[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 81 (Tuesday, April 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23501-23503]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09741]



[[Page 23501]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of 
information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. chapter 35).
    Agency: U.S. Census Bureau.
    Title: American Community Survey.
    OMB Control Number: 0607-XXXX.
    Form Number(s): ACS-1, ACS-1(SP), ACS-1(PR), ACS-1(PR)SP, ACS-
1(GQ), ACS-1(PR)(GQ), GQFQ, ACS CATI (HU), ACS CAPI (HU), ACS RI (HU), 
and AGQ QI, AGQ RI.
    Type of Request: Regular Submission.
    Number of Respondents: 3,760,000.
    Average Hours Per Response: 40 minutes for the average household 
questionnaire.
    Burden Hours: The estimate is an annual average of 2,455,868 burden 
hours.
    Needs and Uses: The U.S. Census Bureau requests authorization from 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for revisions to the American 
Community Survey (ACS). The content of the proposed 2016 ACS 
questionnaire and data collection instruments for both Housing Unit and 
Group Quarters operations reflect changes to content and instructions 
that were proposed as a result of the 2014 ACS Content Review.
    The American Community Survey (ACS) is one of the Department of 
Commerce's most valuable data products, used extensively by businesses, 
non-governmental organizations (NGOs), local governments, and many 
federal agencies. In conducting this survey, the Census Bureau's top 
priority is respecting the time and privacy of the people providing 
information while preserving its value to the public. The 2016 survey 
content changes are the initial step in a multi-faceted approach to 
reducing respondent burden. The Census Bureau is currently carrying out 
this program of research, which includes several components as 
discussed briefly below.
    One of the areas with strong potential to reduce respondent burden 
is to reuse information already supplied to the federal government in 
lieu of directly collecting it again through particular questions on 
the ACS. The Census Bureau is conducting groundbreaking work aimed at 
understanding the extent to which existing government data can reduce 
redundancy and improve efficiency. The tests we are conducting in the 
next two years will tell us whether existing government records can 
provide substitute data for households that have not responded to the 
ACS.
    In addition, we continue to look into the possibility of asking 
questions less often beginning initial efforts on the martial history 
series of questions. For example, asking a question every other year, 
every third year, or asking a question of a subset of the respondents 
each year. We also want to examine ways we can better phrase our 
questions to reduce respondent concern, especially for those who may be 
sensitive to providing information.
    The outcome of these future steps will be a more efficient survey 
that minimizes respondent burden while continuing to provide quality 
data products for the nation. We expect to make great progress during 
fiscal 2015 on this front, and will be reporting our progress to the 
Secretary of Commerce at the end of the fiscal year.
    Since the founding of the nation, the U.S. Census has mediated 
between the demands of a growing country for information about its 
economy and people, and the people's privacy and respondent burden. 
Beginning with the 1810 Census, Congress added questions to support a 
range of public concerns and uses, and over the course of a century 
questions were added about agriculture, industry, and commerce, as well 
as occupation, ancestry, marital status, disabilities, and other 
topics. In 1940, the U.S. Census Bureau introduced the long form and 
since then only the more detailed questions were asked of a sample of 
the public.
    The ACS, launched in 2005, is the current embodiment of the long 
form of the census, and is asked each year of a sample of the U.S. 
population in order to provide current data needed more often than once 
every ten years. In December of 2010, five years after its launch, the 
ACS program accomplished its primary objective with the release of its 
first set of estimates for every area of the United States. The Census 
Bureau concluded it was an appropriate time to conduct a comprehensive 
assessment of the ACS program. This program assessment focused on 
strengthening programmatic, technical, and methodological aspects of 
the survey to assure that the Census Bureau conducts the ACS 
efficiently and effectively.
    In August 2012, the OMB and the Census Bureau chartered the 
Interagency Council on Statistical Policy (ICSP) Subcommittee for the 
ACS to ``provide advice to the Director of the Census Bureau and the 
Chief Statistician at OMB on how the ACS can best fulfill its role in 
the portfolio of Federal household surveys and provide the most useful 
information with the least amount of burden.'' The Subcommittee charter 
also states that the Subcommittee would be expected to ``conduct 
regular, periodic reviews of the ACS content . . . designed to ensure 
that there is clear and specific authority and justification for each 
question to be on the ACS, the ACS is the appropriate vehicle for 
collecting the information, respondent burden is being minimized, and 
the quality of the data from ACS is appropriate for its intended use.''
    The formation of the ICSP Subcommittee on the ACS and the 
aforementioned assessment of the ACS program also provided an 
opportunity to examine and confirm the value of each question on the 
ACS, which resulted in the 2014 ACS Content Review. This review, which 
was an initial step in a multi-faceted approach of a much larger 
content review process, included examination of all 72 questions 
contained on the 2014 ACS questionnaire, including 24 housing-related 
questions and 48 person-related questions.
    The Census Bureau proposed the two analysis factors--benefit as 
defined by the level of usefulness and cost as defined by the level of 
respondent burden or difficulty in obtaining the data, which was 
accepted by the ICSP Subcommittee. Based on a methodology pre-defined 
by the Census Bureau with the input and concurrence of the ICSP 
Subcommittee on the ACS, each question received a total number of 
points between 0 and 100 based on its benefits, and 0 and 100 points 
based on its costs. These points were then used as the basis for 
creating four categories: High Benefit and Low Cost; High Benefit and 
High Cost; Low Benefit and Low Cost; or Low Benefit and High Cost. For 
this analysis, any question that was designated as either Low Benefit 
and Low Cost or Low Benefit and High Cost and was NOT designated as 
Mandatory (i.e., statutory) by the Department of Commerce Office of 
General Counsel (OGC) or NOT Required (i.e., regulatory) with a sub-
state use, was identified as a potential candidate for removal. The 
Department of Commerce OGC worked with its counterparts across the 
federal government to determine mandatory, required, or programmatic 
status, as defined below:

 Mandatory--a federal law explicitly calls for use of decennial 
census or ACS data on that question
 Required--a federal law (or implementing regulation) 
explicitly

[[Page 23502]]

requires the use of data and the decennial census or the ACS is the 
historical source; or the data are needed for case law requirements 
imposed by the U.S. federal court system
 Programmatic--the data are needed for program planning, 
implementation, or evaluation and there is no explicit mandate or 
requirement.

Based on the analysis, the following questions were initially proposed 
for removal:

 Housing Question No. 6--Business/Medical Office on Property
 Person Question No. 12--Undergraduate Field of Degree
 Person Question No. 21--(In the Past 12 mos, did this person) 
Get Married, Widowed, Divorced
 Person Question No. 22--Times Married
 Person Question No. 23--Year Last Married

    For reports that provide a full description of the overall 2014 ACS 
Content Review methods and results, see ``Final Report--American 
Community Survey FY14 Content Review Results'' (Attachment V); 
additional reports about the 2014 ACS Content Review are also available 
at http://www.census.gov/acs/www/about_the_survey/methods_and_results_report/.
    Regarding the business/medical office on property question, the 
Census Bureau received 41 comments from researchers, and individuals. 
Most of these comments came from researchers who felt that the Census 
Bureau should keep all of the proposed questions in order to keep the 
survey content consistent over time, or felt that modifications to the 
question could potentially make it more useful. Housing Question No. 
6--Business/Medical Office on Property is currently not published by 
the Census Bureau in any data tables. The only known use of the 
question is to produce a variable for the Public Use Microdata Sample 
(PUMS), a recode for the Specified Owner (SVAL) variable that allows 
users to compare other datasets. The Content Review did not reveal any 
uses by federal agencies, and the comments to the Federal Register 
notice did not reveal any non-federal uses. Additionally, there were no 
uses uncovered in meetings with stakeholders, data user feedback forms, 
or other methods employed to understand the uses of ACS data. Lastly, 
independent research conducted on behalf of the Census Bureau did not 
uncover any further uses. Though the question has a low cost, it has no 
benefit to federal agencies, the federal statistical system, or the 
nation. The Census Bureau plans to remove this question, beginning with 
the 2016 ACS content.
    Regarding the field of degree question, the Census Bureau received 
625 comments from researchers, professors and administrators at many 
universities, professional associations that represent science, 
technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) careers and industries, 
members of Congress, the National Science Foundation, and many 
individuals interested in retaining this question. A number of 
commenters (92) cited the importance of these estimates for research 
that analyzes the effect of field of degree choice on economic 
outcomes, including earnings, education, occupation, industry, and 
employment. University administrators (37) commented that this 
information allows for analysis of postsecondary outcomes, and allows 
them to benchmark their graduates' relative success in different fields 
as well as to plan degree offerings. While some commenters used the 
estimates to understand fields such as humanities or philosophy (56), 
the majority of these comments (125) addressed the value of knowing 
about the outcomes of people who pursued degrees in science, 
technology, engineering and mathematics. These commenters felt that 
knowing more about the people currently earning STEM degrees and the 
people currently working in STEM fields would enable universities, 
advocacy groups, and policy makers to encourage more people to pursue 
STEM careers, and to encourage diversity within STEM careers.
    The initial analysis of Person Question No. 12--Undergraduate Field 
of Degree did not uncover any evidence that the question was Mandatory 
or Required. However, comments to the Federal Register notice uncovered 
the existence of a relationship between the Census Bureau and the 
National Science Foundation, dating back to 1960. Over the course of 
this established relationship, long-form decennial census data was used 
as a sampling frame for surveys that provided important information 
about scientists and engineers. These comments demonstrated that the 
Field of Degree question on the ACS continues this historical use of 
decennial long-form and ACS data for this purpose, and makes this 
process more efficient. Many commenters (58) also cited the necessity 
of the National Survey of College Graduates (NSCG), and recommended 
retaining the question because it is needed as a sampling frame for the 
NSCG. Though commenters theorized that the NSCG might still be able to 
produce STEM estimates without the ACS, a number of commenters (16) 
thought that doing so would be very expensive, costing as much as $17 
million more (1).
    Additionally, many comments also indicated uses of this question to 
understand the economic outcomes of college graduates at local 
geographic levels, especially those with STEM degrees. These commenters 
included professional, academic, congressional, and policy-making 
stakeholders who expressed concerns that the absence of statistical 
information about STEM degrees would harm the ability to understand 
characteristics of small populations attaining STEM degrees. Given the 
importance of this small population group to the economy, the federal 
statistical system and the nation, bolstered by the new knowledge of 
historical precedent brought to light by commenters to the Federal 
Register notice, the Census Bureau therefore plans to retain this 
question on the 2016 ACS.
    Regarding the marital history questions, the Census Bureau received 
1,361 comments from researchers and professors, professional 
associations that represent marriage and family therapists, the Social 
Security Administration (SSA), and many individuals interested in 
retaining these questions. SSA commented that it uses the marital 
history questions to estimate future populations by marital status as 
part of the Board of Trustees annual report on the actuarial status 
(including future income and disbursements) of the Old-Age and 
Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds. 
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) also uses these 
questions to distinguish households in which a grandparent has primary 
responsibility for a grandchild or grandchildren, as well as to provide 
family formation and stability measures for the Temporary Assistance 
for Needy Families (TANF) program.
    The focus of the proposed elimination is on the marital history 
questions only with no change to collection of marital status. Over 400 
additional comments to the Federal Register notice cited concerns that 
the proposed elimination of the marital history questions was an 
indication of whether the government views information about marriage 
as somehow less valuable than other ACS question topics that were not 
proposed for removal. While the Census Bureau had always planned to 
continue collecting information about the ``marital status'' for each 
person in a

[[Page 23503]]

household (Person Question No. 20) and their relationships to each 
other (Person Question No. 2), the Census Bureau remains sensitive to 
these criticisms
    More than 100 supporters of retaining the marital history questions 
mentioned their utility for research into marital status changes over 
time and they correctly noted that there is currently no other national 
source of the marital history information. As a result, many commenters 
felt they would not be able to compare marriage characteristics and 
patterns with other nations in the same depth that is possible today. 
Similarly, without these questions, the commenters felt that the 
analysis of changes in marriage events (especially those due to 
changing societal values and pressures or policy changes) would be less 
robust. In particular, comments focused on 6 research areas that would 
be more difficult to analyze without the marital history questions:

 Family formation and stability (23)
 Patterns/trends of marriage and divorce (168)
 Marital effects on earnings, education and employment (45)
 Marital effects on child wellbeing (6)
 Same-sex marriages, civil unions and partnerships (70)
 New government policy effects on marriage (9)

    Because the initial analysis of Person Question Nos. 21-23 on 
marital history did not uncover any evidence that data from these 
questions were ``Required'' for federal use at sub-state geographies, 
those questions received a lower benefit score than many other ACS 
questions. However, in deference to the very large number (1,367) of 
comments received on the Census Bureau proposal to eliminate those 
questions, the Census Bureau plans to retain those questions on the 
2016 ACS.
    The Census Bureau takes very seriously respondent concerns and 
recognizes that the Content Review and the resulting, proposed question 
changes discussed above are only initial steps to addressing them. The 
Census Bureau has implemented an extensive action plan on addressing 
respondent burden and concerns. The work completed, and the comments 
received, on the 2014 Content Review provide a foundation for ongoing 
and future efforts to reduce burden and concerns. In addition to the 
immediate content changes (proposed above), the Census Bureau is also 
currently testing the language on the survey materials that may cause 
concern such as reminding people that their responses are required by 
law. In order to be responsive to these concerns about the prominence 
of the mandatory message on the envelopes, we are conducting research 
with a subset of ACS respondents in May 2015. Over the summer, we will 
work with external methodological experts to test other revisions of 
the ACS mail materials to check respondent perceptions of the softened 
references to the mandatory nature of participation in the ACS. The 
preliminary results of those tests will be available in the fall, and 
the Census Bureau will make changes to the 2016 ACS mail materials 
based on those results.
    Concurrently we also are identifying additional questions that we 
may only need to ask intermittently, rather than each month or year. 
The current ACS sample design asks all of the survey questions from all 
selected households in order to produce estimates each year for small 
geographies and small populations. However, during the Content Review 
we learned about over 300 data needs that federal agencies require to 
implement their missions. We see several potential opportunities to 
either include some questions periodically, or ask a smaller subset of 
ACS respondents in cases where those agencies do not need certain data 
annually. The Census Bureau plans to engage the federal agencies and 
external experts on this topic during 2015. In addition, we need to 
assess the operational and statistical issues associated with alternate 
designs. The alternate designs will result in a reduction in the number 
of questions asked of individual households.
    We are also conducting research on substituting the direct 
collection of information with the use of information already provided 
to the government. It is possible that the Census Bureau could use 
administrative records from federal and commercial sources in lieu of 
asking particular questions on the ACS.
    Lastly, we are examining our approaches to field collection to 
reduce the number of in-person contact attempts while preserving data 
quality. For example, based on research conducted in 2012, we 
implemented changes in 2013 which led to an estimated reduction of 
approximately 1.2 million call attempts per year, while sustaining the 
97 percent response rate for the survey overall. For the person visit 
operation, we are researching a reduction in the number of contact 
attempts. We plan to field test this change in August 2015. If 
successful we would implement nationwide in spring 2016.
    We will continue to look for other opportunities to reduce 
respondent burden while maintaining survey quality. Taken together, 
these measures will make a significant impact on reducing respondent 
burden in the ACS.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Frequency: Response to the ACS is on a one-time basis.
    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
    Legal Authority: Title 13, United States Code, Sections 141, 193, 
and 221.
    This information collection request may be viewed at 
www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view the Department of 
Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to [email protected] or fax to (202)395-5806.

    Dated: April 22, 2015.
Glenna Mickelson,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-09741 Filed 4-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-07-P