83 FR 46349 - Changes to Current Addresses and Geographic Jurisdictions

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 178 (September 13, 2018)

This document amends regulations listing the current addresses and describing the geographic jurisdictions of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, General Counsel of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, and the Federal Service Impasses Panel. These changes reflect the closing of the Dallas Regional Office and changes to the geographical jurisdictions of the Atlanta, Chicago, and Denver Regional Directors.

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 178 (Thursday, September 13, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46349-46368]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19929]



========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 178 / Thursday, September 13, 2018 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 46349]]



FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

5 CFR Chapter XIV


Changes to Current Addresses and Geographic Jurisdictions

AGENCY: Federal Labor Relations Authority.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document amends regulations listing the current addresses 
and describing the geographic jurisdictions of the Federal Labor 
Relations Authority, General Counsel of the Federal Labor Relations 
Authority, and the Federal Service Impasses Panel. These changes 
reflect the closing of the Dallas Regional Office and changes to the 
geographical jurisdictions of the Atlanta, Chicago, and Denver Regional 
Directors.

DATES: Effective September 21, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Tosick, Executive Director, 
Federal Labor Relations Authority, 1400 K St. NW, Washington, DC 20424, 
(202) 218-7791, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Effective January 28, 1980, the Authority 
and the General Counsel published, at 45 FR 3482, January 17, 1980, 
final rules and regulations to govern the processing of cases by the 
Authority and the General Counsel under chapter 71 of title 5 of the 
United States Code. These rules and regulations are required by title 
VII of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 and are set forth in 5 CFR 
chapter XIV (2018).
    After an examination of budgets, caseloads, rental costs, operating 
costs, and staffing, the Authority is closing its Dallas Regional 
Office and reassigning its jurisdiction to the Denver and Atlanta 
Regional Directors, effective September 21, 2018. It is also 
reassigning jurisdiction for the state of South Dakota from the Denver 
Regional Director to the Chicago Regional Director. The Authority 
expects no adverse effect on the quality or efficiency of casehandling 
as a result of the Dallas Regional Office closure.
    This amendment updates paragraphs (d) and (f) of Appendix A to 5 
CFR chapter XIV to reflect the new organizational structure by removing 
the Dallas Regional Office from the list of current addresses, 
telephone numbers, and fax numbers of the Authority's Regional Offices 
and by revising the geographical jurisdictions of the Federal Labor 
Relations Authority. As this rule pertains to agency organization, 
procedure, or practice, it is exempt from prior notice and public 
comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). For this same reason, pursuant 
to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Authority finds that good cause exists for 
not providing a more delayed effective date. This type of action is 
also exempt from review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 
October 4, 1993), 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and 13771 (82 
FR 9339, February 3, 2017).
    For additional information regarding case handling procedures 
following the Dallas Regional Office closure, please go to 
www.flra.gov.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Chapter XIV

    Administrative practice and procedure.

Chapter XIV--Federal Labor Relations Authority

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble and under the authority 
of 5 U.S.C. 7134, the authority amends 5 CFR chapter XIV as follows:

0
1. Appendix A to 5 CFR chapter XIV is amended by removing paragraph 
(d)(5), redesignating paragraphs (d)(6) and (7) as (d)(5) and (6), and 
revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:

Appendix A to 5 CFR Chapter XIV--Current Addresses and Geographic 
Jurisdictions

* * * * *
    (f) The geographic jurisdictions of the Regional Directors of 
the Federal Labor Relations Authority are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        State or other locality                  Regional office
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................  Atlanta.
Alaska.................................  San Francisco.
Arizona................................  Denver.
Arkansas...............................  Atlanta.
California.............................  San Francisco.
Colorado...............................  Denver.
Connecticut............................  Boston.
Delaware...............................  Boston.
District of Columbia...................  Washington, DC.
Florida................................  Atlanta.
Georgia................................  Atlanta.
Hawaii and all land and water areas      San Francisco.
 west of the continents of North and
 South America (except coastal islands)
 to long. 90 degrees East.
Idaho..................................  San Francisco.
Illinois...............................  Chicago.
Indiana................................  Chicago.
Iowa...................................  Chicago.
Kansas.................................  Denver.
Kentucky...............................  Chicago.
Louisiana..............................  Atlanta.
Maine..................................  Boston.
Maryland...............................  Washington, DC.
Massachusetts..........................  Boston.

[[Page 46350]]

 
Michigan...............................  Chicago.
Minnesota..............................  Chicago.
Mississippi............................  Atlanta.
Missouri...............................  Chicago.
Montana................................  Denver.
Nebraska...............................  Denver.
Nevada.................................  San Francisco.
New Hampshire..........................  Boston.
New Jersey.............................  Boston.
New Mexico.............................  Denver.
New York...............................  Boston.
North Carolina.........................  Atlanta.
North Dakota...........................  Chicago.
Ohio...................................  Chicago.
Oklahoma...............................  Denver.
Oregon.................................  San Francisco.
Pennsylvania...........................  Boston.
Puerto Rico and coastal islands........  Boston.
Rhode Island...........................  Boston.
South Carolina.........................  Atlanta.
South Dakota...........................  Chicago.
Tennessee..............................  Chicago.
Texas..................................  Denver.
Utah...................................  Denver.
Vermont................................  Boston.
Virginia...............................  Washington, DC.
Washington.............................  San Francisco.
West Virginia..........................  Washington, DC.
Wisconsin..............................  Chicago.
Wyoming................................  Denver.
Virgin Islands.........................  Atlanta.
Panama/limited FLRA jurisdiction.......  Atlanta.
All land and water areas east of the     Washington, DC.
 continents of North and South America
 to long. 90 degrees East, except the
 Virgin Islands, Panama (limited FLRA
 jurisdiction), Puerto Rico and coastal
 islands.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 7134.

    Dated: September 10, 2018.

    For the Federal Labor Relations Authority.
William Tosick,
Executive Director.

    Note: The following appendix will not appear in the Code of 
Federal Regulations:

Appendix A--Opinions of the Authority's Majority and Dissent With 
Respect to the Closure of the Federal Labor Relations Authority's 
Boston and Dallas Regional Offices

I. Authority's Opinion

    The Authority voted in January 2018 to close the Boston and Dallas 
Regional Offices. At that time, the Authority considered arguments 
echoing those of Member DuBester. We concluded, however, that 
consolidating the FLRA's Regional Office structure would husband the 
FLRA's budgetary and operational resources and best serve the labor-
management relations community.
    In the end, Member DuBester raises nothing new. We have reprinted 
Chairman Kiko's March 26, 2018 letter to the Senate Subcommittee on 
Financial Services and General Government, Committee on Appropriations 
(attachments omitted), explaining why we undertook this Regional Office 
consolidation. We have also included Chairman Kiko's May 21, 2018 
response to the letter from a group of Senators that Member DuBester 
references, which reiterates the rationale for the consolidation and 
offers Chairman Kiko's additional personal reflections on the need for 
reform. In our opinion, these two letters thoroughly refute Member 
DuBester's dissent.

Colleen Duffy Kiko,

Chairman.

James T. Abbott,

Member.
BILLING CODE 6727-01-P

[[Page 46351]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13SE18.003


[[Page 46352]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13SE18.004


[[Page 46353]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13SE18.005


[[Page 46354]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13SE18.006


[[Page 46355]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13SE18.007


[[Page 46356]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13SE18.008


[[Page 46357]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13SE18.009


[[Page 46358]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13SE18.010


[[Page 46359]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13SE18.011


[[Page 46360]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13SE18.012


[[Page 46361]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13SE18.013

 BILLING CODE 6727-01-C

II. Dissenting View of Member Ernie DuBester

    I strongly disagree with the decision to close the FLRA's Dallas 
Regional Office at the end of this fiscal year and the Boston 
Regional Office in November 2018. My opposition to these regional 
office closures is based in significant part on the perspective 
gained during my extensive experience in government.
    In that respect, I have served over nine years as a Member of 
the FLRA. For most of 2013, the first year of sequestration, I 
served as the FLRA's Chairman. I also had the privilege of serving 
for eight years as the Chairman (and Member) of another federal 
labor-management relations agency--the National Mediation Board. In 
these 17 years of service, I have always been mindful of the need 
for efficiencies that could improve government performance. 
Similarly, I have always tried to exercise leadership in a fiscally 
responsible manner.
    With those thoughts in mind, the decision to close the Dallas 
and Boston Offices is unjustified, unwarranted, and will undermine 
the FLRA's ability to perform its mission. Beyond my grave concerns 
about this decision's substantive impact, I also take serious issue 
with the circumstances surrounding the process by which this 
decision was made and implemented.
    The FLRA administers the labor-management relations program for 
over two million non-Postal, federal employees worldwide, including 
civilians in the Armed Forces. Until this decision, within its 
Office of the General Counsel (OGC), the FLRA had seven Regional 
Offices around the country, including one at its Washington, DC 
headquarters. These seven offices served the entire country, and 
overseas locations where federal employees work.
    Ostensibly, the decision to close the Dallas and Boston Offices 
is responsive to Executive Order No. 13781, Comprehensive Plan for 
Reorganizing the Executive Branch (March 13, 2017), and the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum M-17-22 (April 12, 2017). 
These directives ask federal agencies to consider organizational 
changes that could be made to effect operational savings. But it is 
evident that the purpose is not simply to show a cost savings 
without regard to an agency's mission and its delivery of services 
to stakeholders. To the contrary, agencies are to implement changes 
that will ``dramatically improve effectiveness and efficiency of 
government.''
    The decision to close the Dallas and Boston Offices fails this 
test. It was made without thoughtful consideration of the FLRA's 
mission or the nature of its work to perform that mission. And 
significantly, it ignores the considerable sacrifices made by the 
FLRA and its employees in recent years which have already saved the 
government tens of millions of dollars.
    Concerning mission effectiveness, as the attached letter to FLRA 
Chairman Kiko (May 1, 2018) from 13 U.S. Senators representing a 
quarter of a million federal employees currently served by the 
Boston Office indicates, its closure will ``place FLRA Staff farther 
away from those who rely on their services.'' Indeed, federal 
agencies and federal employees in the Northeast, all the way to the 
tip of Maine, will have to come to Washington, DC to address their 
rights and responsibilities. And, as the Senators' letter indicates, 
the decision is being made without Congressional oversight. Is this 
really the direction that we want to go?
    Analogous concerns apply to the Dallas Office closure. With that 
closure, the FLRA is closing the Regional Office located in the 
state which has the second largest number of federal employees 
outside of the Washington, DC Metropolitan area. Considered in this 
context alone, the decision defies logic.
    This is especially true given that the decision was made without 
any apparent outreach to stakeholders. Any serious consideration of 
the FLRA's mission and its delivery of services to the parties 
demands that there be some kind of outreach BEFORE such a decision 
was made.
    Also ignored, as indicated, is that, for the last 20 years, the 
FLRA has practiced fiscal responsibility, saving the government tens 
of millions of dollars. As the attached letter from eight retired 
FLRA Regional Directors (RDs) to the Chairman and Ranking Member of 
the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
states (March 9, 2018), the FLRA has gone ``far beyond most agencies 
in reducing operational costs and expenses.'' [A comparable letter 
was sent to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Oversight 
Committee].
    There are many illustrations. For example, from a recent high of 
215 employees (FTEs) in fiscal year (FY) 2000, the FLRA reduced its 
workforce by over 45%, to 114 FTEs, by FY 2009.
    Since that time, the FLRA has implemented many additional cost-
saving measures and efficiencies. This includes reducing the size of 
its headquarters by about 12,000 square feet in FY 2014, eliminating 
an entire floor. And, the FLRA similarly reduced its space in five 
Regional Offices (Chicago, Denver, San Francisco, as well as Dallas 
and Boston).
    In the last year, moreover, the FLRA has eliminated at least 12 
more FTEs, about 10% of its already small workforce. Elimination of 
the Dallas and Boston Offices will result in a further reduction of 
FTEs. This means that, since FY 2000, the FLRA will have eliminated 
over 55% of its employees.
    As the attached retired-RDs letter suggests, after these 
repeated sacrifices, the severity of this additional action to close 
Dallas and Boston, without good reason, is demoralizing and impairs 
the FLRA's ability to perform its mission. It should be remembered 
that, in FY 2009, after the 45% reduction in employees, the FLRA was 
ranked dead last (32nd of 32 similarly-sized agencies) in the 
Partnership for Public Services ``Best Places to Work'' rankings. 
But in recent years, at least until last year, though implementing 
many cost-

[[Page 46362]]

saving measures and innovative practices to promote efficiencies, 
the FLRA has climbed to a #1 ranking in most categories of the Best 
Places to Work Rankings, and has ranked in the top five overall for 
several years. With elimination of the Dallas and Boston Offices, it 
is questionable whether this will continue.
    What a shame. Nobody knows better than OMB (and Congress) the 
recent record of the FLRA in saving the government significant 
dollars. Sometimes, after such repeated sacrifices, a small agency 
like the FLRA, with a relatively modest budget, has become ``right-
sized.'' Before elimination of the Dallas and Boston Offices, the 
FLRA was already the optimal size to perform its mission effectively 
and efficiently.
    In addition to disregarding the FLRA's repeated fiscal 
sacrifices, the decision to close Dallas and Boston fails to 
consider thoughtfully the substantial mission-related value of 
Regional Offices being located where FLRA staff is more readily 
accessible to the parties. Again, as the retired-RDs letter 
suggests, this value has been ``demonstrated again and again over 
the years.''
    Certainly, a value is provided through ``[r]egularly scheduled 
regional training presentations'' which have become ``an established 
resource to both labor and management representatives, many of whom 
could not travel to Washington DC or other distant cities.'' In the 
last 10 years, the FLRA has provided training to thousands of FLRA 
stakeholders at Regional Office sites. And, by facilitating 
opportunities for the parties to meet and interact with Regional 
Office Staff, the FLRA's credibility and effectiveness is enhanced.
    This is particularly true, and important, regarding access to 
our RDs, who are FLRA decision-makers. Access to, and interaction 
with, RDs by the federal sector labor-management community, not only 
builds trust in the FLRA's operations, but also promotes early 
settlements which produce real cost savings.
    Apparently, the FLRA Members supporting the closures do not 
believe that this value still exists. Rather, it is suggested that 
technology has changed the nature of Regional Office work. In other 
words, it does not matter where you are. As long as you have a 
computer, a fax, and a telephone, you can be on top of a mountain 
anywhere in the U.S.A.
    This suggestion is little more than a fabrication. The FLRA is 
in the business of labor-management relations. As is often said, the 
often overlooked word in that phrase is ``relations.'' Constructive 
relationships require direct human interaction. And, notwithstanding 
rapid advances in technology, direct human interaction will continue 
to be a vital element in building constructive labor-management 
relationships for the foreseeable future.
    And, finally, in a related sense, now is the worst time to 
downsize further a dispute-resolution agency like the FLRA. While 
the FLRA is a small agency, accomplishing its mission, including 
timely, quality, and impartial resolution of labor-management 
disputes, is critical to promoting effective and efficient 
performance at EVERY federal agency under its jurisdiction. In other 
words, the FLRA's successful mission performance has a positive 
rippling effect government-wide.
    Given the current effort to streamline federal government 
agencies, there is very likely to be an increase in the number of 
grievances and labor-management disputes. Viewed against this 
background, it is the wrong time to cut further the size and 
resources of a small dispute-resolution agency like the FLRA--
particularly given its many sacrifices and practice of fiscal 
responsibility in recent years.
    Indeed, considering the adverse impact on the FLRA's ability to 
perform its mission, the significant loss of quality employees, and 
the number of silent people who know better, the decision to close 
the Dallas and Boston Regional Offices is not just a shame--it is a 
crying shame.
    The Mind reels.

Ernie DuBester,

Member.
 BILLING CODE 6727-01-P

[[Page 46363]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13SE18.014


[[Page 46364]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13SE18.015


[[Page 46365]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13SE18.016


[[Page 46366]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13SE18.017


[[Page 46367]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13SE18.018


[[Page 46368]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13SE18.019

[FR Doc. 2018-19929 Filed 9-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6727-01-C