43250 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2016 / Notices 

2. The Title of the Form/Collection: 

Assessing Potential Benefits of 

Accessible Web Content for Individuals 

Who Are Blind. 

3. The agency form number, if any, 

and the applicable component of the 

Department sponsoring the collection: 

Form Number: None. 

Component: The applicable 

component within the Department of 

Justice is the Disability Rights Section in 

the Civil Rights Division. 

Affected public who will be asked to 

respond, as well as a brief abstract: 

Affected public (Primary): Individuals 

who are blind. 

Affected Public (Other): None. 

Abstract: DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, 

Disability Rights Section, is requesting 

PRA approval of a new information 

collection to assess potential benefits of 

accessible Web content to individuals 

who are blind and to inform future 

rulemaking under the Americans with 

Disabilities Act. DOJ proposes to have 

respondents who are blind interact with 

Web content that has high accessibility 

and low accessibility to assess any time 

savings that people who are blind 

experience when interacting with 

accessible Web content. The collection 

will also request additional information 

regarding challenges, if any, 

experienced by respondents while 

interacting with inaccessible Web 

content. 

5. An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond: An estimated 30 respondents 

will participate at three hours per 

respondent. All of the respondents will 

fully complete the collection. 

6. An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: The estimated public burden 

associated with this collection is 90 

hours. It is estimated that respondents 

will take an average of three hours to 

complete the process. The burden hours 

for collecting respondent data sum to 90 

hours (30 respondents × 3 hours = 90 

hours). 

If additional information is required 

contact: Jerri Murray, Department 

Clearance Officer, United States 

Department of Justice, Justice 

Management Division, Policy and 

Planning Staff, Two Constitution 

Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, 

Washington, DC 20530. 

Dated: June 28, 2016. 

Jerri Murray, 

Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2016–15670 Filed 6–30–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Proposed 

Consent Decree Under the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act 

On June 27, 2016, the Department of 

Justice lodged a proposed Consent 

Decree with the United States District 

Court for the District of Montana, 

Helena Division, in the lawsuit entitled 

United States v. American Chemet 

Corporation, Case No. 6:16–cv–00053– 

CCL. 

The Consent Decree resolves the 

claims of the United States set forth in 

the complaint against American Chemet 

Corporation for injunctive relief and 

costs to be incurred in connection with 

the East Helena Superfund Site (‘‘Site’’), 

located in East Helena, Lewis and Clark 

County, Montana, pursuant to Sections 

106 and 107 of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607. 

Under the Consent Decree, the settling 

defendant agrees to finance and perform 

the work for the Site and to reimburse 

future costs to be incurred by the United 

States Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

The publication of this notice opens 

a period for public comment on the 

Consent Decree. Comments should be 

addressed to the Assistant Attorney 

General, Environment and Natural 

Resources Division, and should refer to 

United States v. American Chemet 

Corporation, D.J. Ref. No. 90–11–3– 

11122. All comments must be submitted 

no later than thirty (30) days after the 

publication date of this notice. 

Comments may be submitted either by 

email or by mail: 

To submit 

comments: Send them to: 

By e-mail ...... pubcomment-ees.enrd@

usdoj.gov. 

By mail ......... Assistant Attorney General, 

U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. 

Box 7611, Washington, DC 

20044–7611. 

During the public comment period, 

the Consent Decree may be examined 

and downloaded at this Justice 

Department Web site: https://

www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_

Decrees.html. We will provide a paper 

copy of the Consent Decree upon 

written request and payment of 

reproduction costs. Please mail your 

request and payment to: Consent Decree 

Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 

7611, Washington, DC 20044–7611. 

Please enclose a check or money order 

for $16.00 (25 cents per page 

reproduction cost) payable to the United 

States Treasury. For a paper copy 

without the appendices and signature 

pages, the cost is $11.50. 

Robert Brook, 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. 2016–15658 Filed 6–30–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

Final Notice of Job Corps Center for 

Closure 

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 (the 

Department or DOL) issues this notice to 

announce its final decision to close the 

Ouachita Civilian Conservation Center 

(Ouachita) in Royal, Arkansas. The 

Office of Job Corps (OJC) in ETA 

published an updated methodology for 

selecting a Job Corps Center for closure 

and requested comments on the 

proposed decision to close Ouachita at 

81 FR 12529 on March 9, 2016. A total 

of 292 public comments were received 

in response to the proposal to close 

Ouachita. After reviewing all comments, 

the Department has decided to close the 

Ouachita Job Corps Center. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lenita Jacobs-Simmons, 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

I. Closure Criteria 

The Department originally announced 

its methodology for determining 

whether to close a center based on 

chronic low performance in the Federal 

Register at 79 FR 51198 on August 27, 

2014. The March 9, 2016, Federal 

Register Notice did not alter this 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2016 / Notices 43251 

criterion except for changing the fiveyear period of data reviewed from 

Program Years (PYs) 2008–2012 to the 

most recent five years available. 

Comments were not requested on the 

performance-based criteria in proposing 

the closure of the Ouachita Center. 

The March 9, 2016, Federal Register 

Notice also added two additional 

criteria for the closure of a Job Corps 

center: Closure based on a joint decision 

of the Secretaries of Labor and 

Agriculture, as described in a December 

2014 report to Congress; and closure 

based on an evaluation of the effort 

required to provide a high-quality 

education and training program at the 

center. The Department did not use 

either of these criteria in proposing or 

evaluating the Ouachita Center for 

closure. Comments were not requested 

on these closure criteria. 

II. Background of the Job Corps 

Program and Process of Selecting a 

Center for Closure 

The Job Corps program, with centers 

across the country, seeks to change lives 

through education and job training for 

in-demand careers. Job Corps serves atrisk young people who are overcoming 

major challenges, which can include 

deep poverty, homelessness, or multiple 

foster care placements. The program 

represents the core American value that 

no matter who you are or where you 

come from, you should have the 

opportunity to succeed. 

On March 9, 2016, the Department 

proposed to close Ouachita under the 

chronic low-performance criterion. 

Using data from PY 2010–2014, OJC 

calculated each center’s Overall Rating 

based on the center’s five-year Outcome 

Measurement System (OMS) 

performance level, the five-year OnBoard Strength (OBS), and the five-year 

Facility Condition Index. Based on this 

methodology, Ouachita received the 

lowest Overall Rating and, therefore, the 

lowest ranking of all centers considered. 

After ranking the centers based on the 

primary criteria, the Department then 

applied the four additional 

considerations and determined that 

none of those considerations precluded 

the closure of Ouachita. 

III. Summary of Comments and 

Discussion 

The comment period was open from 

March 9, 2016, through April 8, 2016. 

Two hundred ninety-two public 

comments were received in response to 

the proposal to close Ouachita. After 

considering these comments, the 

Department has decided to close the 

Ouachita Civilian Conservation Center 

due to its chronic low performance. The 

Department has concluded that 

Ouachita’s chronic inability to meet 

performance goals necessitates its 

closure and the reallocation of these 

student slots and resources to higherperforming Job Corps facilities. The 

Department has also concluded that 

closing this Center will not reduce the 

overall number of students who can be 

served in Job Corps. 

The comments are summarized briefly 

and discussed below. 

Two commenters generally support 

Job Corps’ decision to close the 

Ouachita Job Corps Center. A current 

student said he was not receiving 

adequate instruction in his trade 

because his instructor is never there. A 

member of the community commented 

that the center has been going downhill 

for the past five years; the commenter 

says that morale among the students is 

low and that there is racism and 

backstabbing among the staff. 

Three commenters requested an 

extension of the 30-day comment 

period. Section 159(j)(2) of the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act (WIOA) provides that prior to the 

closure of any Job Corps center, the 

Department must establish ‘‘a 

reasonable comment period, not to 

exceed 30 days, for interested 

individuals to submit written comments 

to the Secretary.’’ The comment 

deadline of April 8, 2016, reflected the 

30-day maximum. By statute, the 

Department could not extend the 

comment period on this proposed 

closure. 

A large number of commenters 

generally expressed the view that the 

Department should not close Ouachita 

because of the effect that closure would 

have on the community. Several 

commenters urged DOL to maintain 

Ouachita because of recent steps the 

center has taken to work with local 

schools, with commenters asserting that 

the program could support a new 

Arkansas state employment initiative. 

DOL recognizes the beneficial effects of 

a center’s operation on its local area, 

and that closing a center may indirectly 

affect the local economy and the broader 

community. However, the core mission 

of the Job Corps program is to train 

students to become more employable, 

responsible, and productive citizens. 

The closure of Ouachita advances this 

mission by allowing OJC to shift these 

resources and opportunities to higherperforming centers, thereby improving 

the performance of the entire Job Corps 

system and ensuring that students have 

the best opportunity to succeed. 

Many commenters expressed their 

concern that current and future Job 

Corps students will suffer if the center 

closes. DOL appreciates the concern but 

is confident that disruption to students 

can be minimized while ensuring that 

current and future students have access 

to a higher performing Job Corps center. 

All students currently enrolled at 

Ouachita will have the opportunity to 

complete their training and graduate 

while the center remains open or 

transfer to higher-performing centers in 

Arkansas or the region. In addition, 

prospective students from Arkansas will 

continue to be served by the two other 

centers in the state, as well as other 

centers in the region that offer training 

in the area they wish to pursue. Given 

Ouachita’s chronic poor performance, 

we have concluded that current and 

future students will be better served at 

higher performing centers. 

Multiple commenters suggested that 

the decision to close Ouachita be 

delayed. Several urged DOL to provide 

the center with additional resources and 

give it the opportunity to improve its 

performance. Another commenter 

suggested that the center be closed 

down temporarily so that the center and 

its management could be retooled. Other 

commenters suggested that other 

options and strategies be considered 

before closing the center. Finally, one 

commenter asked the decision be 

delayed until the Department presents 

an alternative plan to Congress that 

includes providing direct technical 

assistance to the U.S. Forest Service, 

which operates the center. 

DOL has concluded that these 

suggestions will not lead to improved 

center performance and that the 

resources will be better utilized at 

higher preforming centers. DOL and the 

Forest Service’s parent agency, the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), have 

used numerous performance 

improvement tools and strategies at 

Ouachita over several years, including 

intensive oversight and interventions; 

however, the center has continued to 

chronically underperform. Ouachita has 

been on a Performance Improvement 

Plan (PIP) for five years. For the last four 

Program Years, the center received more 

frequent on-site visits, audits, and direct 

technical assistance from DOL and the 

USDA. During the year prior to the 

proposal for closure, Job Corps and the 

Forest Service made additional 

concerted, targeted efforts to improve 

Ouachita’s performance, including 

implementing an interagency 

performance improvement team. Even 

with these efforts, Ouachita failed to 

meet a single OMS goal for on-center 

measures during PY 2014, the most 

recent complete program year for which 

data is available. Additionally, before 

proposing Ouachita for closure, the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
43252 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2016 / Notices 

Department applied an additional 

consideration, as discussed in the 

published closure methodology, of 

whether there had been significant 

recent performance improvements as 

the center. There had not. This 

prolonged inability to improve 

performance indicates that additional 

resources and efforts are not likely to be 

successful and thus should not be 

expended. Balanced against the lost 

opportunity to current and future 

students to improve their lives by 

attending a higher-performing center, 

the Department has concluded that 

closing Ouachita achieves the best 

outcome for the Job Corps program and 

its students. 

Some commenters complained that 

Ouachita has not received adequate 

resources or support from DOL and the 

Forest Service. Some of these 

commenters asserted that the center 

should not be closed because it has been 

targeted by DOL or the USDA or because 

it has been poorly managed by the 

Forest Service. Others argued DOL has 

specifically targeted Civilian 

Conservation Centers (CCCs) for closure, 

or attributed the low performance of 

Ouachita to problems between the 

Forest Service and DOL. Several said it 

is incumbent upon the Forest Service 

and DOL to devise a reasonable solution 

to fix the problem of Ouachita’s poor 

performance. Two commenters stated 

that Ouachita should not be closed 

because it has undergone too many 

changes in leadership over the last 

several years. 

Neither the Department nor the Forest 

Service has targeted Ouachita for 

closure, nor has the Department targeted 

CCCs in general for closure. DOL’s 

decision to close Ouachita is based on 

its chronic low-performance over the 

last five years, not on the entity that 

operates the center. The Department has 

worked, and will continue to work, with 

the Forest Service to improve the CCCs 

and maintain their important role 

within the Job Corps system. As noted 

above, DOL and USDA cooperated to 

provide significant resources toward 

improving Ouachita’s poor performance. 

Despite these efforts the center’s 

performance showed no sustained 

improvement, and the Department does 

not think investment of additional time 

or resources will lead to improved 

performance at the center. Finally, the 

Department understands the 

commenters’ concerns that frequent 

changes in leadership could affect 

improvement efforts at a struggling 

center. However, center management 

failed to make substantial improvements 

even with intensive federal assistance in 

PY2014. 

Four commenters stated that the 

center should remain open because of 

its historical significance. While DOL 

agrees that the potential historical 

nature of any building is important, 

historical significance itself is not a 

reason to keep a center in operation and 

serving students. By law, the possible 

historical significance of the center must 

be taken into account in determining the 

future use of the property. 

One individual commented that 

Ouachita should remain open because it 

is one of only six Job Corps centers 

offering the urban forestry trade. 

Students currently in the urban forestry 

trade at Ouachita will have an 

opportunity to complete their training at 

Ouachita or transfer to a higher 

performing center offering the trade. 

Additionally, each Job Corps center 

regularly evaluates its career technical 

training offerings by reviewing local 

labor market information to determine 

in-demand industry sectors and identify 

emerging occupations suitable for its 

training program. These regular 

evaluations and other relevant 

information will determine whether 

there is a need for another center to offer 

training in the urban forestry trade. 

Another commenter discussed the 

unique role played by the rural CCCs, 

praising services—including fire 

suppression and controlled burns, 

among others—that CCCs provide to 

small communities and the skills 

students learn by aiding in the provision 

of those services. The Department agrees 

that Job Corps provides valuable 

services to smaller communities. 

However, the primary mission of the 

program is the education and 

employment of disadvantaged youth, 

and the Department has determined that 

continuing to operate Ouachita is not in 

the best interest of students or the 

program as a whole because of the 

center’s chronic poor performance. 

One commenter expressed opposition 

to the proposed decision to close the 

center because he believes student 

recruitment is treated differently for 

Forest Service-operated centers than 

contractor-operated centers. This 

commenter also stated that Forest 

Service-operated centers are at a 

disadvantage because they more strictly 

enforce safety rules and Job Corps’ zerotolerance policy, resulting in the 

termination of more students. However, 

another commenter had a contrary view, 

stating Ouachita staff and leadership are 

afraid to dismiss students from the 

program in accordance with the zerotolerance policy, even for ‘‘major 

offenses.’’ All Job Corps centers, 

including CCCs operated by the Forest 

Service, must comply with all 

requirements of the program as outlined 

in the Job Corps Policy and 

Requirements Handbook (PRH), 

including compliance with the 

discipline policy. Recruitment 

procedures and standards also are the 

same regardless of the type of center 

operator. 

Some commenters alleged that DOL 

has not done enough to ensure a 

sufficient number of students are 

recruited for Ouachita, and several 

commenters asserted that the Outreach 

and Admissions (OA) provider has 

suppressed the center’s OBS, either 

intentionally or through poor 

performance. Some commenters blamed 

Job Corps’ Dallas Regional Office for 

these problems, asserting that the center 

is low performing because Job Corps has 

not assisted with providing more 

applicants from Arkansas and other 

states. One commenter complained that 

the standards for maintaining OBS 

unfairly affected Ouachita because the 

contractor is not recruiting students 

who are committed to the program and 

thus leave within the first 90 days. This 

commenter and other commenters 

complained that OBS goals are too 

difficult with the challenging students 

Ouachita receives. Some commenters 

stated that the present OA contractor for 

Arkansas operates the Little Rock Job 

Corps Center, which is incorrect. 

Ouachita has received a steady 

number of referrals of prospective 

students over the last year from the OA 

contractor currently serving Arkansas. 

For calendar year 2015, Ouachita 

received referrals of 246 prospective 

students from the OA contractor, which 

resulted in 213 students enrolling at the 

center. This is above the OA contract’s 

annual goal, which is to facilitate the 

enrollment of 209 students at Ouachita 

each year. Further, while OBS is part of 

the chronic low-performance closure 

methodology, it is only 5 percent of the 

calculation that determines the center’s 

rank. In contrast, OMS performance, 

which measures the academic and 

career outcomes a center produces for 

its students, is 90 percent. Thus, while 

OBS was a factor in identifying the 

center as low-performing, it was not the 

predominant factor. The center’s 

consistent failure to produce the 

outcomes Job Corps expects for its 

students, as measured through the OMS, 

was the primary factor. 

Ouachita has had a high rate of 

terminations and an unacceptably short 

length of stay for many students, which 

is reflected in the center’s OMS data. In 

PY 2014, 30.2 percent of Ouachita 

students left the center within the first 

90 days, versus only 20.9 percent 

nationally. Even after the performance 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2016 / Notices 43253 

improvement team provided additional 

technical assistance, the length of stay 

for students remained unacceptably low 

and the center was not able to meet its 

OMS or OBS goals. Job Corps is a 

training program for at-risk youth, and 

is designed to help young people who 

have failed in school and who have 

other challenges to change the direction 

of their lives and become productive 

participants in the labor force. Many of 

Job Corps’ students face challenges in 

committing to the program and 

complying with program rules, 

particularly those who have difficulty in 

a structured environment. While some 

commenters blamed the OA contractor 

for recruiting students who were not 

committed to the program, part of the 

center’s role is to help students 

transition and adjust to center life—and 

to understand the rewards to sticking 

with the program. A high termination 

rate is an indication that a center is 

unable to meet this basic but critical 

element of Job Corps’ operation. 

One commenter requested that DOL 

speed the process of admission to a 

center, noting that four applicants from 

students at a high school were waiting 

for a placement and asserting that Job 

Corps ‘‘is a vital organization that needs 

to be saved’’ for students who cannot 

perform in school. As stated throughout, 

the Department is committed to the 

future of the Job Corps program and will 

maintain current opportunities for 

eligible Arkansas youth to participate, 

even with Ouachita’s closure. DOL 

cannot speak to the specific admissions 

issues for the four applicants referenced 

in the comment, but it works to ensure 

an efficient process for reviewing 

applications and admitting qualified 

applicants to the program. 

One commenter asserted that 

Ouachita’s performance was adversely 

affected by the nationwide moratorium 

on changing trades offered at centers 

that began in 2010. In PY 2010, Job 

Corps temporarily stopped accepting 

requests for trade changes outside of its 

ongoing process to modernize its Career 

Technical Training (CTT) program. 

During this process, trade-change 

requests made by Forest Service centers 

on PIPs, including Ouachita, continued 

to be accepted. In fact, these centers’ 

trade-change requests were processed 

on an accelerated track. Ouachita, 

however, made no trade-change request. 

Multiple commenters stated that Job 

Corps must account for the different 

backgrounds and challenges of students 

at Ouachita. Some stated that students 

arrived at Ouachita with serious 

medical, mental health, and drug 

problems. Every Job Corps center is 

expected to deliver the best outcome for 

its students regardless of those students’ 

backgrounds. OJC recognizes that Job 

Corps students enter the program with 

a variety of challenges, including those 

identified by the commenters, but part 

of a center’s role is to identify any 

challenges each student has and 

develop strategies to address those 

challenges. Ouachita’s poor 

performance demonstrates that it has 

not adequately done so and that is one 

reason students will be better served at 

higher performing centers. One 

commenter asserted that Ouachita 

should not be closed given the unique 

challenges it faces, including a low state 

minimum wage in Arkansas, the poor 

educational attainment in the states 

from which Ouachita draws its students, 

the poor economic conditions in 

Arkansas, and the failure of OMS to 

reflect those challenges. The 

performance data used in the 

methodology appropriately reflects the 

challenges identified by the commenter. 

Several of the OMS performance goals 

related to educational attainment and 

wage attainment are adjusted based on 

factors such as the educational level of 

the enrollees and the characteristics of 

the local labor market. Therefore, these 

goals are tailored to the economic and 

educational environment surrounding a 

center, and the challenges faced by 

students in Arkansas and the 

surrounding area do not explain 

Ouachita’s long-term poor performance. 

The same commenter stated that that 

there is a goal disparity between 

Ouachita and its Career Transition 

Services (CTS) contractor because the 

career placement goals based on wages 

and earnings for the CTS contractor are 

lower than the average wage goals for 

the three Arkansas centers that the 

contractor serves. The commenter stated 

this difference is ‘‘incongruous’’ and 

‘‘can lead to cross purposes’’ for the 

centers and the CTS contractor. 

However, Job Corps’ model-based goals 

for centers and CTS providers are not 

simply an average of the goals of the 

three centers in Arkansas, but rather are 

calculated based on regression analysis 

and estimate what impact various 

factors may have on the achievement of 

the measure in question. The goals for 

wages and earnings are designed to 

adjust for differences in the background 

characteristics of the students served as 

well as differences in the types of 

training programs students received and 

differences in the local labor markets 

where students are expected to find 

employment. There is not perfect 

overlap in the students served by 

ArkansasWEN, the CTS provider serving 

Ouachita, and the student population 

served at Ouachita and the other 

Arkansas centers. In addition, about 15 

to 20 percent of the students served by 

ArkansasWEN attended centers outside 

of Arkansas and a similar percentage of 

students attending Arkansas centers 

were placed outside of Arkansas and 

served by other CTS providers. OJC 

believes it fairly calculated the wage 

goals for Ouachita based on the students 

it serves, type of training, and labor 

market conditions. Ouachita, like any 

center, is expected to meet its annual 

performance goals regardless of the 

goals assigned to other centers or service 

providers. Its chronic inability to do so, 

despite ample assistance from DOL and 

USDA, supports the decision to close 

Ouachita. 

One commenter questioned whether 

the Department considered the 

performance of the OA/CTS provider for 

Ouachita as part of its proposal to close 

the center, given that Ouachita’s OMS 

rating is based in part on the 

performance of the OA/CTS provider. 

While there is overlap in performance 

metrics applied to center operators and 

OA and CTS service providers, as stated 

above, each Job Corps center is 

responsible for meeting the performance 

goals established for that center. As 

such, the Department looked only at the 

each center’s performance over the last 

five years on the 15 OMS performance 

measures, and it did not consider the 

performance of the OA/CTS provider 

before making its decision. 

Several commenters noted that 

Ouachita would not be considered low 

performing under WIOA. The 

Department maintains that it is not 

possible to make this determination. Job 

Corps has not yet begun to collect data 

on WIOA performance measures. As 

such, it is not possible to determine 

which centers will be considered low 

performing under WIOA, though the 

Department notes that the post-WIOA 

OMS is unlikely to be significantly 

different than the WIA OMS. Further, 

given Ouachita’s chronic poor 

performance, it would be to the 

detriment of current and future students 

to continue operation of the center until 

WIOA performance data is available. 

One commenter noted that all three 

Arkansas centers, including Ouachita, 

are among Job Corps’ lowest performers, 

asserting that the Department should 

not close Ouachita until it deduces why. 

This commenter suggested that under 

WIOA, both of Arkansas’ remaining 

centers, Cass and Little Rock, could be 

in line for closure due to their low 

performance. As stated in the 

Additional Criteria for potential Job 

Corps closures, Job Corps aims to 

maintain a presence in all 50 states. The 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
43254 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2016 / Notices 

Department is committed to making the 

Job Corps program accessible to eligible 

Arkansas youth, and it will reinvest 

resources from Ouachita to improve the 

outcomes at its remaining, higherperforming centers, including those in 

Arkansas. 

Several commenters urged DOL to 

transfer management of Ouachita to a 

private operator. Many of these 

commenters asserted that DOL is legally 

required to do so by WIOA. Some 

commenters stated that WIOA requires 

the Department to ‘‘exhaust’’ its options 

prior to closing a center. In fact, WIOA 

does not require the Department to 

competitively select a private entity to 

operate this center. WIOA sec. 159(f)(4) 

empowers the Secretary of Labor, in 

consultation with the Secretary of 

Agriculture, to competitively select an 

entity to operate a CCC if certain 

conditions related to the center’s 

performance under the WIOA 

performance measures are met. Division 

H, title I, section 109 of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, 

also stated that the Secretary of Labor, 

in consultation with the Secretary of 

Agriculture, ‘‘may select an entity on a 

competitive basis to operate’’ a CCC if 

it has had consistently low performance 

under Job Corps’ pre-July 1, 2016 

performance accountability system or its 

post-July 1, 2016 performance system. 

Neither of these provisions require the 

Department to transfer management of 

Ouachita to a private operator—the 

WIOA performance system, as noted 

above, is not yet in effect, making WIOA 

sec. 159(f)(4) inoperative at this point. 

Furthermore, the language of sec. 109 

grants the Secretary of Labor discretion 

as to whether DOL will competitively 

select an entity to operate a CCC. 

The Department has determined that 

the better approach for Ouachita is 

closure. The problems at Ouachita are 

extensive, and there is insufficient 

evidence that would suggest that a 

change in operators would result in 

dramatic improvement. Closing 

Ouachita will allow the Department to 

reinvest its resources into improving its 

remaining centers while maintaining 

student opportunities to participate in 

the Job Corps program. Importantly, the 

Department has concluded that closing 

Ouachita will not reduce the number of 

students who can be served in Job 

Corps. Thus, for the reasons stated 

above, the Department has decided to 

close Ouachita, not contract it to a 

private entity. 

One commenter asserted that it is 

improper to use the most recent 

performance data as a basis for selecting 

a center to close. The commenter 

referenced the DOL Office of the 

Inspector General’s (OIG) February 27, 

2015, audit report that some centers did 

not comply with Job Corps’ zerotolerance policy to avoid adverse effect 

on their performance measures. Based 

on this report, the commenter concludes 

that ‘‘utilizing the [OMS] rating system 

is a flawed approach’’ because ‘‘those 

same centers would be willing to 

fabricate information in their books 

about other matters as well, negating the 

accuracy of any rating system.’’ 

Nothing in OIG’s audit report 

supports or suggests the conclusion 

drawn by the commenter. There is no 

evidence or allegation that center 

operators are undermining the OMS 

system—and in turn, the method by 

which the Department selected 

Ouachita for closure—by directly 

fabricating or altering performance data. 

Job Corps conducts regular dataintegrity audits through a third-party 

consultant to identify and sanction any 

fraudulent behaviors or non-compliance 

with Job Corps policy and rules. 

Additionally, before finalizing each 

year’s OMS scores and rankings, Job 

Corps conducts a comprehensive review 

of the performance data to ensure its 

accuracy. Given these procedures, Job 

Corps has no reason to conclude that 

performance data has been fabricated, 

and it is confident that the center 

performance data used in the closure 

methodology accurately reflects each 

center’s performance. 

One commenter alleged that an 

individual from an Idaho Job Corps 

center had sabotaged the Ouachita 

center so the Idaho center would receive 

more funding. The Department is not 

aware of any attempts to sabotage 

Ouachita’s operation. 

Three commenters stated that every 

Job Corps Center, including Ouachita, 

benefits youth in need and thus should 

not be closed. The Department’s 

decision to close Ouachita is based on 

the center’s inability to efficiently and 

effectively deliver the best possible 

outcomes for youth in need. The 

Ouachita Center has performed poorly 

over the last five years, and closing this 

center will improve Job Corps’ ability to 

provide the highest-quality education 

and career technical training to its 

future and current students, including 

those presently at Ouachita. 

Six commenters criticized the 

methodology that Job Corps developed 

and applied in determining which 

center to close. One commenter 

suggested that the OMS used to 

determine center ranking is itself 

flawed. Three commenters were 

opposed to the two additional closure 

criteria identified in the March 9, 2016, 

Notice proposing closure. Because the 

closure Notice requested comments only 

on the proposed selection of Ouachita 

for closure, DOL considers these 

comments outside the scope of the 

requested response and will not respond 

to them here. 

Multiple commenters suggested that 

the waste of other government programs 

be cut instead of closing the Ouachita 

Job Corps Center. These comments are 

outside the scope of the requested 

response and were therefore not 

considered. 

IV. Job Corps Center Selected for 

Closure and the Closure Process 

Based on its application of the 

updated closure methodology as 

described in the March 9, 2016, Notice, 

and the Department’s consideration of 

the comments received in response to 

that Notice, DOL has decided to close 

the Ouachita Job Corps Center. 

Job Corps’ focus is on managing the 

performance of its centers in order to 

best to serve students. Overall funding 

for the program is not being reduced, 

nor is the number of students served. By 

closing low-performing centers, Job 

Corps can shift limited program dollars 

to centers that will better prepare 

students. As Job Corps finalizes the 

closure of Ouachita, existing students 

will have the opportunity to complete 

their training and graduate at Ouachita 

or transfer to other Job Corps centers to 

complete their training and graduate. 

Prospective students in Arkansas will 

continue to be served by two other Job 

Corps centers in the state and other 

centers in the region. 

In the coming weeks, DOL will 

implement the closure process 

following the center closure 

requirements in WIOA at section 159(j) 

and as stipulated in the DOL/USDA 

Interagency Agreement. 

Dated: June 27, 2016. 

Portia Wu, 

Assistant Secretary for Employment and 

Training, Labor. 

[FR Doc. 2016–15603 Filed 6–30–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FT–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of Federal Contract Compliance 

Programs 

Proposed Renewal of the Approval of 

Information Collection Requirements; 

Comment Request 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor 

(DOL), as part of its continuing effort to 

reduce paperwork and respondent 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES