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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9900–99–OA] 

National Environmental Education 

Advisory Council 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: 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, araujo.javier@epa.gov, 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 araujo.javier@epa.gov or 202– 

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 araujo.javier@epa.gov 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. 

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

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 § 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2013 / Notices 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 § 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 


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 

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 

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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2013 / Notices 56699 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICESen13se13.000</GPH>
56700 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2013 / Notices 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICESen13se13.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2013 / Notices 56701 

[FR Doc. 2013–22300 Filed 9–12–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6570–01–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICESen13se13.002</GPH>