Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Notices 36823 

Total Estimated Number of 

Responses: 502. 

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 

4,267 hours. 

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs 

Burden: $2,510. 

Dated: June 24, 2014. 

Michel Smyth, 

Departmental Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2014–15198 Filed 6–27–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–43–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

Revised Methodology for Selecting 

Job Corps Centers 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 propose a 

Revised Methodology for Selecting Job 

Corps Centers 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. After analyzing the 

comments, the Department has decided 

to adjust the weights given to the 

various factors. Additionally, the 

Department is proposing to adjust the 

methodology to use the performance 

period of Program Year (PY) 2008 

through PY 2012 instead of PY 2007 

through PY 2011 as was proposed in the 

January 10, 2013 Federal Register 

Notice. The Department is also 

proposing additional considerations that 

we will include in the closure 

methodology. This revised methodology 

would be used to select centers for 

closure. The Department requests public 

comment on the revised methodology, 

as outlined in this notice. 

DATES: To be ensured consideration, 

comments must be submitted in writing 

on or before July 21, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket Number ETA– 

2014–0001, 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 that they 

do not want made public in their 

comments 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– 

0001. 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 this 

proposal for a methodology to select 

centers 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 

proposed methodology 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 

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, the Job Corps 

program 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. Job 

Corps emphasizes the attainment of 

academic credentials, including a high 

school diploma (HSD) or a high school 

equivalency credential, and career 

technical training credentials, including 

industry-recognized credentials, state 

licensures, and pre-apprenticeship 

credentials. 

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). Separate from 

center operation contracts, Job Corps 

also contracts with firms and 

companies, usually small businesses, 

through competitive procurements, to 

recruit new students for the program 

and place graduates and former 

enrollees into meaningful jobs, 

education programs, the military, or 

apprenticeship training. In some 

instances, however, Job Corps contracts 

with one entity to both operate a center 

and manage student recruitment and job 

placements. Job Corps also receives 

annual Construction, Rehabilitation, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

36824 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Notices 

and Acquisition (CRA) funding to build, 

maintain, expand, or upgrade new and 

existing facilities at all 125 centers. 

Pursuing Performance Excellence 

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, we began an 

ambitious reform agenda aimed at 

improving the performance of Job Corps 

centers nationwide. This included 

setting higher standards for all centers, 

identifying chronically underperforming 

centers, and implementing appropriate 

corrective action. 

As part of this reform process, 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. Job Corps has implemented a 

National Certification Initiative to 

strengthen and align existing career 

technical training programs to technical 

standards established by industries or 

trade organizations, which enables 

students to graduate with industryrecognized credentials. These 

credentials provide for long-term 

attachment to the workforce and 

economic mobility as Job Corps 

graduates advance through their careers. 

They also ensure that program graduates 

have gained the skills and knowledge 

necessary to compete in today’s 

workforce. Job Corps has also expanded 

academic opportunities for students 

with the introduction of evening 

educational programs, as well as 

community college partnerships and 

expanded high school diploma options. 

Current budgetary constraints make it 

even more critical to ensure the 

program’s resources are deployed in a 

way that maximizes results to students 

and taxpayers. 

Job Corps has intensified and 

reinforced federal oversight of 

operations and performance outcomes 

for all centers. Federal program 

managers supervise centers through 

monitoring visits, desk audits, and 

Contractor Performance Assessment 

Reports during each contractor’s 

performance period. Job Corps regional 

offices also conduct the Regional Office 

Center Assessments. Through these 

oversight activities, Job Corps federal 

program managers develop Performance 

Improvement Plans (PIPs) for entire 

centers that need improvement, or 

Corrective Action Plans (CAPs) to 

address specific aspects of operations, 

such as career technical training. Both 

PIPs and CAPs are used for continued 

monitoring and implemented for USDA 

and contract centers respectively. These 

oversight actions have strengthened 

collaboration between Job Corps, 

contractors, and the USDA to rectify 

deficiencies, and improve policy 

compliance and performance outcomes. 

While the majority of centers meet 

program standards, some centers are 

chronically low-performing and have 

remained in the bottom cohort of center 

performance rankings for multiple years 

despite extensive DOL interventions 

including corrective measures. Given 

the resource intensiveness of the Job 

Corps model, the Administration has 

determined that it can no longer 

continue to expend resources on the 

small number of chronically lowperforming centers that have repeatedly 

failed to provide participants with highquality Job Corps programming. 

For the purpose of identifying 

chronically low-performing centers 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. As we 

explain below, the January 10, 2013 

Federal Register Notice had proposed 

using the performance data from PY 

2007–2011. Final PY 2012 data is now 

available and has been published on the 

Job Corps Web site. The Department is 

proposing to use performance data from 

PY 2008–2012 in the closure 

methodology. 

The Department is committed to 

selecting centers for closure in a manner 

that is transparent and objective. We 

previously solicited comments on our 

proposed methodology for selecting 

centers for closure. We have now 

analyzed those comments and revised 

the closure methodology to reflect that 

public feedback. Job Corps’ published 

performance metrics were the primary 

consideration in the selection of centers 

for closure. Provided below is our 

revised methodology for using the 

Outcome Measurement System (OMS, 

Job Corps’ internal, comprehensive 

performance management system. For 

details, please go to jobcorps.gov— 

About Job Corps—Performance and 

Planning—Job Corps Performance 

Management System Overview Guide) 

and other factors to select proposed 

centers for closure. The Department is 

also proposing additional 

considerations that we will include in 

the closure methodology. 

The Department is requesting 

comments on the change in the data we 

will use and on the additional 

considerations proposed for inclusion in 

the methodology. Interested parties may 

submit comments to DOL on these 

subjects, and on the proposed closure 

methodology as a whole. The 

Department will consider these 

comments as we finalize the 

methodology and select centers for 

closure. 

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 FR 2284). 

The Department received a total of 18 

public comments, which we reviewed 

and analyzed. As a result of this 

analysis, we revised the methodology 

factors for selection of Job Corps centers 

for closure, as explained below. The 

Department is also proposing additional 

considerations for inclusion in the 

methodology. 

Factors for Selecting Job Corps Centers 

for Closure 

Provided below is a description of the 

revised methodology factors the 

Department proposes to use to select Job 

Corps centers for closure. 

As the Department proposed in the 

January 10, 2013 Federal Register 

Notice, we propose to use the following 

primary criteria against which all 

centers were measured: 

1. Five-year OMS performance level, 

including considerations for patterns of 

demonstrable and recent performance 

improvement. The OMS includes the 

following 14 measures: 

Æ High School Diploma (HSD) or 

General Educational Development 

(GED) Attainment Rate; 

Æ Career Technical Training (CTT) 

Completion Rate; 

Æ Combination HSD or GED, and CTT 

Attainment Rate; 

Æ Average Literacy Gain; 

Æ Average Numeracy Gain; 

Æ CTT Industry-Recognized 

Credential Attainment Rate; 

Æ CTT Completer Job—Training 

Match/Post-Secondary Credit Placement 

Rate; 

Æ Former Enrollee Initial Placement 

Rate; 

Æ Graduate Initial Placement Rate; 

Æ Graduate Average Hourly Wage at 

Placement; 

Æ Graduate Full-Time Job Placement 

Rate; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Notices 36825 

Æ Graduate 6-Month Follow-up 

Placement Rate; 

Æ Graduate 6-Month Average Weekly 

Earnings; 

Æ Graduate 12-Month Follow-up 

Placement Rate; and 

2. Five-year On-Board Strength (OBS); 

and 

3. Five-year Facility Condition Index 

(FCI). 

After ranking the centers based on the 

primary criteria, we will then apply 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; 

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 will be the guiding 

factor in selecting centers 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 invites public 

comments on how the five-year 

performance levels have been 

incorporated into the closure 

methodology below. 

The Department has determined that 

the closure methodology will evaluate 

each center’s overall OMS ratings for 

five full program years to derive a 

weighted five-year average performance 

rating. We selected the five-year 

performance period for the following 

reasons: 

• The five-year period is reasonably 

long enough to incorporate both the 

most recent performance data and 

relatively older data; 

• It allows enough time to analyze 

impact of any Performance 

Improvement Plans (PIPs); 

• It provides a stable basis for 

comparison, since the OMS had no 

significant changes over the past five 

years; and 

• It relies on published outcomes that 

are familiar to the Job Corps community. 

In the January 10, 2013 Federal 

Register Notice, the past five years of 

performance data we proposed using for 

this factor was the data from PY 2007– 

2011. We now propose to use the 

performance data for PY 2008–2012 in 

the closure methodology. 

The Department received public 

comments that recommended using 

OMS ratings for the last 10 consecutive 

program years with a different weight 

structure to identify chronically low 

performing centers and excluding PY 

2011 data. The comments stated that 

five program years was not enough time 

for centers to exhaust all options to 

improve, and 10 years would allow the 

assessment of a center that may have 

had multiple operators. In addition, the 

comments stated that PY 2011 

performance data was impacted by Job 

Corps’ cost saving actions taken at the 

end of that program year and should be 

excluded from the calculation. 

The Department considered these 

comments and other options during the 

development of the final methodology 

criteria, and determined that five 

program years is long enough to provide 

a solid basis for assessing a center’s 

performance. Additionally, Job Corps’ 

OMS has been held fairly consistent and 

stable over the past five program years, 

with no dramatic shifts in weights, goals 

or measures. This allows for a strong 

comparison of consistent data that 

would be weakened considerably if the 

time period were extended. Finally, Job 

Corps’ cost saving actions at the end of 

PY 2011 were limited to a short period 

of enrollment suspension in the 

summer, a hiring freeze, budget and 

spending plan reviews, moderate 

reductions of some centers’ incremental 

funding, and tighter control on student 

travel and allowance costs. They did not 

have any significant impact on the PY 

2011 OMS results. Similarly, the cost 

savings activities in PY 2012 did not 

appear to have a significant impact on 

the PY 2012 OMS performance results. 

Since the PY 2012 enrollment 

suspension was applied to all centers, 

the overall improved OMS performance 

in PY 2012 is largely attributable to the 

smaller student populations that centers 

served and the more concentrated 

services they were able to receive during 

the suspension period. 

The performance factor in the 

previous closure methodology was 

originally assigned a weight of 70% in 

the Federal Register Notice dated 

January 10, 2013. Public comments 

received suggested that the weights for 

OBS and Facility Condition Index (FCI) 

should be reduced as factors, allowing 

an increase from 70% to 90% in the 

performance factor. The Department 

agrees with public comments suggesting 

increasing the weighting factor for OMS 

from 70% to 90%, and made this 

change. The original OMS and OBS 

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 the FCI data. 

‘‘Normalized’’ means the data has been 

placed on a 100-point scale. The 

calculation formula for the final 

methodology also contains the 

normalized data for OMS. 

As proposed in the January 10, 2013 

Federal Register Notice, the final 

closure methodology weights recent 

performance more heavily than 

performance in earlier years. This 

approach addresses centers that may 

have had recent improvements in 

performance. To reflect this, weights are 

applied to each of the five program 

year’s performance data, with recent 

years receiving a greater weight than 

earlier years. 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: 

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. 

Job Corps already uses this measure to 

assess center performance. 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. 

As proposed in the January 10, 2013 

Federal Register Notice, this criterion of 

the methodology evaluates each center’s 

end of Program Year OBS rating for the 

last five full program years to derive a 

five-year average rating. As explained 

above in the context of OMS data, the 

January 10, 2013 Federal Register 

Notice stated that the closure 

methodology would use data from the 

five-year period of PY 2007–2011. Now 

DOL is proposing to use the OBS data 

from PY 2008–2012. 

The Department received numerous 

public comments regarding OBS which 

can be summarized into two categories. 

The first group of comments suggested 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

36826 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Notices 

reducing the weight of the OBS criterion 

because most Job Corps centers rely on 

third-party admission contractors for 

enrollment. The second group suggested 

excluding the PY 2011 OBS data 

because it was impacted by Job Corps’ 

cost saving actions taken at the end of 

PY 2011. 

The Department agrees with public 

comments suggesting reduction of the 

weighting factor for OBS from 20% to 

5%. Adoption of this suggestion reflects 

DOL’s recognition that centers should 

not be held solely responsible for 

enrollment and retention of students. 

Reducing the weight of the OBS factor 

also enables the Department to 

strengthen its emphasis on performance, 

making performance the predominant 

factor in consideration for center 

closure. Further, we recognized that the 

June/July 2012 enrollment suspension 

impacted PY 2011 OBS results. To 

address this issue, the Office of Job 

Corps issued Program Information 

Notice 12–17 on October 1, 2012 stating 

that the May 31, 2012, Program Year 

Cumulative OBS (PY–COBS) report will 

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

Therefore, the Department will use the 

May 31, 2012 PY–COBS report as the PY 

2011 OBS report for calculating each 

center’s OBS rating. In addition, we 

adjusted downward the relative 

performance goals in the OA OMS 

Report Card. This action had the effect 

of using the first 11 months of the 

program year as the official performance 

basis for PY 2011, thereby holding 

contractors harmless for the remaining 

month of OBS measurements. 

Additionally, since the performance 

basis for the center closure methodology 

is over a five-year period, we 

determined that the absence of a single 

month would not distort a center’s 

historic performance trends to any 

meaningful degree. 

PY 2012 saw significant OBS 

reductions at all centers because of the 

enrollment suspension that lasted from 

January 28, 2013 through April 22, 

2013. To address this issue, the Office 

of Job Corps issued Program Information 

Notice 13–14 on September 10, 2013 

stating that the January 31, 2013, PY– 

COBS report will be used as the basis 

for assessing center-level OBS 

performance for PY 2012. Therefore, the 

Department will use the January 31, 

2013 PY–COBS report as the PY 2012 

OBS report for calculating each center’s 

OBS rating. 

The original 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 calculation formula for the 

final methodology also contains the 

normalized data for OBS. 

As with the performance criterion, the 

revised methodology weights each of 

the five program year’s OBS data, with 

recent years receiving more weight to 

incorporate performance 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 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. 

Job Corps receives an annual 

appropriation for Construction, 

Rehabilitation, and Acquisition (CRA) 

that is used to improve facility 

conditions at Job Corps centers. To 

properly manage the program’s facility 

and condition needs, Job Corps uses a 

Facility Condition Index (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 will 

evaluate 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. 

DOL received a number of public 

comments stating that FCI is an 

inappropriate factor because it is not 

within the control of centers. Some 

further contend that an FCI score five 

years ago has no relevance to the current 

facility condition and whether a center 

should close or not. 

We acknowledge that FCI, like OBS, 

is not entirely under the control of the 

centers. We considered this during 

development of the proposed closure 

methodology. Our intent of 

incorporating FCI was to include a 

factor that would capture and recognize 

the importance of significant capital 

investments that were made on 

particular centers. In addition, we 

determined that it is in the 

government’s best interest to consider 

past facility investments and future 

investment needs as a factor in the 

consideration of any center’s possible 

closure. We have decided to lessen the 

impact of this factor. Accordingly, as a 

result of the public comments received, 

we reduced the FCI weighting factor 

from 10% to 5%. Additionally, because 

FCI is already expressed on a 100-point 

scale, normalization of this data was not 

necessary. We also believe that a single 

year’s FCI value cannot adequately 

reflect the Government’s continued 

capital investment in a center and a 

center’s efforts to maintain its buildings 

and facilities. Therefore, we will 

continue to use five years’ FCI results 

for this evaluation. 

As with the performance and OBS 

criteria, the final 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-byyear 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 will yield 

an overall rating for each center. This 

will allow DOL to create a list that ranks 

all centers, with the lowest performing 

centers receiving the lowest ratings. The 

calculation formula for the revised 

methodology is as follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Notices 36827 

Overall Performance Rating (90%) + Overall OBS Rating 

(5%) 

+ Overall FCI Rating 

(5%) 

= Overall Rating for Primary Selection 

Factors 

4. Other Considerations Included in the 

Closure Methodology 

a. Job Corps Services in Each State, 

Puerto Rico, and the District of 

Columbia 

In addition to the above three primary 

criteria, another consideration in the 

closure methodology explained in the 

January 10, 2013 Federal Register 

Notice involved an adequate level of Job 

Corps services remaining available in 

each state (Job Corps’ goal is to have at 

least one center operating in each state), 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and 

the District of Columbia. One comment 

stated that this factor would allow 

center location to trump center 

performance, and it stated that local and 

regional labor markets do not conform 

to state boundaries. We continue to 

believe that it is in the best interest of 

the Job Corps’ target population to 

ensure that this model is available in 

each state. Therefore, in making the 

decision about which centers to close, 

we will maintain at least one Job Corps 

center in each state, the Commonwealth 

of Puerto Rico, and the District of 

Columbia, and will take into 

consideration whether a center’s closure 

would have a disproportionate impact 

on 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 

center, there is not enough OMS data to 

evaluate the center’s performance over 

the full five-year period for varying 

reasons. Those reasons include: New 

centers opened later during the five-year 

period (Ottumwa and Milwaukee); 

exclusion from OMS evaluation due to 

the Center for Excellence (CFE) pilot 

status (Pinellas County, Denison, and 

Long Beach); and center closure due to 

Hurricane Katrina (Gulf Port and New 

Orleans). No public comments were 

received regarding application of this 

criterion. 

c. Indication of Significant Recent 

Performance Improvement 

The Department has determined that 

performing in the top half of centers in 

PY 2013 should be taken as evidence of 

significant recent performance 

improvement. Therefore, we propose 

that a center will not be considered for 

closure if there is evidence of significant 

improvement in a center’s available PY 

2013 performance data. This 

consideration was not previously 

proposed, and therefore, we invite 

public comment on it. 

d. Job Corps’ Commitment to Diversity 

The closure methodology will also 

consider 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 will consider 

whether a center’s closure would result 

in a significant reduction in student 

diversity within the overall Job Corps 

system. No public comments were 

received regarding Job Corps’ 

commitment to diversity or application 

of this criterion. 

The Department will accept 

comments for 20 days, beginning on the 

date of publication of this Notice. After 

we have received and analyzed any 

comments, we will finalize the 

methodology for center closure. 

The Department will implement the 

selection and 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. We anticipate 

that it will take several months to 

execute closure of a center, and possibly 

longer for centers with larger student 

populations or Civilian Conservation 

Centers (CCCs). 

The Process for Closing Job Corps 

Centers, as Outlined in the Workforce 

Investment Act 

We 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 once a 

decision to close a particular center is 

made; 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. 

Portia Wu, 

Assistant Secretary for Employment and 

Training. 

[FR Doc. 2014–15275 Filed 6–27–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FT–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–83,321] 

LATA Environmental Services of 

Kentucky, LLC, a Wholly Owned 

Subsidiary of Los Alamos Technical 

Associates, Inc., Kevil, Kentucky; 

Notice of Revised Determination on 

Reconsideration 

On January 24, 2014, the Department 

of Labor issued a Notice of Negative 

Determination Regarding Eligibility to 

Apply for Worker Adjustment 

Assistance applicable to workers and 

former workers of LATA Environmental 

Services of Kentucky, LLC, a wholly 

owned subsidiary of Los Alamos 

Technical Associates, Inc., Kevil, 

Kentucky (subject firm). The 

Department’s Notice was published in 

the Federal Register on February 12, 

2014 (79 FR 8508). Workers at the 

subject firm were engaged in 

employment related to the supply of 

environmental remediation services. 

The worker group does not include onsite leased workers. 

In an application dated March 11, 

2014, the United Steel, paper and 

Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, 

Energy, Allied-Industrial and Service 

Workers International Union requested 

administrative reconsideration of the 

negative determination applicable to 

workers and former workers of the 

subject firm. The request for 

reconsideration alleges that workers at 

the subject firm are eligible to apply for 

Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) 

under Section 222(b) of the Trade Act, 

19 U.S.C. 2272(b). 

Previously-submitted information 

revealed that a significant number or 

proportion of the workers in the subject 

firm have been totally or partially 

separated or threatened by such 

separation. Therefore, the Department 

determines that Section 222(b)(1) has 

been met. 

A careful review of administrative 

record, the request for reconsideration, 

and publically-available information 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES