30 Day Notice

56696

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2013 / Notices

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Additional information related to this
notice can also be found at http://
www.epa.gov/region5/water/
impairedwatersin/index.html.

Dated: August 29, 2013.
Tim Henry,
Acting Director, Water Division, EPA Region
5.
[FR Doc. 2013–22348 Filed 9–12–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

564–2642 by 10 business days prior to
each regularly scheduled meeting.
Meeting Access: For information on
access or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request
accommodations please contact Javier
Araujo at [email protected] or 202–
564–2642, preferably at least 10 days
prior to the meeting, to give EPA as
much time as possible to process your
request.
Dated: August 28, 2013.
Javier Araujo,
Designated Federal Officer, National
Environmental Education Advisory Council.
Stephanie Owens,
Deputy Associate Administrator.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL–9900–99–OA]

[FR Doc. 2013–22336 Filed 9–12–13; 8:45 am]

National Environmental Education
Advisory Council

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
AGENCY:

Under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, EPA gives notice of a
meeting of the National Environmental
Education Advisory Council (NEEAC).
The NEEAC was created by Congress to
advise, consult with, and make
recommendations to the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) on matters related to activities,
functions and policies of EPA under the
National Environmental Education Act
(the Act).
The purpose of this meeting is to
discuss specific topics of relevance for
consideration by the council in order to
provide advice and insights to the
Agency on environmental education.
DATES: The National Environmental
Education Advisory Council will hold a
public meeting on Monday October 7,
2013 and Tuesday October 8, 2013, from
9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. (Eastern
Daylight Time). The meeting will be
held at the Residence Inn by Marriott
Baltimore Downtown/Inner Harbor on,
17 Light Street, Baltimore, Maryland.
The meeting will be held in the
Chesapeake Meeting Room 1.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Javier Araujo, Designated Federal
Officer, [email protected], 202–
564–2642, U.S. EPA, Office of
Environmental Education, William
Jefferson Clinton North Room 1426,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Members
of the public wishing to gain access to
the teleconference, make brief oral
comments, or provide a written
statement to the NEEAC must contact
Javier Araujo, Designated Federal
Officer, at [email protected] or 202–
SUMMARY:

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:23 Sep 12, 2013

Jkt 229001

Agency Information Collection
Activities
Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission.
ACTION: Notice of information
collection—Revised: Demographic
Information on Applicants for Federal
Employment.
AGENCY:

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
SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00051

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

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 § 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

E:\FR\FM\13SEN1.SGM

13SEN1

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2013 / Notices
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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:23 Sep 12, 2013

Jkt 229001

‘‘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

PO 00000

Frm 00052

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

56697

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 § 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

E:\FR\FM\13SEN1.SGM

13SEN1

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

56698

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2013 / Notices

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 nontargeted 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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:23 Sep 12, 2013

Jkt 229001

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 ×
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

PO 00000

Frm 00053

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

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.

E:\FR\FM\13SEN1.SGM

13SEN1

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:23 Sep 12, 2013

Jkt 229001

PO 00000

Frm 00054

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\13SEN1.SGM

13SEN1

56699

en13se13.000

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2013 / Notices

VerDate Mar<15>2010

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2013 / Notices

18:23 Sep 12, 2013

Jkt 229001

PO 00000

Frm 00055

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\13SEN1.SGM

13SEN1

en13se13.001

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

56700

56701

[FR Doc. 2013–22300 Filed 9–12–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6570–01–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:23 Sep 12, 2013

Jkt 229001

PO 00000

Frm 00056

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 9990

E:\FR\FM\13SEN1.SGM

13SEN1

en13se13.002

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2013 / Notices