[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 178 (Friday, September 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56696-56701]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22300]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Agency Information Collection Activities
AGENCY: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
ACTION: Notice of information collection--Revised: Demographic
Information on Applicants for Federal Employment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44
U.S.C. Chapter 35, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(Commission or EEOC) announces that it intends to revise a Commission
form (Demographic Information on Applicants, OMB No. 3046-0046) to
include disability status data.
DATES: Written comments on this notice must be submitted on or before
October 15, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to the Executive Officer, Executive
Secretariat, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20507. As a convenience to commenters, the Executive
Secretariat will accept comments totaling six or fewer pages by
facsimile (``FAX'') machine. This limitation is necessary to assure
access to the equipment. The telephone number of the fax receiver is
(202) 663-4114. (This is not a toll-free number). Receipt of FAX
transmittals will not be acknowledged, except that the sender may
request confirmation of receipt by calling the Executive Secretariat
staff at (202) 663-4070 (voice) or (202) 663-4074 (TTD). (These are not
toll-free telephone numbers.) Instead of sending written comments to
the EEOC, you may submit comments and attachments electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
Follow the instructions online for submitting comments. All comments
received through this portal will be posted without change, including
any personal information you provide. Copies of comments submitted by
the public to the EEOC directly or through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal will be available for review, by advance appointment only, at
the Commission's library between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
or can be reviewed at http://www.regulations.gov. To schedule an
appointment to inspect the comments at EEOC's library, contact the
library staff at (202) 663-4630 (voice) or (202) 663-4641 (TTY). (These
are not toll-free numbers.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Dougherty, Federal Sector
Programs, Office of Federal Operations, 131 M Street NE., Washington,
DC 20507, (202) 663-4770 (voice); (202) 663-4593 (TTY).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and OMB regulation 5 CFR Sec.
1320.8(d)(1), the Commission sought public comment on revising its form
for use by federal agencies in gathering demographic information on
applicants for federal employment through a 60-day notice published
February 15, 2013. Comments were particularly invited on whether this
collection of information will enable the Commission and federal
agencies to:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed data collection tool will have
practical utility by enabling a federal agency to determine whether
recruitment activities are effectively reaching all segments of the
relevant labor pool in compliance with the laws enforced by the
Commission and whether the agency's selection procedures allow all
applicants to compete on a level playing field regardless of race,
national origin, sex or disability status;
(2) 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;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on
applicants for federal employees who choose to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of
[[Page 56697]]
information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Four comments were received. The first commenter was pleased that
the revised form used more expansive language and definitions for
impairments than that used by OPM's Standard Form 256, thereby taking
the focus off the medical condition and putting it on the functional
limitation. That commenter believed it would be helpful if EEOC and OPM
agreed to revise the SF-256 so that it used the terms and definitions
in the revised applicant flow form. A second commenter, however, noted
that the list of conditions collected in Section 5.A of the form are
similar, but not identical, to the list of targeted/severe disabilities
listed on SF-256, while the information in Section 5.C of the form
appeared to be similar to the list of non-targeted disabilities on SF-
256. That commenter believed it essential that the information
collected of applicants mirror the information collected from employees
on SF-256 to ensure an appropriate comparison of the two populations.
The commenter recommended that the list of disabilities on the
applicant flow form be identical to the SF-256.
We have revised the form so that the types of disabilities listed
on the form more closely match those listed on the SF-256. We have
updated some of the listed disabilities to include terms that are
simpler to understand (for examples, removing much of the parenthetical
language used in the SF-256 that describes missing extremities or
paralysis). The Commission concurs that the applicant flow form and the
SF-256 should mirror each other in order to provide for effective data
collection. We address that issue below, in our responses to the fourth
commenter.
A third commenter had specific suggestions for revising the
language used in section 5.A of the form. It urged that the term
``severe'' be replaced with the term ``significant,'' as the term
``severe'' often is associated with negative or stigmatizing views
about disability. The commenter was concerned that many individuals
with disabilities might not identify themselves as having a ``severe''
condition. The commenter also requested that we drop the word
``severe'' from our description of ``severe intellectual disability,''
noting that while individuals with intellectual disabilities may
experience a variety of limitations, all such disabilities contain
impairments in functioning that are of such significance that they
warrant being included on the list of targeted disabilities. The
commenter also requested that we replace the term ``psychological''
with ``psychiatric'' when describing disorders such as bipolar,
schizophrenia, PTSD, and major depression.
We find the recommendations suggested by this commenter reasonable
and have adopted them in the revised form. We have replaced ``severe''
with ``significant'' and changed ``psychological'' to ``psychiatric.''
We have removed ``severe'' from the description of intellectual
disability.
Finally, the commenter questioned the utility of including Section
5.B, the questions derived from the American Community Survey (ACS).
The commenter believed that the questions fail to identify many
individuals with disabilities with other types of functional
limitations. It requested the addition of another question in that
section that would state: ``difficulty with everyday activities such as
interacting with others, thinking, preparing food, taking medications,
or managing finances.''
A fourth commenter had a series of concerns with our proposed
applicant flow form. Similar to the third commenter, this commenter
took issue with including Section 5.B on the form. It believed the
limited list of functional limitations presented in this section does
not reflect likely workplace concerns and does not collect information
that would be useful in tracking information on applicants with
disabilities. The commenter was concerned that applicants might be
dissuaded from responding truthfully to questions regarding their
difficulty in concentrating, remembering, or making decisions.
Including such questions would, in this commenter's opinion, undermine
the EEOC's goal of providing more accurate information about applicants
and employees with disabilities. Moreover, the commenter believed that
the ACS questions, which include questions on one's bathing or dressing
limitations, might be considered intrusive and potentially
inappropriate in the context of applicant data collection.
In response to these comments, we have revised the form to remove
the ACS questions. While the ACS questions provide meaningful data
concerning functional limitations, the questions would in part
duplicate the inquiry in section 5.A. Additionally, after discussions
with OMB and OPM, we believe that the data collected through the ACS
questions would be best compared to data collected from the onboard
federal workforce rather than from applicants for employment. During
these conversations, OPM stated that it would determine the feasibility
of surveying the federal workforce to obtain ACS disability data.
The fourth commenter generally supported the efforts of the
Commission to change the form in order to obtain a broader range of
data regarding applicants for employment. However, the commenter had
concerns regarding the format utilized in the proposed form. First, in
order to avoid confusion, this commenter recommended using the term
``disabilities and/or health conditions.'' The commenter was also
concerned with creating different classes of disabilities, by listing
some specifically while not listing others. The commenter further noted
that many applicants with disabilities not on the list in Section 5.A
could still be considered for employment under the special hiring
authority set out in Schedule A at 5 CFR Sec. 213.3102(u). The
commenter was concerned that by separating the disabilities in Section
5.C from those in Section 5.A, the form might undermine efforts to
ensure that all members of the disability community are aware of their
eligibility for hiring under Schedule A.
The fourth commenter was also concerned that the proposed form's
lack of specificity regarding the types of other disabilities and
health conditions traditionally collected by the Federal government
through SF-256 would make it difficult to link current data with
historical data. This commenter recommended asking applicants for
employment to identify their specific disabilities or serious health
conditions even if they did not fall within the list generally known as
targeted disabilities in Section 5.A. The commenter believed this
important for several reasons. According to the commenter, collecting
information about all disabilities and serious health conditions allows
linkages with other data (including data from the SF-256) in such a way
that appropriate comparisons may be made. The current SF-256 asks
employees to identify whether they have many different types of
disabilities and health conditions. The commenter was concerned that by
not collecting the same type of specific disability and health
conditions data for applicants, future comparisons of the data related
to hiring rates would not be possible and trend analysis would be
undermined. Moreover, this commenter believed that the designation of
which disabilities are considered significant or targeted disabilities
may change over time, and that by collecting only summary information
on the non-targeted disabilities, future comparisons of data might be
precluded. Finally, the commenter stated that failing to collect
[[Page 56698]]
information on specific non-targeted disabilities would run counter to
the broad definition of disability established by the ADA Amendments
Act.
In response to the concerns raised by the fourth commenter, the
Commission has made a number of changes in the form. First, the revised
form no longer separates out the other serious health conditions in
Section 5.C from the list of disabilities in Section 5.A. Instead, we
have added the question about disabilities and other serious health
conditions to the list set out in the original form in Section 5.A.
This should alleviate any concerns that non-targeted disabilities or
health conditions are being treated differently than the targeted
disabilities. We have also included a paragraph on the form directly
under the newly revised Section 5.A which explains that, if an
applicant has checked any of the boxes listed in the new Section 5.A,
he or she may be eligible for hiring under Schedule A, with a link for
more information on Schedule A hiring. Thus, applicants who check the
``other disability or serious health condition'' box will know that
they may be able to utilize Schedule A hiring authority.
Second, we have created a new optional Section 5.A.1, which would
provide those applicants who wish to identify their other disabilities
or serious health conditions the option of doing so. Section 5.A.1
consists of a list of disabilities and other serious health conditions
that the applicant may indicate that he or she currently has. This list
corresponds closely to the other disabilities and health conditions
currently listed on the SF-256. By allowing for an option specifically
to identify the types of disabilities or serious health conditions
listed in 5.A.1, the form now provides an opportunity for disability
data collection between applicants to the federal workforce and those
hired by the federal government. However, by keeping this list optional
and available only if the applicant checks the appropriate box in
Section 5.A, and by providing the option for the applicant to indicate
that he or she does not wish to identify a disability or serious health
condition, the Commission believes it will receive more accurate data
on the total number of applicants with disabilities. To the extent
there are differences between the new applicant flow form and the
current SF-256, our understanding is that OPM will review and consider
modifications to the SF-256 in the near future so that the two forms
will be effective in collecting data.
Finally, this commenter voiced its support for the way the form
collects information on intellectual disabilities, in particular the
distinction made between intellectual disabilities, developmental
disabilities and traumatic brain injury. The commenter believes that
the separation of these types of disabilities will result in increased
self-identification rates and therefore more accurate data. The
commenter also suggested adding a parenthetical pointing out that the
Commission, by breaking out certain types of disabilities from the
category of ``intellectual disabilities,'' does not mean that the term
``intellectual disabilities'' will have a narrower scope for other
purposes.
We do not believe that adding developmental disability and
traumatic brain injury to our list of disabilities in Section 5.A would
lead applicants to believe that we are narrowing the scope of the term
intellectual disability. The Commission therefore has not added the
parenthetical.
Overview of This Information Collection
Collection Title: Demographic Information on Federal Job
Applicants.
OMB Control No.: 3046-0046.
Description of Affected Public: Individuals submitting applications
for federal employment.
# of Annual Responses: 5,800.
Estimated Time per Respondent: 3 minutes.
Total Annual Burden Hours (5,800 x 3)/60 = 290.
Annual Federal Cost: None.
Abstract: Under section 717 of Title VII and 501 of the
Rehabilitation Act, the Commission is charged with reviewing and
approving federal agencies plans to affirmatively address potential
discrimination before it occurs. Pursuant to such oversight
responsibilities, the Commission has established systems to monitor
compliance with Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act by requiring
federal agencies to evaluate their employment practices through the
collection and analysis of data on the race, national origin, sex and
disability status of applicants for both permanent and temporary
employment.
Several federal agencies (or components of such agencies) have
previously obtained separate OMB approval for the use of forms
collecting data on the race, national origin, sex, and disability
status of applicants. In order to avoid unnecessary duplication of
effort and a proliferation of forms, the EEOC seeks approval for the
use of a common form to be used by all federal agencies.
Response by applicants is optional. The information obtained will
be used by federal agencies only for evaluating whether an agency's
recruitment activities are effectively reaching all segments of the
relevant labor pool, to gauge progress and trends over time with
respect to equal opportunity goals, and to track progress toward
meeting the recruitment and hiring strategies developed pursuant to EO
13548. The voluntary responses are treated in a highly confidential and
anonymous manner, are not shared with those involved in the selection
process or the supervisor (if the person is hired) and will not be
placed in the employees' personnel file. The information is not
provided to any panel rating the applications, to selecting officials,
to anyone who can affect the application or to the public. Rather, the
information is used in summary form to determine trends over many
selections within a given occupational or organization area. No
information from the form is entered into an official personnel file.
Burden Statement
Because of the predominant use of online application systems, which
require only pointing and clicking on the selected responses, and
because the form requests only eight questions regarding basic
information, the EEOC estimates that an applicant can complete the form
in approximately 3 minutes or less. Based on past experience, we expect
that 5,800 applicants will choose to complete the form.
Once OMB approves the use of this common form, federal agencies may
request OMB approval to use this common form without having to publish
notices and request public comments for 60 and 30 days. Each agency
must account for the burden associated with their use of the common
form.
Dated: September 9, 2013.
For the Commission.
Jacqueline A. Berrien,
Chair.
[[Page 56699]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13SE13.000
[[Page 56700]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13SE13.001
[[Page 56701]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13SE13.002
[FR Doc. 2013-22300 Filed 9-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6570-01-P