51198 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 166 / Wednesday, August 27, 2014 / Notices 

response to this notice, the Department 

intends to submit an ICR to OMB for 

continuing approval. No change to the 

existing ICR is proposed or made at this 

time. The Department notes that an 

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and 

a person is not required to respond to, 

an information collection unless it 

displays a valid OMB control number. A 

summary of the ICR and the current 

burden estimates follows: 

Agency: Employee Benefits Security 

Administration, Department of Labor. 

Title: EBSA Form 700—Certification. 

Type of Review: Revision of a 

currently approved collection of 

information. 

OMB Number: 1210–0150. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households; Business or other for-profit; 

Not-for-profit institutions. 

Respondents: 122. 

Frequency of Responses: Annual. 

Responses: 122. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 102 

(51 for DOL, 51 for HHS). 

Estimated Total Burden Cost 

(Operating and Maintenance): $66 ($33 

for DOL, $33 for HHS). 

III. Desired Focus of Comments 

The Department of Labor 

(Department) is particularly interested 

in comments that: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

• Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., by permitting electronic 

submissions of responses. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the ICR for OMB approval 

of the extension of the information 

collection; they will also become a 

matter of public record. 

Dated: August 19, 2014. 

Joseph S. Piacentini, 

Director, Office of Policy and Research, 

Employee Benefits Security Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2014–20253 Filed 8–22–14; 3:30 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4510–29–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

Final Methodology for Selecting a Job 

Corps Center for Closure and Center 

Selected for Closure: Comments 

Request 

AGENCY: Office of Job Corps, 

Employment and Training 

Administration (ETA), Labor. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Employment and 

Training Administration (ETA) of the 

U.S. Department of Labor (Department 

or DOL) issues this notice to announce 

the Final Methodology for selecting Job 

Corps Centers for closure and one 

selected Job Corps center for closure. 

The Office of Job Corps in ETA 

published a proposed methodology for 

selecting centers for closure at 78 FR 

2284 on January 10, 2013. We received 

a total of eighteen (18) public comments 

in response to this proposal. Based on 

public comments received, the Office of 

Job Corps published a revised 

methodology for selecting centers for 

closure at 79 FR 36823 on June 30, 2014. 

A total of eleven (11) public comments 

were received in response to the second 

draft methodology. After reviewing all 

comments, the Department has decided 

to make no changes to the revised 

methodology. This notice goes on to 

describe how the final methodology was 

used to select Job Corps centers for 

closure and how based on the 

application of the final closure 

methodology, the Treasure Lake Job 

Corps Center in Indiahoma, Oklahoma, 

was selected for closure. The 

methodology is now final, and the 

Department is not accepting further 

comments on the methodology. 

However, the Department requests 

public comment on the selection of the 

Treasure Lake Job Corps center for 

closure. 

DATES: To be ensured consideration, 

comments must be submitted in writing 

on or before September 26, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket Number ETA– 

2014–0002, by only one of the following 

methods: 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the Web 

site instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Mail and hand delivery/courier: 

Submit comments to Lenita JacobsSimmons, Acting National Director, 

Office of Job Corps (OJC), U.S. 

Department of Labor, Employment and 

Training Administration, 200 

Constitution Avenue NW., Room N– 

4459, Washington, DC 20210. Due to 

security-related concerns, there may be 

a significant delay in the receipt of 

submissions by United States Mail. You 

must take this into consideration when 

preparing to meet the deadline for 

submitting comments. The Department 

will post all comments received on 

http://www.regulations.gov without 

making any changes to the comments or 

redacting any information, including 

any personal information provided. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

the Federal e-rulemaking portal and all 

comments posted there are available 

and accessible to the public. The 

Department recommends that 

commenters not include personal 

information such as Social Security 

Numbers, personal addresses, telephone 

numbers, and email addresses in their 

comments that they do not wish to be 

made public, as such submitted 

information will be available to the 

public via the http://

www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Comments submitted through http://

www.regulations.gov will not include 

the email address of the commenter 

unless the commenter chooses to 

include that information as part of his 

or her comment. It is the responsibility 

of the commenter to safeguard personal 

information. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

should include the Docket Number for 

the notice: Docket Number ETA–2014– 

0002. Please submit your comments by 

only one method. Again, please note 

that due to security concerns, postal 

mail delivery in Washington, DC may be 

delayed. Therefore, the Department 

encourages the public to submit 

comments on http://

www.regulations.gov. 

Docket: All comments on the selected 

Job Corps Center for closure will be 

available on the http://

www.regulations.gov Web site. The 

Department also will make all of the 

comments it receives available for 

public inspection by appointment 

during normal business hours at the 

above address. If you need assistance to 

review the comments, the Department 

will provide appropriate aids such as 

readers or print magnifiers. The 

Department will make copies of this 

final methodology and the selected Job 

Corps center for closure available, upon 

request, in large print and electronic file 

on computer disk. To schedule an 

appointment to review the comments 

and/or obtain the notice in an 

alternative format, contact the Office of 

Job Corps at (202) 693–3000 (this is not 

a toll-free number). You may also 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 166 / Wednesday, August 27, 2014 / Notices 51199 

contact this office at the address listed 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lenita Jacobs-Simmons, Acting National 

Director, Office of Job Corps, ETA, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Room N–4463, 

Washington, DC 20210; Telephone (202) 

693–3000 (this is not a toll-free 

number). Individuals with hearing or 

speech impairments may access the 

telephone number above via TTY by 

calling the toll-free Federal Information 

Relay Service at 1–(877) 889–5627 

(TTY/TDD). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background: Established in 1964, Job 

Corps is a national program 

administered by the Employment and 

Training Administration (ETA) in the 

Department of Labor (DOL or 

Department). It is the nation’s largest 

federally-funded, primarily residential 

training program for at-risk youth, ages 

16–24. With 125 centers in 48 states, 

Puerto Rico, and the District of 

Columbia, Job Corps provides 

economically-disadvantaged youth with 

the academic, career technical, and 

employability skills to enter the 

workforce, enroll in post-secondary 

education, or enlist in the military. 

Large and small businesses, nonprofit 

organizations, and Native American 

tribes manage and operate 97 of the Job 

Corps centers through contractual 

agreements with the Department of 

Labor following competitive 

procurement, while 28 centers are 

operated through an interagency 

agreement with the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA). Job Corps also 

receives annual Construction, 

Rehabilitation, and Acquisition (CRA) 

funding to build, maintain, expand, or 

upgrade new and existing facilities at all 

125 centers. 

Pursuing Performance Excellence 

The decision to close any chronically 

low-performing centers identified by the 

final methodology is part of an effort by 

the Department to reform and improve 

the Job Corps program in order to obtain 

better outcomes for students. Job Corps 

is a cost-intensive training program, and 

the Department is seeking to ensure that 

those resources are used to deliver the 

best possible results for students. As 

part of this strategy, the Department 

believes it should no longer invest in 

centers that have demonstrated chronic 

low performance. 

The Department expects to maintain 

the overall level of enrolled students 

throughout any closure process, and 

intends to reinvest savings from closure 

in serving students at higher-performing 

centers. In addition, Job Corps students 

in a chronically low-performing center 

will have the opportunity to either 

complete their training and graduate 

while the center remains open or 

transfer to higher-performing centers if 

additional time is needed to complete 

their training. The Department believes 

it is critical to ensure that the program’s 

resources are deployed in a manner that 

maximizes results for students. 

It is important to note that the 

Department, in making decisions on 

center closures, will maintain at least 

one Job Corps center in each state, the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the 

District of Columbia. (The Department is 

in the process of opening new centers in 

Wyoming and New Hampshire, the two 

states currently without centers.) In 

addition, the methodology set forth in 

this notice permits the Department to 

take into consideration whether a 

center’s closure would have a 

disproportionate impact on students in 

any one state. 

The Department’s ambitious reform 

agenda for Job Corps was discussed in 

the June 30, 2014, Federal Register 

Notice. As part of this reform agenda, 

Job Corps continues to undergo a 

rigorous and comprehensive review of 

its operations and management to 

identify changes that can be made to 

improve the program’s effectiveness and 

efficiency. These changes include, but 

are not limited to, setting higher 

standards for all centers, identifying 

chronically underperforming centers, 

and implementing appropriate 

corrective actions, which may include 

closure. 

For the purpose of identifying 

chronically low-performing centers as 

candidates for closure, DOL has defined 

‘‘chronically low-performing centers’’ as 

those that consistently lagged in overall 

performance over the past five 

consecutive program years without 

evidence of significant recent 

performance improvement. 

Process for Selecting Job Corps Centers 

for Closure 

On August 14, 2012, the Office of Job 

Corps hosted a national Job Corps 

listening session, via webinar, with the 

Job Corps community to solicit input on 

the methodology factors. More than 100 

Job Corps stakeholders participated in 

the session and provided criteria-related 

suggestions in the areas of performance, 

geographic location, local economic 

impact, contract budgets, facilities, and 

the time period for evaluating chronic 

low performance. 

On January 10, 2013, the Office of Job 

Corps published a Federal Register 

Notice requesting public comments on a 

proposed methodology for selecting Job 

Corps centers for closure (78 FR2284). A 

total of 18 public comments were 

received, which we reviewed and 

analyzed. As a result of this analysis, 

DOL revised the methodology factors for 

selection of Job Corps centers for 

closure. The Office of Job Corps also 

proposed additional considerations for 

inclusion as factors in the methodology. 

On June 30, 2014, the Office of Job 

Corps published a second Federal 

Register Notice requesting public 

comments on a revised methodology for 

selecting Job Corps centers for closure 

(79 FR 36823). The comment period for 

the June 30, 2014 Federal Register 

Notice was open from June 30, 2014 to 

July 21, 2014. 

Eleven public comments were 

received in response to the revised 

methodology for selecting Job Corps 

centers for closure. The Department 

considered these comments when 

finalizing the closure methodology. The 

comments are summarized and 

discussed below. 

Three commenters expressed concern 

that the proposed methodology looks at 

a center’s performance relative to other 

centers rather than the center’s 

performance relative to its performance 

goals. The first commenter noted that 

low performance remains undefined, 

stating that looking at a center’s 

performance relative to other centers 

could result in the closure of a center 

that has met its assigned performance 

goals. The two other commenters also 

expressed concern that a center could be 

positively evaluated by the Department 

yet still be closed due to its relative 

performance. 

Job Corps’ Outcome Measurement 

System (OMS) has always used absolute 

ratings and relative rankings. While we 

acknowledge the commenters’ concerns, 

as noted in the previous Federal 

Register notices, the commenters’ 

concerns are theoretical in nature and 

do not apply to the centers at the bottom 

of the rankings. The centers at the 

bottom of the rankings consistently did 

not, in fact, meet their performance 

goals. Moreover closing a center whose 

performance unfavorably compares with 

other centers, and reassigning the 

students to higher performing centers, 

allows the Department to more 

efficiently allocate its resources and 

maximize student outcomes. We believe 

that this approach is fair, as this 

methodology evaluates every center 

against the same measures, goals, and 

weight structures for every program 

year, and is largely based on the OMS, 

which is well known to the Job Corps 

community. Through this methodology, 

DOL was able to identify the center that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

51200 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 166 / Wednesday, August 27, 2014 / Notices 

consistently demonstrated the lowest 

performance outcomes (ratings) from 

Program Year (PY) 2008 to PY 2012. 

DOL received a similar comment 

stating that performance improvement 

should be defined independent of other 

centers’ performance. The commenter 

noted that under the methodology a 

center could meet its performance goals 

and still be selected for closure. For the 

reasons discussed above, we believe that 

using a center’s relative ranking rather 

than absolute performance best 

accomplishes the Department’s goals of 

efficiently allocating resources to 

maximize student outcomes. Moreover, 

those centers at the very bottom of the 

rankings have been chronically unable 

to achieve their performance goals, and 

have consistently underperformed the 

average performance of the rest of the 

system. 

DOL received one comment stating 

that five years (one two-year contract 

term, plus 3 option years) is too short 

a period to make a final determination 

that a center’s low performance is 

chronic and cannot be corrected and 

improved. As noted in the June 30, 2014 

Federal Register Notice, DOL selected 

the five-year performance period 

because it is long enough to incorporate 

both the most recent performance data 

and relatively older data; allows enough 

time to analyze impact of any 

Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs); 

provides a stable basis for comparison, 

since the OMS had no significant 

changes over the past five years; and 

relies on published outcomes that are 

familiar to the Job Corps community. 

The Department, in its June 30 notice, 

also addressed this concern in 

responding to a comment that suggested 

that a ten-year, rather than five-year, 

period be used. While noting that 

different options were considered in 

developing the methodology, the 

Department stated that a five- year 

period provides a sufficient basis to 

assess a center’s performance, and that 

the stability of the OMS for the previous 

five years provides a fair comparison of 

center performance that relies upon 

more recent information. Ultimately, the 

Department believes that looking at a 

five-year period of performance, 

particularly when paired with greater 

weighting of more recent years, most 

effectively ensures that Job Corps 

participants are receiving the highest 

quality services while taking an 

operator’s efforts to improve 

performance into account. Accordingly, 

we have decided to retain the proposed 

definition of chronically low-performing 

centers as measured over a five-year 

period. 

DOL received one comment stating 

that center performance analysis must 

consider the impact and effectiveness of 

the center’s Outreach and Admissions 

(OA) and Career Transition Services 

(CTS) contractors. The commenter 

argued that a center’s OMS and OnBoard Strength (OBS) ratings could be 

adversely affected by the performance of 

the OA and CTS contractors. This could, 

according to the commenter, lead to a 

situation where a center is selected for 

closure because of factors outside of its 

control. 

The Department understands the 

commenter’s concern, and 

acknowledges that a center should not 

be held solely responsible for factors 

independent of its operations. In 

recognition of that concern, the 

proposed weight of the OBS factor in 

the June 30, 2014, Federal Register 

Notice was reduced from 20% to 5%. As 

stated in the June 30, 2014, Federal 

Register Notice, the Department has 

determined that OBS should remain a 

factor and that 5% is the appropriate 

weighting. In addition to OA services, a 

center’s OBS can also be adversely 

affected by a center’s performance. For 

example, students may be more likely to 

drop out of a center if it has low-quality 

programs or has poor control over 

student discipline on center. With 

regard to the commenter’s concern 

about the performance of the CTS 

contractor affecting a center’s 

performance, the Department believes 

CTS is a small factor in a center’s 

overall performance rating. The 

Department believes the same 

performance factors that the program 

has historically used over time are the 

most transparent and equitable means of 

evaluating performance in this 

circumstance. 

Three commenters noted that the 

Department should consider the effect 

of the recent passage of the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act 

(WIOA) of 2014 on the methodology. 

The first commenter noted that DOL 

now has the tools necessary to improve 

performance at Job Corps centers, 

regardless of location. Two commenters 

noted that WIOA expands the ability of 

the Department to take action necessary 

to improve performance at 

underperforming centers. The second 

and third commenters suggested that 

there may be considerable costs for DOL 

associated with the closure of Job Corps 

centers that may be better used to 

improve the performance of the centers 

slated for closure in accordance with the 

recently passed WIOA. 

While WIOA contains new provisions 

that stipulate a specific time by which 

a center’s operator must change because 

of underperformance, the actions 

available to Job Corps to improve 

performance at a center under WIOA are 

consistent with those in the Workforce 

Investment Act (WIA). Waiting until 

WIOA takes effect on July 1, 2015 rather 

than taking action now will adversely 

affect those students who would receive 

a higher quality education and training 

experience if they had the opportunity 

to be served instead by a higher 

performing center. In response to the 

second and third commenters, the 

Department reiterates its position that 

center closure is part of Job Corps’ 

reform agenda, and centers are being 

considered for closure solely on the 

basis of performance. Cost was not a 

factor in the proposed methodology for 

selecting centers for closure. Moreover, 

as noted above, the Department is 

focused on the longer-term costefficiencies that will result from getting 

better results for students with the 

limited federal funds made available for 

the program each year. Finally, we note 

that the Job Corps reform agenda and 

WIOA are ultimately focused on 

improving performance and achieving 

better outcomes. The Department 

believes that implementing its reform 

agenda while implementing WIOA will 

most effectively achieve the goals of 

both and lead to the greatest 

performance improvements across the 

Job Corps system. As new performance 

data becomes available, the Department 

will continue to consider the closure of 

Job Corps Centers as an option where 

warranted and as consistent with 

applicable law, including the 

amendments contained in the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act. 

One commenter expressed concern 

that closing centers is not an effective 

way to reduce program costs, and that 

measures to reduce costs over the past 

two years had a direct impact on 

students and the services provided to 

them. The mission of the Job Corps 

program is to provide economicallydisadvantaged youth with the academic, 

career and technical, and employability 

skills to enter the workforce, enroll in 

post-secondary education, or enlist in 

the military. To achieve that result, it 

must ensure that centers are performing 

at the highest possible level of 

performance to continue to be funded. 

Center closure considerations and the 

closure methodology are based on 

performance, not cost savings. As stated 

above, closing a center whose 

performance unfavorably compares with 

other centers, and reassigning the 

students to higher performing centers, 

allows the Department to more 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 166 / Wednesday, August 27, 2014 / Notices 51201 

efficiently allocate its resources and 

maximize student outcomes. 

Three commenters expressed concern 

about the Department’s decision to use 

data from PY 2011 and 2012. One 

commenter expressed concern that 

actions taken by centers at the behest of 

DOL during these program years, such 

as hiring freezes, could, at least in part, 

account for negative performance during 

that time period. The commenter further 

expressed concern that different cuts 

were imposed on Civilian Conservation 

Centers than were imposed on contract 

centers that almost certainly impacted 

their relative performance. The second 

commenter noted that the methodology 

uses data from program years when the 

program experienced budget shortfalls 

necessitating a system-wide enrollment 

freeze and a hiring freeze and layoffs at 

centers. The commenter believes that 

use of data from these years will result 

in a flawed assessment that does not 

accurately reflect the performance of 

individual centers. 

While the methodology uses data 

from these two program years, which 

included the program adjustments 

identified by the commenters, the 

Department does not believe that use of 

this data is prejudicial. The impact of 

the budget constraints and enrollment 

freeze were spread evenly and equally 

across the entire Job Corps system. 

Despite the programmatic adjustments 

that were made by the Department in 

the referenced years, the performance 

results in PY 2012 and PY 2011 were 

actually better than PY 2010 on most of 

the program’s performance measures. 

Rather than have a negative effect on 

performance, the program adjustments 

were followed by generally better 

performance outcomes for the entire 

system. Students received more 

concentrated services and had better 

outcomes during the period of the 

enrollment suspension. In addition, the 

center rankings did not change 

materially during this period. 

One commenter stated that while the 

draft methodology provides protection 

for states with only a single center, it is 

silent with respect to states that send 

students outside of their state due to 

lack of training slots, and that 

consideration should be made to centers 

in states that enroll significantly higher 

numbers of students compared to slot 

capacity. While the commenter’s 

concern regarding enrollment relative to 

slot capacity is reflected in the inclusion 

of OBS as one of the primary criteria in 

the closure methodology, the 

Department did not include the number 

of students from the state as part of the 

proposed methodology. DOL expects a 

center will perform well and produce 

good outcomes with the students that it 

receives, regardless of the student’s state 

of origin. 

One commenter stated that in recent 

years the Federal government has made 

substantial capital investments in the 

Job Corps program and its centers 

through the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Due to the 

scale of these construction projects, the 

commenter believes that many are just 

being completed and are not captured in 

the Facility Condition Index (FCI) 

scores. The Department agrees there will 

always be ongoing construction projects 

that will not be reflected in the most 

current snapshot of FCI results. The 

Department believes that the reduction 

of the FCI weighting factor from 10% to 

5%, as discussed in the June 30 Notice, 

balances the importance of the 

Department’s investments in center 

facilities with the realization that a 

center’s FCI score is not entirely under 

the control of center operators. 

Accordingly, the Department has 

decided not to take further action 

regarding the FCI criteria. 

Four commenters requested that DOL 

consider the impact of closing a center 

on the local economy and take it into 

account. The Department recognizes the 

beneficial effects of a center’s operation 

on a given local area, and that closing 

such a center may affect that local 

economy. However, the core mission of 

the Job Corps program is to train 

students to become more employable, 

responsible, and productive citizens. 

The Department’s intent is to ensure 

high-quality training for America’s 

youth by improving performance of the 

entire training system. The center 

closure methodology is based on the 

overall performance of centers 

considered for closure, and economic 

impact was not a factor in determining 

a center’s performance. 

Several commenters provided 

comments related to the operation and 

management of individual centers and 

program budgetary constraints. To the 

extent that these comments did not 

address any changes to the proposed 

methodology, they were noted as 

received but outside the scope of the 

requested response to the proposed 

methodology. 

Final Methodology for Selecting a Job 

Corps Center for Closure 

Provided below is a description of the 

final methodology: 

As the Department proposed in both 

the January 10, 2013 Federal Register 

Notice and June 30, 2014 Federal 

Register Notice, DOL used the following 

primary criteria against which all 

centers were measured: 

1. Five-year OMS performance level; 

2. Five-year OBS; and 

3. Five-year FCI. 

After ranking the centers based on the 

primary criteria, DOL then applied the 

following additional considerations: 

1. Continued availability of Job Corps 

services in each state, the District of 

Columbia, and Puerto Rico; 

2. Sufficiency of data available to 

evaluate center performance over five 

years; 

3. Indication of significant recent 

performance improvement; and 

4. Job Corps’ continuing commitment 

to diversity. 

1. Five-Year Performance Levels 

Given that the Job Corps’ performance 

metrics provide a comprehensive 

assessment of center performance, allow 

for comparison of performance among 

centers, and supply enough data for 

decision makers to determine trends 

over time, the OMS performance data 

are the primary factor in selecting a 

center for closure. The Department 

believes this approach is the most 

equitable and transparent for both 

stakeholders and the public, as these 

published performance metrics have 

driven center performance and 

programmatic decisions for over a 

decade. 

The Department used the final closure 

methodology to evaluate each center’s 

overall OMS ratings for five full 

program years to derive a weighted fiveyear average performance rating. The 

final methodology uses OMS 

performance data for PY 2008–2012, 

with recent years receiving a greater 

weight than earlier years. Further, the 

original OMS ratings for each of the five 

program years, which exceeded 100% 

for some centers, were normalized at 

one hundred percent (100%) to be 

consistent with OBS and FCI. 

‘‘Normalized’’ means the data has been 

placed on a 100-point scale. The 

calculation formula for the final 

methodology also contains normalized 

data for OMS. 

The year-by-year weighted structure is 

as follows: 

PY 2012 30% 

PY 2011 25% 

PY 2010 20% 

PY 2009 15% 

PY 2008 10% 

Total: 100% 

The calculation formula for five-year 

performance for the final closure 

methodology is as follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

51202 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 166 / Wednesday, August 27, 2014 / Notices 

Center’s Five-Year Weighted Average 

Rating μ 90% = Overall Performance 

Rating 

2. On-Board Strength 

On-Board Strength is an efficiency 

rating that demonstrates the extent to 

which a center operates at full capacity. 

The measure is reported as a percentage, 

calculated by the actual slot capacity 

divided by the planned slot capacity 

(daily number of students that a center 

is authorized to serve). The national 

goal for OBS is 100% in order to operate 

the program at full capacity, maximize 

program resources, and fulfill the 

mission of serving the underserved 

student population. 

This criterion of the methodology 

evaluates each center’s end of Program 

Year OBS rating for five full program 

years to derive a five-year average 

rating. As explained above in the 

context of OMS data, the June 30, 2014, 

Federal Register Notice proposed that 

the revised closure methodology would 

use OBS data from the five-year period 

of PY 2008–2012. As noted in the June 

30, 2014, Federal Register Notice, the 

May 31, 2012 PY–COBS report will be 

used as the basis for assessing centerlevel OBS performance for PY 2011. The 

January 31, 2013, PY–COBS report will 

be used as the basis for assessing centerlevel OBS performance for PY 2012. 

The final closure methodology 

weights each of the five program year’s 

OBS data, with recent years receiving 

more weight to incorporate performance 

improvement. Finally, the OBS ratings 

for each of the five program years were 

normalized at one hundred percent 

(100%) so as to be consistent with the 

OMS and FCI data. 

The year-by-year weighted structure is 

as follows: 

PY 2012 30% 

PY 2011 25% 

PY 2010 20% 

PY 2009 15% 

PY 2008 10% 

Total: 100% 

The calculation formula for five-year 

OBS for the final closure methodology 

is as follows: 

Center’s Five-Year Weighted Average 

Cumulative OBS μ 5% = Overall OBS 

Rating 

3. Facility Condition and Physical Plant 

For a program that operates 24 hours 

per day, seven days per week and is 

primarily residential, facility conditions 

are important. The quality of Job Corps’ 

residential and learning facilities has a 

direct impact on students’ experiences 

and, ultimately, their educational 

achievement. Each Job Corps center is a 

fully operational complex with 

academic and career technical training 

facilities, dining and recreation 

buildings, administrative offices, and 

residence halls (with the exception of 

solely non-residential facilities), 

including the surrounding owned or 

leased property on which the center is 

located. 

To properly manage the program’s 

facility and condition needs, Job Corps 

uses the FCI and gives each center an 

annual rating. This rating, which is 

expressed as a percentage, accounts for 

the value of a center’s construction, 

rehabilitation, and repair backlog, as 

compared to the replacement value of 

the center’s facilities. Facility condition 

affects the outcomes of the Job Corps 

program because good outcomes begin 

with facilities that contribute to a safe 

learning environment. 

For this factor, the Department 

evaluated each center’s PY 2008–PY 

2012 FCI, which takes into account all 

construction projects completed over 

the same five-year period as the other 

two factors. 

As with the performance and OBS 

criteria, the final closure methodology 

applies weights to each of the five 

program year’s FCI data, with recent 

years receiving more weight to 

incorporate any recent improvement. 

The year-by-year weighted structure is 

as follows: 

PY 2012 30% 

PY 2011 25% 

PY 2010 20% 

PY 2009 15% 

PY 2008 10% 

Total: 100% 

The calculation formula for FCI for 

the final closure methodology is as 

follows: 

Center’s Five-Year Weighted Average 

FCI Rating μ 5% = Overall FCI Rating 

Ranking Centers for Closure 

Applying the factors above yielded an 

overall rating for each center. This 

allowed DOL to create a list that ranked 

all centers based on historical 

performance, with the lowest 

performing center receiving the lowest 

rating. The calculation formula for the 

final methodology is as follows: 

Overall OMS Performance Rating 

(90%).

+ Overall OBS Rating 

(5%).

+ Overall FCI Rating 

(5%).

= Overall Rating for 

Primary Selection 

Factors. 

4. Other Considerations Included in the 

Final Closure Methodology 

In addition to the methodology 

described above, the Department will 

utilize the following additional criteria: 

a. Job Corps Services in Each State, 

Puerto Rico, and the District of 

Columbia. The Department is 

committed to providing services in a 

broad geographic area. In implementing 

the methodology, DOL ensured that it 

maintained at least one Job Corps center 

in each state, the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico, and the District of 

Columbia, and took into consideration 

whether a center’s closure would have 

a disproportionate impact on the 

training opportunities for students in 

any one state. 

b. Sufficiency of Data Available to 

Evaluate Center Performance. The 

centers in Ottumwa, Milwaukee, 

Pinellas, Denison, Long Beach, Gulfport 

and New Orleans are not included for 

consideration for closure. For each of 

these centers, there is not enough OMS 

data to evaluate the center’s 

performance over the full five-year 

performance period. The reasons for the 

lack of five years’ continuous data for 

these centers include: New centers were 

opened during the five-year 

performance period (Ottumwa and 

Milwaukee); centers were excluded 

from OMS evaluation because of their 

selection as Center for Excellence (CFE) 

pilot sites (Pinellas County, Denison, 

and Long Beach); and centers were 

temporarily closed because of damage 

received during Hurricane Katrina 

(Gulfport and New Orleans). 

c. Indication of Significant Recent 

Performance Improvement. The 

Department determined that performing 

in the top half of centers in PY 2013 

should be taken as evidence of 

significant recent performance 

improvement. Therefore, a center was 

removed from closure consideration if it 

demonstrated significant improvement 

in PY 2013, the most recent full year of 

performance data. 

d. Job Corps’ Commitment to 

Diversity. Job Corps currently serves a 

diverse student population and remains 

committed to serving disadvantaged 

youth from all backgrounds. In making 

final closure decisions, we considered 

whether a center’s closure would result 

in a significant reduction in student 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 166 / Wednesday, August 27, 2014 / Notices 51203 

diversity within the overall Job Corps 

system. 

Job Corps Center Selected for Closure 

Chronic underperformance in a 

center, despite repeated and varied 

efforts by the Department to improve its 

performance, is a circumstance that 

cannot be allowed to persist. Closing 

such a center not only allows the 

program to better serve the nation’s 

youth in acquiring career skills through 

quality job training, but also results in 

a more effective use of the program’s 

resources. 

Based on the final closure 

methodology and the additional 

considerations described above, the 

Treasure Lake Job Corps center has been 

selected for closure. 

In applying the final closure 

methodology, the Department first 

calculated the five-year OMS 

performance level, the five-year OBS, 

and the five-year FCI and then 

calculated the Overall Rating for 

Primary Selection Factors, as described 

above. Treasure Lake clearly received 

the lowest Overall Rating for Primary 

Selection Factors and, therefore, the 

lowest ranking. After ranking the 

centers based on the primary criteria, 

the Department then applied the 

additional considerations and 

determined that none of the additional 

considerations prevented the selection 

of Treasure Lake for closure. The 

Department is requesting public 

comments on the Treasure Lake Job 

Corps center’s selection for closure. 

The Department will implement the 

closure process pursuant to the center 

closure requirements outlined in the 

WIA at section 159(g) and as stipulated 

in the DOL/USDA Interagency 

Agreement. 

The Process for Closing Job Corps 

Centers, as Outlined in the Workforce 

Investment Act 

The Department will ensure that our 

process for closing Job Corps centers 

will follow the requirements of section 

159(g) of the WIA, which include the 

following: 

• The proposed decision to close a 

particular center is announced in 

advance to the general public through 

publication in the Federal Register or 

other appropriate means; 

• A reasonable comment period, not 

to exceed 30 days, is established for 

interested individuals to submit written 

comments to the Secretary; and 

• The Member of Congress who 

represents the district in which such 

center is located is notified within a 

reasonable period of time in advance of 

any final decision to close the center. 

This Notice serves as the public 

announcement of the decision to close 

Treasure Lake. The Department is 

providing a 30-day period for interested 

individuals to submit written comments 

on the decision. 

Portia Wu, 

Assistant Secretary for Employment and 

Training. 

[FR Doc. 2014–20334 Filed 8–26–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FT–P 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET 

OMB Sequestration Update Report to 

the President and Congress for Fiscal 

Year 2015 

AGENCY: Executive Office of the 

President, Office of Management and 

Budget. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of the 

OMB Sequestration Update Report to 

the President and Congress for FY 2015. 

SUMMARY: OMB is issuing the OMB 

Sequestration Update Report to the 

President and Congress for FY 2015 to 

report on the status of the discretionary 

caps and on the compliance of pending 

discretionary appropriations legislation 

with those caps. The report finds that if 

the current limits remain unchanged, 

under OMB’s estimates Senate action to 

date for the 12 annual appropriations 

bills for fiscal year 2015 would result in 

a sequestration of approximately $34 

million in discretionary programs in the 

defense category. The report also finds 

that actions by the House of 

Representatives for both the defense and 

non-defense categories and actions by 

the Senate for the non-defense category 

are in compliance with the current 2015 

spending limits and that present House 

and Senate action on pending 2014 

supplemental appropriations would not 

breach the current 2014 limits. Finally, 

the report also contains OMB’s Preview 

Estimate of the Disaster Relief Funding 

Adjustment for FY 2015. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 20, 2013. 

Section 254 of the Balanced Budget and 

Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, 

as amended, requires the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) to issue 

a Sequestration Update Report on 

August 20th of each year. With regard 

to this update report and to each of the 

three required sequestration reports, 

section 254(b) specifically states the 

following: 

SUBMISSION AND AVAILABILITY OF 

REPORTS.—Each report required by this 

section shall be submitted, in the case of 

CBO, to the House of Representatives, the 

Senate and OMB and, in the case of OMB, 

to the House of Representatives, the Senate, 

and the President on the day it is issued. On 

the following day a notice of the report shall 

be printed in the Federal Register. 

ADDRESSES: The OMB Sequestration 

Reports to the President and Congress is 

available on-line on the OMB home 

page at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/

omb/legislative_reports/sequestration. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Tobasko, 6202 New Executive 

Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, 

Email address: ttobasko@omb.eop.gov, 

telephone number: (202) 395–5745, FAX 

number: (202) 395–4768. Because of 

delays in the receipt of regular mail 

related to security screening, 

respondents are encouraged to use 

electronic communications. 

Shaun Donovan, 

Director. 

[FR Doc. 2014–20327 Filed 8–26–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION 

SAFETY BOARD 

Sunshine Act Meeting 

Agenda 

TIME AND DATE: 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, 

September 9, 2014. 

PLACE: NTSB Conference Center, 429 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 

20594. 

STATUS: The two items are open to the 

public. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

8533A Aircraft Accident Report— 

Crash During a Nighttime 

Nonprecision Instrument Approach 

to Landing, UPS flight 1354, Airbus 

A300, N155UP, Birmingham, 

Alabama, August 14, 2013. 

8565A Safety Study on Drug Use 

Trends in Aviation: Assessing the 

Risk of Pilot Impairment and Safety 

Alert about Understanding 

Impairment Risk. 

NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Telephone: (202) 

314–6100. 

The press and public may enter the 

NTSB Conference Center one hour prior 

to the meeting for set up and seating. 

Individuals requesting specific 

accommodations should contact 

Rochelle Hall at (202) 314–6305 or by 

email at Rochelle.Hall@ntsb.gov by 

Wednesday, September 3, 2014. 

The public may view the meeting via 

a live or archived webcast by accessing 

a link under ‘‘News & Events’’ on the 

NTSB home page at www.ntsb.gov. 

Schedule updates, including weatherrelated cancellations, are also available 

at www.ntsb.gov. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES