07/23/2012 16:20 FAX 3017346351 USDA/APHIS/ER oos/o14

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503

May 11, 2012

M-12-12

MEMORANDUM TO THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

FROM: JEFFREY D. ecto Za
)

ACTING DIRECTO,

SUBJECT: Promoting Efficient Spending to Support Agency Operations

The Federal Government has a responsibility to act as a careful steward of taxpayer dollars,
ensuring that Federal funds are used for purposes that are appropriate, cost effective, and important
to the core mission of executive departments and agencies (agencies), From the beginning of this
Administration, the President has been clear that wasteful spending is unacceptable, and that the
Fedcral Government must strive to be more efficient and effective. That is why the President and
the Vice President launched the Campaign to Cut Waste and charged agencies with going line-by-
line through their budgets to identify areas of unnecessary spending or opportunities for greater
efficiency or cosi savings.

As part of this effort, on November 9, 2011, the President signed Executive Order 13589
“Promoting Efficient Spending,” In that Executive Order, the President directed each agency to
reduce its combined costs in a variety of administrative categories by not less than 20 percent in
Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 from FY 2010 levels. Agencies have since devetoped plans for achieving
theso cuts, and the President’s FY 2013 Budget identifies $8 billion in reduced costs as a result of
Executive Order 13589.

To achieve these savings, many agencies have identified and implemented creative and
innovative practices to reduce costs and improve efficiencies in such areas as travel, conference
expenditures, real estate, and fleet management. There are also other practical steps agencies can
take to improve operations, increase efficiency, and cut unnecessary spending. Accordingly, this
memorandum describes a series of policies and practices related to activities and expenses in these
areas, building on measures already in place at various agencies.

Section 1 - Travel

Travel is often necessary for Federal employees to discharge their duties effectively and the
travel industry plays an important role in creating jobs and supporting local economies; however, as
good stewards of Federal funds, agencies must do all they can to manage their travel budgets
efficiently. Accordingly, in FY 2013, each agency shall spend at least 30 percent less on travel

as Cnclosese |


07/23/2012 16:21 FAX 3017346351 USO&/APHIS/ER @o11/014

Within 90 days of the date of issuance of this memorandum, OMB, in consultation with
GSA, will provide agencies with additional guidance on carrying out the provisions in Sections 3
and 4 of this memorandum.

Questions regarding the policies and practices outlined in this memorandum should be
dirested to the Office of Federal Financial Management at OMB (202-395-3993).


07/23/2012 18:20 FAX 3017346351 USDA/APHIS/ER 008/014

(b) ensure that Federal employces receive a per diem reimbursement only to the extent costs
were incurred and not reimbursed by another party;

(c) promote the identification and use of non-contract air carriers that, if used, will result ina
lower total trip cost to the Government;

(d) expand and leverage the Government’s purchasing power to reduce travel costs
associated with hotels and rental cars;

(e) ensure that, whenever practicable, Federal employees arrange airfare in a manner that
results in the lowest price available when traveling on domestic flights, including
appropriately timing the purchase of airfare; and

(f) ensure that agencies have controls in place to collect refunds for unused or partially used
airline tickets for Federal employees who have purchased airfare, consistont with existing
requirements in the FTR and Federal Management Regulation (FMR).?

Scction 2 —- Conferences

As patt of the effort to safeguard Federal funds, agencies should focus on expenses related
to conference sponsorship, conference hosting, or attendance of Federal employees at conferences
sponsored or hosted by non-Federal entities.” Federal agencies and employees must exercise
discretion and judgment in ensuring that conference expenses? ure appropriate, necessary, and
managed in a manner that minimizes expense to taxpayers.

On September 21, 2011, OMB issued Memorandum 11-35, “Eliminating Excess Conference
Spending and Promoting Efficiency in Government.” That memorandum instructed all agencies “to
conduct a thorough review of the policies and controls associated with conference-related activities
and expenses.” In accordance with that memorandum, Deputy Secretaries (or their equivalents)
thoroughly reviewed the policies and controls associated with conference-related activities and
expenses to mitigate the risk of inappropriate spending.

To expand upon these efforts, this memorandum outlines a series of new policies and
practices for conference sponsorship, hosting, and attendance to ensure that Federal funds are used

> See FTR 301-72.100, 301-72.101, 301-72.300; also sec FMR 102-118.
‘ “Conference” is defined in this memorandum as it is in the FTR, a3 “[a] meeting, retreat, seminar, symposium or event
that involves attendee travel. The term ‘conference’ also applies to training activities that are considered to be
conferences under $ CFR 410.404.” See 41 CFR 300-3.1.
* “Conference expenses” are defined as all direct and indirect conference costs paid by the Government, whether paid
directly by agencies or reimbursed by ngencies to travelers or others associated with the conference, but do not include
funds paid under Federal grants to grantees. Conference expenses include any associated authorized wavel and per diem
expenses, hire of rooms for official business, audiovisual use, light refreshments, registration fees, ground
transportation, and other expenses as defined by the FTR. All outlays for conference preparation and planning should
be included, but the Federal employee time for conference preparation should not be included, The FTR provides some
examples of direct and indirect conference costs included within conference expenses. See 41 CPR 301-74.2,
Conference expenses should be net of any fees or revenue received by the agency through the conference and should not
include costs to ensure the safety of attending governmental officials.

3


07/23/2012 16:20 FAX 3017346351 USDA/APHIS/ER @oo7/o14

expenses covered by this memorandum than in FY 2010.! Agencies must maintain this reduced
leve) of spending each year through FY 2016. For the purposes of this section only, the term
“agency” means any agency described in 31 U.S.C. 901(b).

In consultation with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), agencies shall direct all
immediate savings achieved through this reduction towards investments that improve the
transparency of and accountability for Federal spending and therefore serve taxpayers by further
reducing wasteful spending over the long-term. Investments should include activities necessary to
provide more robust tracking and public reporting of Federal spending, as well as internal audits
and investigations to root out fraud and error in Federal programs and activities.

No ater than 90 days from the date of this memorandum, agencies shall report to OMB on
the proposed reduction in travel expenses as a result of this requirement. Information provided to
OMB should include the amount of the proposed reduction in travel expenses, the amount of FY
2010 travel expenses obligations subject to this section that provides a baseline for measuring the
required reductions, and the amount of FY 2010 obligations for travel expenses that are excluded
from this baseline. The agency may exclude certain travel expenses from reduction only if the
agency head determines that inclusion of such expenses as part of the 30 percent reduction target
would undermine such critical government functions as national security, international diplomacy,
health and safety inspections, law enforcement, or site visits required for oversight or investigatory
purposes.” Excluded travel expenses will not be part of the bascline that agencies use in calculating
the 30 percent reduction target or subject to reduction themselves. In determining how to reduce
travel expenses, agencies should consult and collaborate with their Inspectors General (IG) on the
appropriate ways to reduce travel for oversight and investigatory purposes, while maintaining the
independence and capacity of IGs,

In addition, agencies shall include in their FY 2014 budget submission to OMB a description
of how they will make these travel reductions sustainable, including the specific process changes
and technology investments necessary to reduce their reliance on travel.

In addition, to assist agencies in achieving these reductions in travel expenses, no later than
180 days from the date of this memorandum, the Department of Defense and the General Services
Administration (GSA), in consultation with OMB, shal! review the Joint Federal Travel Regulations
and the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) to ensure that the policies reduce travel costs without
impairing the effective accomplishment of agency missions. This review shall, at a minimum,
establish or clarify policies that:

(a) increase Federal employee sharing of rental autornobiles and taxis when appropriate;

' “Travel expenses” are defined as obligations categorizad under budget object class 21.0 (travel and transportation of
persons), which is described in OMB Circular A-11 (section 83.6). In some cases, travel expenses may also include
travel funded outside of this object class. OMB will provide additional guidance to affected agencies on areas outside
of this object class that should be included in the reductions required by this memorandum.
? Por example, the Attomey General may determine that some portion of the travel by Federal Bureau of Investigation
agents is necessary to investigate specific criminal activity and should be excluded from the baseline of travel expenses
from which the 30 percent reduction would be taken. Similarly, the Secretary of Health and Human Services may
determine that a portion of the travel by Food and Drug Administration inspectors is necessary to ensure the health of
the public and should be excluded from the baseline subject to the 30 percent reduction.

2


07/23/2012 18:20 FAX 3017346351 USDA/APHIS/ER @o10/014

In addition, for any instances where the nct expenses for an agency-sponsored conference
exceeded $500,000, the website shall include the agency head’s waiver that identified the
exceptional circumstances that necessitated exceeding this threshold, Finally, the website
shall include information about the net conference expenses for the fiscal year incurred by
that agency as well as a general report about conference activities throughout the year.

In reporting these data, agencies shall exclude any information that is considered to be
sensitive, is prohibited from public disclosure by statute or regulation, or may jeopardize
national security or the health, safety or security of conference attendees, organizers, or
other individuals.

Section 3 — Rea! Property

Agencies must also move aggressively to dispose of excess properties held by the Federal
Government and make more efficient use of the Government's real estate assets. Agencies are
already streamlining operations and using existing properties to meet the directive in the June 10,
2010 Presidential Memorandum (Disposing of Unnceded Federal Real Estato—Increasing Sales
Proceeds, Cutting Operating Costs, and Improving Energy Efficiency) to produce no less than $3

billion in civilian real property cost savings by the end of FY 2012.

As of the date of this memorandur, agencies shall not increase the size of their civilian real
estate inventory, subject to exceptions as described below. Acquisition of new Federal building
space (where approval of such acquisition occurs following the date of this memorandum) that
increases an agency’s total square footage of civilian property must be offset through consolidation,
co-location, or disposal of space from the inventory of that agency. In identifying consolidations,
co-locations, or disposals of property to offset acquisition of new Federal building space, an agency
may include civilian buildings from its own inventory that were, in accordance with the June 10,
2010 Presidential Memorandum, reported as ¢: s to the GSA or otherwise disposed of.

Additional guidance will be provided for carrying out this section, including defining those
properties to which this section applies and when a property may be identified as an offset, as well
as establishing a process to identify exceptions to this section’s requirements where appropriate,
such as to comply with legal requirements, to reduce costs, to protect national security, or to allow
for the effective accomplishment of agency missions.

Section 4 — Flect Management

In furtherance of the May 24, 2011 Presidential Memorandum (Federal Fleet Performance),
and to optimize the management of Governme;-owned vehicles, agencies shall usc existing GSA
fleet services, or initiate a replacement and renzwal schedule that is consistent with the requirements
of the FMR®, whereby standard sedans operate on a replacement schedule of at least three years or
until the vehicle has been driven in excess of 60,000 miles (whichever comes first), unless material
defects prevent the vehicle from operating in a safe manner or if replacement would save the agency
money over the life of the vehicle, GSA shall periodically review such policies for opportunities to
further improve efficiency.

® Soe FMR 102-34.270.



07/23/2012 16:19 FAX 3017346351 USOA/APHIS/ER Boo2/014

USDA

1

7/23/12

United States

Department of William D. Spencer, Clerk (via Fax)

Agriculture of the Board, Merit Systems Protection

Animal and Board, 1615 M Street NW. 5® Floor

ieee Washington, DC 20419

Service Fax: (202) 653-7130

Marketing &

Regulatory This letter is the United States Department of Agriculture, (USDA) Animal & Plant

Frograrms Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Hearings & Appeals Branch (HAB) comments on the

Services Proposed Rules published by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) in the Federal

4700 RivarRoas © Register on June 7, 2012. The main concern is that the new proposed rules, in pertinent

Unit 158 parts, will require agencies to pay more for travel and transcript costs when the current

Roe wo administration and agency budget reductions dictate we spend less.

20737

(0)909-764-6953 Specifically, APHIS is concerned about the broad wording of the proposed rule
change for 5 C.F.R. § 1201.33. The current regulation states: “Every Federal agency or
corporation must make its employees or personnel available to furnish sworn statements or
to appear as witnesses at the hearing when ordered by the judge to do so. When providing
those statements or appearing at the hearing, Federal employee witnesses will be in official
duty status (i.¢., entitled to pay and benefits including travel and per diem, where
appropriate).”

The new proposed regulation states: “Every Federal agency or corporation, including
nonparties, must make its employees or personnel available to furnish sworn statements or
to appear at a deposition or hearing when ordered by the judge to do so. When providing
those statements or appearing at the hearing, Federal employee witnesses will be in official
duty status (i.e., entitled to pay and benefits including travel and per diem, where
appropriate).” Although the word “depositions” does not appear in the second sentence, the
agency is concerned about the summary of the changes which states: “The proposed
language has been added to clarify that an agency's responsibility under this regulation
includes producing witnesses at depositions as well as at hearings.”

On May 11, 2012, Jeffrey D. Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) issued M-12-12 to all Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies
titled “Promoting Efficient Spending to Support Agency Operations.” In that memo, in
Section 1, it was specifically stated that, “In FY 2013, each agency shall spend at least 30
percent less on travel expenses covered by this memorandum than in FY 2010. Agencies
must maintain this reduced level of spending each year through FY 2016.” Excluded
expenses were defined as: critical government functions as national security, international
diplomacy, health and safety inspections, law enforcement, or site Visits required for
oversight or investigatory purposes.”

Even before OMB issued its orders to significantly reduce travel expenses, on March
9, 2011, the Deputy Chief Financial Officer of USDA issued written guidance on the

APH Is Sateguartiing American Agriculture

APHIS Is an agency of USDA's Marketing and Regulatory Prograrn

An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer

ql


OT/23/2012 16:21 FAX 3017346351 USHA /APHIS/ER 013/014

Agency Heads Page 2

Alternatives to traveling:

© The use of video conferencing is encouraged; many USDA offices now have

these capabilities.
o Use webinars and on-line meeting services to share information.
© Use USDA’s broadcast media capabilities to perform outreach and program

education functions rather than constant travel.
These are some suggestions to assist you in reducing travel spending.
If you have any questions, please feel {ree to contact me or have your staff contact
Teresa Maguire at (202) 690-0290.
Attachment
ec: Deputy Administrators for Management

Agency Chief Financial Officers

Travel Policy User Group Representatives



07/23/2012 16:21 FAX 3017346351 USDA/APHIS/ER @o012/014

United Staten
Department of
Agriculture

Office of the Chief
Financial Officer

1400 Independance
Avenue, SW

Washington, DC
20250

USDA

Pea bb

MAR ~ 9 2011
TO: Agency Heads V4
FROM: Jon M. Holladay 77-— GAA. o

Deputy Chief Finahtial Officer

SUBJECT: Reduction i el Expenditures

On February 14, 2011, Secretary Vilsack released the United States Department of
Agriculture’s (USDA) proposed fiscal year (FY) 2012 budget which included a $2
billion cut in discretionary spending. Secretary Vilsack is encouraging all USDA
program managers and employces to cut waste, reduce administrative costs, make better
use of taxpayer dollars, and to deliver services as effiziently as possible. To this end,
the Secretary has set a 20 percent reduction goal in USDA travel spending for FY 2011.

We are using the FY 2010 travel cost data (i.e., Object Class 2100) reported in the

FY 2012 Budget Request, to establish the 20 percent reduction required for FY 2011.
USDA reported spending over $301 million on travel last year; therefore a $60 million
reduction in spending is necessary to teach the Secretary’s goal. The attached listing
provides agency travel costs for FY 2910 and the targets for FY 2011. It is important
that all travel expenditures be carefully planned and opportunities taken to achieve these
savings.

Cost saving suggestions while traveling:

o Combine trips when possible; encourage travelers to cover multiple purposes in
one trip rather than multiple quick trips.

o Make travel plans well in advance, taking advantage of reduced government
fares (capacity controlled city pair airfares) end restricted airfares.

o Compare airfares for all nearby airports,

© Travelers on long-tenn temporary assignmerts should use extended stay
accommodations, where available.

o Travelers are encouraged to use government owned vehicles (GOV), when
available, rather than renting a car.

© Conference and training coordinators should work with procurement officials
and hotel staff to obtain group rates for hotel rooms and meeting facilities.

Cocere lo



07/23/2012 18:20 FAX 3017346351 USDA/APHIS/ER 003/014

appropriately on these activities, and that agencies continue to reduce spending on conferences
where practicable:

Initiate senior level review of all planned conferences — Expanding upon the requirements
of OMB Memorandum 11-35, agency Deputy Secretaries (or their equivalents) shall initiate
review of planned spending for every upcoming conference that is to be sponsored or hosted
by the agency (or by other Federal or non-Federal entities) where net conference expenses
by the agency will exceed $100,000. Agencies must ensure that the conference expenses
and activities comply with the FTR dirzstives and executive branch policies on conferences
as well as the Federal Acquisition Regulation (AR) requirements on contracting goods and
services. Until these reviews are completed, agencies shall suspend incurring obligations for
conferences to which the agency has not yet conunitted,

Initiate senior level approval of all future conference expenses in excess of $100,000 —
Following the review of planned conferences, Deputy Secretaries (or their equivalents) shall
continue to approve the spending for all proposed new conferences to be sponsored or
hosted by the agency (or by other Federal or non-Federal entitios) where the net conference '
expenses by the agency will be in excess of $100,000. Agencies must ensure that no Federal
funds are used for unnecessary or inaporcpriate purposes and that all conference expenses
and activities comply with both the FTR and the FAR requirements on lodging, food and
beverages, per diem reimbursement, and contracting of goods and services. In addition,
agencics should ensure that conference attendance and expenses are limited to only the
levels required to carry out the mission of the conference.

Prohibit expenses in excess of $500,000 on a single conference — An agency shall not
incur net expenses greater than $500,000 from its own funds on a single conference,
including conferences that are sponsor or hosted by the agency (or by other Federal or
non-Federal entities). The agency heac may provide a waiver from this policy if he or she
determines that exceptional circumstai exist whereby spending in excess of $500,000 on
a single conference is the most cost-cfiective option to achieve a compelling purpose. The
grounds for any such waiver must be documented in writing by the agency head.

Report publicly on all conference expenses in excess of $100,000 — Agencies shall report
on conference expenses on a dedicated place on their official website. By January 31 of
each year (beginning on January 31, 2013), the agency head shall provide a description of all
agency-sponsored conferences from the previous fiscal year where the net expenses for the
agency associated with the conference wore in excess of $100,000. This description shall
inehide:

the total conference expenses incurred by the agency for the conference;

the location of the conference;

the date of the conference;

a brief explanation how the conference advanced the mission of the agency; and
the total number of individuals whose travel expenses or other conference expenses
were paid by the agency.

oooao


07/23/2012 16:20 FAX 3017346351 USOA/APHIS/ER 005/014

USDA
emia 4

In summation, the additional costs being shifted to Federal agencies is still being
borne by the taxpayer; any savings are illusionary.

Bradly Siskind, Esquire,
Hearings and Appeals Branch

Cas
Martin Gold
Sarah Tuck

Enclosures: 1) M-12-12; 2) USDA Reduction in Travel Expenditures

PHIS Safeguarding American Agriculture
—— APHIS Is an agancy of USDA's Markaling end Regulatory Prog'am
=

An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employar


07/23/2012 16:19 FAX 3017346351 USOA/APHIS/ER

g

q

USDA
= aT 5

requiring agencies to provide federal employees with official time for depositions without
forcing the agencies to pay for travel to locations that potentially have no bearing on a case
other than the fact that an attomey or an appellant simply happens to be located there or they
desire to increase costs to the Federal Government hoping this will result in settlements
based on mere costs.

A hypothetical example illustrating the nature of the concern is a case where an
attomey resides in California and the client resides in Washington, D.C, with a Washington
Regional MSPB hearing location. Under the proposed rules, the attorney could request the
deposition of 10 agency witnesses who are located in Washington, D.C. to travel to the
attorney’s office in California. Under the proposed regulations, the Agency would
potentially be required to pay for the travel of those ten witnesses to California. This could
result potentially in thousands of dollars of expenses per case that the Federal Government is
not currently required to incur.

1201.33 should be revised to exclude requiring agencies to pay for travel for
depositions and that depositions should be taken in the local commuting area where the
witness resides if possible or where there is videoconference capabilities. The proposed rule
change will require unnecessary expenses in the current environment of austerity. This new
proposed rule will require agencies to pay more for travel when the current administration
and agency budget reductions dictate we spend less. Simply put, there are alternatives to the
proposed language that could accomplish the same goal without the potential dramatic
increase in cost. °

Regarding 1201.53 Record of Proceedings, APHIS is concerned about the
requirement for Agencies to pay for copies of transcripts for both the Appellant and the
Administrative Judge, The agency is mindful of the fact that the Board is not currently
required to provide a verbatim copy of the transcript to either the agency or the appellant.
The proposed rule however expands the appellant’s tights beyond that which Congress
initially stated. Although the Board correctly points out that the Board’s proposed
regulation is more narrowly tailored than the EEOC’s tegulation at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(h),
5 U.S.C. 7701 (a) specifically states: “An appellant shall have the tight to a hearing for
which a transcript will be kept.” Thus, according to statute, an agency is not required to pay
for a verbatim transcript either. The new policy as written will potentially require
thousands of dollars of additional expenses to agencies that have not been borne on agencies
before this proposed rule change.

While an appellant is granted the right to a hearing with a transcript, nowhere in the
Statute does it confer a right to a free transcript. From our viewpoint, he Board has operated
well with using tape recorded hearings and with consideration given to the decreasing
budgets of most federal agencies; there is no reason to change this practice. The cost for
agencies to pay for transcripts can run in the thousands of dollars for each transcript. The
current procedures are effective in that an appellant can ask for a copy of the recording of
the hearing and then take it to a transcribing service if they so desire. Again, if the appellant
prevails, they can ask for costs
Safeguaraing Amerigsn Agriculture
APHIS Is an agency o! USDA's Marketing and Regulatory Program

An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer

@oo4/o14


, "
07/23/2012 16:19 FAX 3017346351 USDA/APHIS/ER 003/014

;

USDA

Department-wide initiative to reduce travel expenditures by 20 percent based on the FY
2010 guidelines.

Specifically in APHIS, the impact is as follows:

© FY 2011: For FY 2011, USDA issued the above cited written guidance on the Department-
wide initiative to reduce travel expenditures by 20 percent. The Department used 2010
travel costs reported in the FY 2012 Budget Request as the basis for this reduction. APHIS
reported $30.3 million in travel obligations in 2010 in the FY 2012 Budget Request. Based
on this spending level, the Department set APHIS’ 201! travel target at $24.2 million -a
$6.1 million reduction.

° FY 2012: The goal for FY 2012 for APHIS was to spend at the FY 2011 level,

¢ FY 2013-2016: OMB Memorandum 12-12 states that agencies will spend 30% less in travel
in FYs 2013 through 2016.

It would appear that the situation at APHIS is similar to most Federal agencies.
Additionally, contrary to the MSPB’s statement in the proposed regulations, funding for
hearings and related litigation expenses such as depositions come out of miscellaneous
expenses, and there is no separate line item in the budget for travel associated with MSPB
hearings.

In cases in which an appellant prevails, appellants are potentially entitled to
attorneys’ fees. See Hart v. Department of Transportation, 110 MSPR 10 (2010). Under
current precedent set by the Federal Circuit, fees incurred for travel for an appellant’s
attorney is potentially recoverable. See Bennett v. Department of the Navy, 699 F.2d 1140
(1983). Therefore, appellants who prevail before the Board currently have a remedy, even

. Without the proposed revisions in the event that their attorney travels to the location of the

agency employee. Therefore, if the appellant prevails, the appellant can potentially receive
the costs associated with the attorney's travel.

APHIS believes the Board’s proposed rule is overly broad and will lead to
unnecessary and unfinanced expenditures by agencies. The Board currently recognizes that
it is entirely proper for hearings to be held via video, See Koehler v. Department of the Air
Force, 99 M.S.P.R. 82 (2005). Although nonprecedential, the Federal Circuit has
Tecognized that even in cases where appellants object to video hearings, it is still acceptable
for the Board to hold a hearing via video absent a showing of specific unfaimess in a
particular case. See Bowen v. Department of the Navy, 112 M.S.P.R. 707 (2009), aff'd 402
FP, App’x 521 (Fed. Cir, 2010).

While APHIS believes that it is important to provide federal employees with official
time to testify at deposition, the proposed rule goes too far in that it requires the agencies to
pay for unnecessary travel expenses; as written, this could include airfare, and per diem for
travel beyond an employee’s commuting area or even beyond an area where the facts of a
case arise. APHIS believes that the intent of the rule change could be accomplished by

Soleguarding American Agriculture
APHIS Is an agency of USDA’ Marketing and Ragulatory Program

An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer


07/23/2012 16:21 FAX 30173463451 USDASAPHIS/ER Mo14/014

Office of the Secretary $1 A505) $836,644
Office of the Chief Economist -_ 226,481 181,185
National Appeals Division 394,092 315,274
Office of Budget and Program Analysis 3,163 2,535
Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Coordination 192,672 454,138
Office of the Chief Information Officer 4,032,834 3,226,267
Office of the Chief Financial Officer 2,104,899 1,683,919
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 773,437 618,750

| Departmental Administration 7 672,744 538,169 7
Office of Communications _ __ 234,206 187,365
Office of ihe Inspector General 5,363,703 4,282,962
Office of the General Counsel 327,415 261,932
Economie Research Service 768,516 614,813
National Agriculture Statistics Service 3,060,536 2,448,429
| Agricultural Research Service 18,403,323 14,722,658
[National Institute of Food and Agriculture 2,260,000 1,808,000
| Animal and Plant Health inspection Service_ __ 30,266,584 24,213,267
Agricultural Marketing Service 1,934,854 1,547,883
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration 1,634,069 1,307,255
Food Safety and Inspection Service 38,425,655 30,740,524
Farm Servicing Agency 12,651,000 10,120,800
Risk Management Agency 2,040,718 1,632,574
Natural Resources and Consarvatlon Service 24,554,108 19,643,286
| Rural Development 15,232,769 12,186,215
| Food and Nutrition Service 6,666,000 5,332,800
Foreign Agricultura) Service 7 ~T 9,091,641 7,273,313
Forest Service 119,000,000 95,200,000
USDA $301.351.197 | $241.080,058