Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 56 / Thursday, March 22, 2012 / Notices 16853 

Investigation will reclassify its Seattle, 

Washington; New Orleans, Louisiana; 

Baltimore, Maryland; Tampa, Florida; 

and Detroit, Michigan regional offices as 

field offices. The Seattle, Washington, 

field office will be aligned under the 

newly reformed Denver, Colorado, 

regional office (Region 8). The New 

Orleans, Louisiana, field office and its 

former field offices will be aligned 

under the Fort Worth, Texas, regional 

office (Region 6) or the Atlanta, Georgia 

regional office (Region 4). The 

Baltimore, Maryland, field office and its 

former field offices will be aligned 

under the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

regional office (Region 3). The Tampa, 

Florida, field office and its former field 

offices will be aligned under the 

Atlanta, Georgia, regional office (Region 

4). Additionally, as part of this 

reorganization the New York, New York, 

Regional Office (Region 2) will 

redistribute workload and personnel to 

address concerns in Long Island, New 

York and Central Islip, New York and 

will close two sub-field offices in New 

York. Region 4 will redistribute 

workload to address concerns in 

Jacksonville, Florida and Louisville, 

Kentucky where the offices are being 

closed. All other existing regional and 

field office jurisdictional boundaries 

will be unchanged, and the HUD/OIG 

Office of Audit will not participate in 

this reorganization. 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 five identified regional offices is 

currently managed by a GS–15 1811 

Special Agent-in-Charge (SAC). These 

SACs will be assigned as Deputy SACs 

(with no reduction in grade) to the 

appropriate regional office. Of note, 

there will be some attrition in this 

realignment and some positions will 

therefore be eliminated. The 

realignment ultimately will result in a 

net reduction of 6 FTEs. 

C. Costs Versus Benefits 

1. One-Time Costs 

(a) Personnel relocation cost ($0). It is 

not anticipated that there will be any 

personnel relocation costs associated 

with this reorganization. 

(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. Further, 

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 

The realignment will not result in any 

increase in operating costs. 

No additional or supplemental 

funding is expected. 

3. Dollar Savings Resulting From 

Realignment of Offices 

Personnel Cost Savings. The 

realignment will ultimately result in a 

net reduction of 6 FTEs resulting in 

significant savings of well over 

$600,000.00 for personnel costs. 

Operating Costs Savings. The closure 

of the Louisville, Kentucky office will 

obviate the need to build out space for 

two agents. The agents are presently in 

loaned space from another agency. The 

planned lease of office space and tenant 

finish and equipping that space is being 

avoided by closing the office in 

Louisville. Approximate savings will be 

$125,000.00–150,000.00 the first year 

and $12,000.00 per year thereafter. 

D. Impact on Local Economies 

The planned reclassification of five 

regional offices is not expected to have 

any impact on the local economies of 

Seattle, Washington; New Orleans, 

Louisiana; Baltimore, Maryland; Tampa, 

Florida; or Detroit, Michigan, nor will 

there be any significant impact on Long 

Island, New York, Central Islip, New 

York or Jacksonville, Florida. For the 

realignment from regional to field 

offices, 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. 

With regard to the offices that will be 

closed, these offices have been 

downsizing to allow management 

greater flexibility in positioning 

resources. The plan does involve 

terminating some existing real estate 

leases prior to their expiration date, 

with minimal costs associated with 

exercising early termination clauses 

which will be more than offset by future 

savings. Thus, any impact on the local 

economies in terms of housing, schools, 

public services, taxes, employment, and 

traffic congestion will be non-existent or 

insignificant at most. 

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 regions will receive 

greater management emphasis than 

prior to the reclassification. 

Management 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. 

Dated: March 13, 2012. 

David A. Montoya, 

Inspector General. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6970 Filed 3–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R4–ES–2012–N013; 

FXES11130400000EA–123–FF04EF1000] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Receipt of Application for 

Incidental Take Permit; Availability of 

Proposed Low-Effect Habitat 

Conservation Plan; Reed Motors, Inc., 

Lake County, FL 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability; request 

for comment/information. 

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service), have received an 

application from Reed Motors, Inc. 

(applicant), for an incidental take permit 

(ITP) #TE65123A–0. The applicant 

requests a 5-year ITP under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). We request public 

comment on the permit application and 

accompanying proposed habitat 

conservation plan (HCP), as well as on 

our preliminary determination that the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
16854 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 56 / Thursday, March 22, 2012 / Notices 

plan qualifies as low-effect under the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). To make this determination, we 

used our environmental action 

statement and low-effect screening form, 

which are also available for review. 

DATES: To ensure consideration, please 

send your written comments by April 

23, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: If you wish to review the 

application and HCP, you may request 

documents by email, U.S. mail, or 

phone (see below). These documents are 

also available for public inspection by 

appointment during normal business 

hours at the office below. Send your 

comments or requests by any one of the 

following methods. 

Email: northflorida@fws.gov. Use 

‘‘Attn: Permit number TE65123A–0’’ as 

your message subject line. 

Fax: David L. Hankla, Field 

Supervisor, (904) 731–3045, Attn.: 

Permit number TE65123A–0. 

U.S. mail: David L. Hankla, Field 

Supervisor, Jacksonville Ecological 

Services Field Office, Attn: Permit 

number TE65123A–0, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 7915 Baymeadows 

Way, Suite 200, Jacksonville, FL 32256. 

In-person drop-off: You may drop off 

information during regular business 

hours at the above office address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin 

M. Gawera, telephone: (904) 731–3121; 

email: erin_gawera@fws.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 9 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.) and our implementing Federal 

regulations in the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17 prohibit 

the ‘‘take’’ of fish or wildlife species 

listed as endangered or threatened. Take 

of listed fish or wildlife is defined under 

the Act as ‘‘to harass, harm, pursue, 

hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, 

or collect, or to attempt to engage in any 

such conduct’’ (16 U.S.C. 1532). 

However, under limited circumstances, 

we issue permits to authorize incidental 

take—i.e., take that is incidental to, and 

not the purpose of, the carrying out of 

an otherwise lawful activity. 

Regulations governing incidental take 

permits for threatened and endangered 

species are at 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.22, 

respectively. The Act’s take prohibitions 

do not apply to federally listed plants 

on private lands unless such take would 

violate State law. In addition to meeting 

other criteria, an incidental take 

permit’s proposed actions must not 

jeopardize the existence of federally 

listed fish, wildlife, or plants. 

Applicant’s Proposal 

The applicant is requesting take of 

approximately 1.57 ac of occupied sand 

skink foraging and sheltering habitat 

incidental to construction of a 

commercial development, and seeks a 5- 

year permit. The 7.7-ac project is 

located on parcel #09–22–26– 

110000900000 within Section 09, 

Township 22 South, Range 26 East, Lake 

County, Florida. The project includes 

construction of a commercial 

development and the associated 

infrastructure, and landscaping. The 

applicant proposes to mitigate for the 

take of the sand skink by the purchase 

of 3.14 mitigation credits within the 

Hatchineha Ranch Conservation Bank. 

Our Preliminary Determination 

We have determined that the 

applicant’s proposal, including the 

proposed mitigation and minimization 

measures, would have minor or 

negligible effects on the species covered 

in the HCP. Therefore, we determined 

that the ITP is a ‘‘low-effect’’ project and 

qualifies for categorical exclusion under 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), as provided by the Department 

of the Interior Manual (516 DM 2 

Appendix 1 and 516 DM 6 Appendix 1). 

A low-effect HCP is one involving (1) 

Minor or negligible effects on federally 

listed or candidate species and their 

habitats, and (2) minor or negligible 

effects on other environmental values or 

resources. 

Next Steps 

We will evaluate the HCP and 

comments we receive to determine 

whether the ITP application meets the 

requirements of section 10(a) of the Act 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). If we determine 

that the application meets these 

requirements, we will issue ITP 

#TE65123A–0. We will also evaluate 

whether issuance of the section 

10(a)(1)(B) ITP complies with section 7 

of the Act by conducting an intraService section 7 consultation. We will 

use the results of this consultation, in 

combination with the above findings, in 

our final analysis to determine whether 

or not to issue the ITP. If the 

requirements are met, we will issue the 

permit to the applicant. 

Public Comments 

If you wish to comment on the permit 

application, HCP, and associated 

documents, you may submit comments 

by any one of the methods in 

ADDRESSES. 

Public Availability of Comments 

Before including your address, phone 

number, email address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comments, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Authority 

We provide this notice under Section 

10 of the Act and NEPA regulations (40 

CFR 1506.6). 

Dated: March 16, 2012. 

David L. Hankla, 

Field Supervisor, Jacksonville Field Office, 

Southeast Region. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6891 Filed 3–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R5–R–2011–N196; BAC–4311–K9–S3] 

John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge at 

Tinicum, Delaware and Philadelphia 

Counties, PA; Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (we, the Service), 

announce the availability of a draft 

comprehensive conservation plan and 

environmental assessment (CCP/EA) for 

John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR) at Tinicum, located in Delaware 

and Philadelphia Counties, 

Pennsylvania, for public review and 

comment. The draft CCP/EA describes 

our proposal for managing the refuge for 

the next 15 years. 

Also available for public review and 

comment are the draft findings of 

appropriateness and draft compatibility 

determinations for uses to be allowed 

upon initial completion of the plan, if 

alternative B is selected, and the draft 

habitat management plan. These are 

included as appendix B and appendix 

C, respectively, in the draft CCP/EA. 

DATES: To ensure consideration, please 

send your comments no later than April 

23, 2012. We will announce upcoming 

public meetings in local news media, 

via our project mailing list, and on our 

regional planning Web site: http:// 

www.fws.gov/northeast/planning/ 

John%20Heinz/ccphome.html. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES