93210. 

Grant: $365,303. 

Region X 

10. Rancho Community College 

District/Santa Ana College, Ms. Lori 

Brown, Rancho Community College 

District/Santa Ana College, 2323 North 

Broadway, Santa Ana, CA 92706. Grant: 

$600,000. 

11. Imperial Valley College, Mr. 

Gonazalo Huerta, Imperial Valley 

College, 380 East Aten Road, Imperial 

CA 92251. Grant: $600,000. 

12. Central Arizona College, Mr. Hugo 

Steincamp, Central Arizona College, 

8470 North Overfield Road, Coolidge, 

AZ 85228. Grant: $600,000.

Dated: October 15, 2004. 

Dennis C. Shea, 

Assistant Secretary for Policy Development 

and Research.

[FR Doc. 04–24000 Filed 10–26–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–62–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–4743–N–06] 

Notice of Planned Closing of Portland, 

OR; Omaha, NE; Albuquerque, NM; 

and Birmingham, AL; Post-of-Duty 

Stations

AGENCY: Office of Inspector General, 

(HUD).

ACTION: Notice of planned closing of the 

Portland, Oregon; Omaha, Nebraska; 

Albuquerque, New Mexico; and 

Birmingham, Alabama post-of-duty 

stations. 

SUMMARY: This notice advises the public 

that the HUD Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) plans to close its Portland, 

Oregon; Omaha, Nebraska; 

Albuquerque, New Mexico; and 

Birmingham, Alabama post-of-duty 

stations, and also provides a cost-benefit 

analyses of the impact of these closures.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bryan Saddler, Counsel to the Inspector 

General, Room 8260, Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, 451 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20410–4500, 202–708–1613. (This is not 

a toll free number.) A 

telecommunications device for hearingand speech-impaired persons (TTY) is 

available at 800–877–8339 (Federal 

Information Relay Services). (This is a 

toll-free number.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Between 

1997 and 2000 HUD/OIG established 

one and two person post-of-duty 

stations in Portland, Oregon; Omaha, 

Nebraska; and Albuquerque, New 

Mexico to give direct support to the 

Operation Safe Home (OSH) initiative to 

combat violent and drug related crime 

in the public and assisted housing in the 

city and nearby communities. 

Nationwide experience since the 

initiation of OSH in 1994 had proven 

that the best results/impact could be 

obtained when an HUD/OIG Special 

Agent was physically located in the 

target city. However, in accordance with 

the requirements of the Fiscal Year 2002 

HUD Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 107–

73, approved November 26, 2001), 

HUD/OIG terminated OSH and began redeploying staff to focus on 

investigations involving single-family 

fraud and property flipping. This 

change eliminated the need to maintain 

separate post-of-duty stations in 

Portland, Oregon; Omaha, Nebraska; 

and Albuquerque, New Mexico, and 

gave HUD/OIG the opportunity to 

generate cost savings associated with 

discontinuing an additional office. 

Regarding the Birmingham, Alabama 

post-of-duty station, it has existed since 

the early 1970s. During the 1990s, the 

office was staffed with a senior auditor 

and two staff auditors. The senior 

auditor and one staff auditor have left 

HUD/OIG, and the office is currently left 

with one staff auditor. Closing this 

office gives HUD/OIG the opportunity to 

generate cost savings associated with 

discontinuing an office, since the audits 

currently performed by the office can be 

performed as efficiently and effectively 

by staff in HUD/OIG’s Atlanta Regional 

Office. 

Section 7(p) of the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development Act 

(42 U.S.C. 3535(p)) provides that a plan 

for field reorganization, which may 

involve the closing of any field or 

regional office, of the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development may 

not take effect until 90 days after a costbenefit analysis of the effect of the plan 

on the office in question is published in 

the Federal Register. The required costbenefit analysis should 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.) The dutystations in Portland, Oregon; Omaha, 

Nebraska; Albuquerque, New Mexico; 

62718 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2004 / Notices 

and Birmingham, Alabama are single 

purpose duty stations, and are being 

closed based on workload rather than 

under a reorganization of HUD/OIG 

field offices. Although notice of the 

closing of a duty station is not subject 

to the requirement of section 7(p), as 

supported by legislative history, HUD/

OIG nevertheless prepared a cost benefit 

analysis for its own use in determining 

whether to proceed with the closing. 

Through this notice, HUD/OIG advises 

the public of the closing of the Portland, 

Oregon; Omaha, Nebraska; 

Albuquerque, New Mexico; and 

Birmingham, Alabama duty stations and 

provides the cost benefit analysis of the 

impact of the closure. 

Impact of the Closure of the Portland, 

Oregon; Omaha, Nebraska; 

Albuquerque, New Mexico; and 

Birmingham, Alabama; Post-of-Duty 

Stations: HUD/OIG considered the costs 

and benefits of closing the Portland, 

Oregon; Omaha, Nebraska; 

Albuquerque, New Mexico; and 

Birmingham, Alabama post-of-duty 

stations, and is publishing its costbenefit analyses with this notice. In 

summary, HUD/OIG has determined 

that the closures will result in a cost 

savings, and, as a result of the size and 

limited function of the office, will cause 

no appreciable impact on the provision 

of authorized investigative services/

activities in the area. 

Cost-Benefit Analysis

A. Cost Savings: The Portland, Oregon 

post-of-duty station currently costs 

approximately $2866.82 per month for 

space rental. Additional associated 

overhead expenses (e.g., telephone 

service) are incurred to operate the postof-duty station. Thus, closing the office 

will result in annual savings of at least 

$34,401.00. In addition, by closing the 

office HUD/OIG will not be required to 

incur additional costs associated with 

current plans to install high-speed 

computer access lines to and on the 

premises. 

The Omaha, Nebraska, post-of-duty 

station currently costs approximately 

$225 per month for space rental. 

Additional associated overhead 

expenses are incurred to operate the 

post-of-duty station. In addition, the 

agent is required to travel to the 

Regional Office in Kansas City, Missouri 

on a quarter-yearly basis for required 

agent qualification update training. 

Thus, closing the office will result in 

annual savings of at least $4,000. In 

addition, by closing the office HUD/OIG 

will not be required to incur additional 

costs associated with current plans to 

install high-speed computer access lines 

to and on the premises. 

The Albuquerque, New Mexico postof-duty station currently costs 

approximately $1288.08 per month for 

space rental. Additional associated 

overhead expenses are incurred to 

operate the post-of-duty station. Thus, 

closing the office will result in annual 

savings of at least $15,457.00. In 

addition, by closing the office HUD/OIG 

will not be required to incur additional 

costs associated with current plans to 

install high-speed computer access lines 

to and on the premises. 

The Birmingham, Alabama, post-ofduty station currently costs 

approximately $4,034 per month for 

space rental. Additional associated 

overhead expenses are incurred to 

operate the post-of-duty station. Thus, 

closing the office will result in annual 

savings of at least $48,000. 

B. Additional Costs: With respect to 

the Portland, Oregon and Albuquerque, 

New Mexico post-of-duty stations there 

will be no offsetting costs. HUD/OIG 

currently has no staff in either office. 

Relocation costs associated with 

personnel in the Omaha, Nebraska and 

Birmingham, Alabama post-of-duty 

stations are estimated to total no more 

than $90,000. 

C. Impact on Local Economy: No 

appreciable impact on the local 

economy of Portland, Oregon; Omaha, 

Nebraska; Albuquerque, New Mexico; 

and Birmingham, Alabama is 

anticipated. The post-of-duty stations 

are co-located with office space leased 

by other federal agencies, and it is 

anticipated that the space can easily be 

re-leased to other tenants. 

D. Effect on Availability, Accessibility 

and Quality of Services Provided to 

Recipients of Those Services: The 

establishment of the Portland, Oregon; 

Omaha, Nebraska; and Albuquerque, 

New Mexico post-of-duty stations were 

based entirely on the needs of the HUD/

OIG to have Special Agents in closer 

proximity to OSH activities conducted 

in the Portland, Omaha and 

Albuquerque areas. These activities 

have been terminated. Further, as was 

the case prior to the establishment of 

these offices, special agents assigned to 

other HUD/OIG offices can costeffectively address fraud investigations 

in the Portland, Omaha and 

Albuquerque areas. 

Similarly, the establishment of the 

Birmingham, Alabama post-of-duty 

station was based on the needs of the 

HUD/OIG to have auditors in closer 

proximity to audit activities conducted 

in the Birmingham area. However, 

HUD/OIG currently believes that 

auditors assigned to the Atlanta 

Regional Office can cost-effectively 

address the limited number of audits in 

the Birmingham area. 

For the reasons stated in this notice, 

HUD/OIG intends to proceed to close its 

Portland, Oregon; Albuquerque, New 

Mexico; Omaha, Nebraska; and 

Birmingham, Alabama post-of-duty 

stations at the expiration of the 90-day 

period from the date of publication of 

this notice.

Dated: October 20, 2004. 

Kenneth M. Donohue, Sr., 

Inspector General.

[FR Doc. 04–23999 Filed 10–26–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–78–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of the Secretary 

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council; 

Renewal of the Public Advisory 

Committee Charter

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, 

Department of the Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice is published in 

accordance with 41 CFR Part 102–3, 

Subpart B, How Are Advisory 

Committees Established, Renewed, 

Reestablished, and Terminated. 

Following the recommendation and 

approval of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 

Trustee Council, the Secretary of the 

Interior hereby renews the Exxon 

Valdez Oil Spill Public Advisory 

Committee Charter to continue for 

approximately 2 years, to September 30, 

2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Douglas Mutter, Department of the 

Interior, Office of Environmental Policy 

and Compliance, 1689 ‘‘C’’ Street, Room 

119, Anchorage, Alaska, (907) 271–

5011.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 

24, 1989, the T/V Exxon Valdez ran 

aground on Bligh Reef in Prince William 

Sound in Alaska spilling approximately 

11 million gallons of North Slope crude 

oil. Oil moved into the Gulf of Alaska, 

along the Kenai coast to Kodiak Island 

and the Alaska Peninsula—some 600 

miles from Bligh Reef. Massive clean-up 

and containment efforts were initiated 

and continued to 1992. On October 8, 

1991, an agreement was approved by the 

United States District Court for the 

District of Alaska that settled claims of 

the United States and the State of 

Alaska against the Exxon Corporation 

and the Exxon Shipping Company for 

various criminal and civil violations. 

Under the civil settlement, Exxon 

agreed to pay to the governments $900