[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 39 (Wednesday, March 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12242-12247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03973]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Proposals From the Federal Interagency Working Group for Revision
of the Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal
Data on Race and Ethnicity
AGENCY: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Executive Office
of the President, Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OMB requests comments on the proposals that it has received
from the Federal Interagency Working Group for Research on Race and
Ethnicity (Working Group) for revisions to OMB's Standards for
Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and
Ethnicity. The Working Group's report and proposals, which are
presented here in brief and available on https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/related-omb-material and on http://www.regulations.gov in their entirety, are the result of a two-year,
focused review of the implementation of the current standards. The
Working Group's report reflects an examination of current practice,
public comment received in response to the Federal Register Notice
posted by OMB on September 30, 2016, and empirical analyses of publicly
available data. The report also notes statutory needs and feasibility
considerations, including cost and public burden. Initial proposals and
specific questions to the public appear under the section Issues for
Comment.
None of the proposals has yet been adopted and no interim decisions
have been made concerning them. The Working Group's report and its
proposals are being published to solicit further input from the public.
OMB plans to announce its decision in mid-2017 so that revisions, if
any, can be reflected in preparations for the 2020 Census. OMB can
modify or reject any of the proposals, and OMB has the option of making
no changes. The report and its proposals are published in this Notice
because OMB believes that they are worthy of public discussion, and
OMB's decision will benefit from obtaining the public's views on the
recommendations.
DATES: To ensure consideration during the final decision making
process, comments must be provided in writing to OMB no later than 60
days from the publication of this notice. Please be aware of delays in
mail processing at
[[Page 12243]]
Federal facilities due to increased security. Respondents are
encouraged to send comments electronically via email or via http://www.regulations.gov. See ADDRESSES below.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on the recommendations may be addressed to
the Office of the U.S. Chief Statistician, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 9th Floor, 1800 G
St. NW., Washington, DC 20503. You may also send comments or questions
via email to [email protected] or to http://www.regulations.gov, a Federal Web site that allows the public to
public to find, review, and submit comments on documents that agencies
have published in the Federal Register and that are open for comment.
Simply type ``OMB-2016-0008'' in the Comment or Submission search box,
click Go, and follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available
to the public through relevant Web sites. For this reason, please do
not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such
as sensitive personal information or proprietary information. If you
send an email comment, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket. Please note that responses to this public comment
request containing any routine notice about the confidentiality of the
communication will be treated as public comments that may be made
available to the public notwithstanding the inclusion of the routine
notice.
Electronic Availability: This document is available on the Internet
on the OMB Web site at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/related-omb-material and on http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Park, Senior Advisor to the
U.S. Chief Statistician, 1800 G St., 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20503,
email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
To operate efficiently and effectively, the Nation relies on the
flow of objective, credible statistics to support the decisions of
individuals, households, governments, businesses, and other
organizations. Any loss of trust in the accuracy, objectivity, or
integrity of the Federal statistical system and its products causes
uncertainty about the validity of measures the Nation uses to monitor
and assess its performance, progress, and needs by undermining the
public's confidence in the information released by the Government. A
number of Federal legislative and executive actions, informed by
national and international practice, have been put into place to
maintain public confidence in Federal statistics.
Accordingly, in its role as coordinator of the Federal statistical
system under the Paperwork Reduction Act (https://www.reginfo.gov/public/reginfo/pra.pdf), OMB, among other responsibilities, is required
to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the system as well as the
integrity, objectivity, impartiality, utility, and confidentiality of
information collected for statistical purposes. OMB is also charged
with developing and overseeing the implementation of Government-wide
principles, policies, standards, and guidelines concerning the
development, presentation, and dissemination of statistical
information.
For example, Statistical Policy Directive No. 1: Fundamental
Responsibilities of Federal Statistical Agencies and Recognized
Statistical Units (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-02/pdf/2014-28326.pdf) provides a unified framework of Federal statistical
agency responsibilities in the production of relevant, accurate, and
objective statistical products while maintaining the trust of data
providers and users. Statistical Policy Directive No. 2: Standards and
Guidelines for Statistical Surveys and accompanying addenda (https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/statpolicy/standards_stat_surveys.pdf) provide overarching, technical standards
and guidelines to be used by Federal agencies when preparing
statistical products. OMB's established, independent process for
preparing statistical policy directives includes Federal technical
evaluation, public comment, and expert statistical analysis.
The Federal Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting
Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity (https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg_1997standards) are another such example of OMB standards
developed using this established, independent process. These current
standards were developed in cooperation with Federal agencies to
provide consistent and comparable data on race and ethnicity throughout
the Federal government for an array of statistical and administrative
programs. Development of these Federal data standards stemmed in large
measure from new responsibilities to enforce civil rights laws. Data
were needed to monitor equal access to housing, education, employment
opportunities, etc., for population groups that historically had
experienced discrimination and differential treatment because of their
race or ethnicity. The standards are used not only in the decennial
census (which provides the ``denominator'' for many measures), but also
in household surveys, on administrative forms (e.g., school
registration and mortgage lending applications), and in medical and
other research.
In brief, the standards provide a minimum set of categories for
data on race and ethnicity that Federal agencies must use if they
intend to collect information on race and ethnicity. The standards do
not prohibit Federal agencies from collecting more detailed race/
ethnicity data. Collection of more detailed information is encouraged
by the standards, provided that any additional categories can be
aggregated within the minimum standard set if necessary to facilitate
comparison of data generated from information collections of varying
detail. Self-identification is the preferred means of obtaining
information about an individual's race and ethnicity, except in
instances where observer identification is the only, or most feasible
collection mode (e.g., completing a death certificate). Where self-
identification is practicable, individuals are encouraged to select as
many categories as they deem to be appropriate in describing
themselves. Specifically, the current standards state: ``Respect for
individual dignity should guide the processes and methods for
collecting data on race and ethnicity; ideally, respondent self-
identification should be facilitated to the greatest extent possible,
recognizing that in some data collection systems observer
identification is more practical.''
The categories developed represent a socio-political construct
designed to be used in the self-reported or observed collection of data
on the race and ethnicity of major broad population groups in this
country, and are not genetically-, anthropologically-, or
scientifically-based. The categories in the standards do not identify
or designate certain population groups as ``minority groups.'' As the
standards explicitly state, these categories are not to be used for
determining the eligibility of population groups for participation in
any Federal programs.
B. Review Process
To maintain the relevance and accuracy of Federal statistics, OMB,
in its role coordinating the Federal
[[Page 12244]]
statistical system through the authority provided in the Paperwork
Reduction Act, undertakes periodic reviews of its Federal statistical
standards. Since the 1997 revision of Federal race/ethnicity standards,
much has been learned about their implementation. Over this same time
span, the U.S. population has continued to become more racially and
ethnically diverse. In accordance with good statistical practice,
several Federal agencies have conducted methodological research to
better understand how use of the revised standards informs the quality
of Federal statistics on race and ethnicity.
In 2014, OMB formed the Working Group to exchange research
findings, identify implementation issues, and collaborate on a shared
research agenda to improve Federal data on race and ethnicity. The
Working Group comprises representatives from ten Cabinet departments
and three other agencies engaged in the collection or use of Federal
race and ethnicity data.
Through its systematic review of the implementation of the 1997
revision and stakeholder feedback, the Working Group identified four
particular areas where further revisions to the standards might improve
the quality of race and ethnicity information collected and presented
by Federal agencies. Specifically, these four areas were:
1. The use of separate questions versus a combined question to
measure race and ethnicity and question phrasing as a solution to race/
ethnicity question nonresponse;
2. The classification of a Middle Eastern and North African (MENA)
group and distinct reporting category;
3. The description of the intended use of minimum reporting
categories; and
4. The salience of terminology used for race and ethnicity
classifications and other language in the standard.
Within the Working Group, Subgroups were formed to identify areas
for possible revision; review public comments regarding areas
identified; conduct empirical analyses of potential improvements; and
consider statutory requirements and anticipated public burden and cost.
The Subgroups were charged with preparing initial proposals for
consideration by the Working Group as a whole, and, subsequently, by
OMB. Each Subgroup was comprised of Federal statisticians and/or
Federal policy analysts. Several agencies were represented in each
Subgroup, and Subgroup co-chairs facilitated work processes. Each
Subgroup prepared its analysis plan; these were simultaneously shared
and discussed across the Working Group.
On September 30, 2016, OMB issued a notice in the Federal Register
(www.regulations.gov/document?D=OMB-2016-0002-0001) announcing its
review and requesting public comment on the areas identified by the
Working Group where revision to the current standards might improve the
quality of Federal data on race and ethnicity. Specifically, comments
were requested on: (1) The adequacy of the current standards in the
areas identified for focused review; (2) specific suggestions for the
identified areas that have been offered; and (3) principles that should
govern any proposed revisions to the standards in the identified areas.
After careful review of the 3,750 public comments received, as well
as other stakeholder engagement; analysis of publicly available
empirical data and cognitive testing results; and consideration of
statutory needs, operational feasibility, cost and public burden; the
Working Group developed an interim report and now seeks further public
comment. The review process and findings are described in detail in the
report (LINK). In some cases, initial proposals are also offered.
C. Issues for Comment
With this notice, OMB requests comments on proposals presented in
the interim report of the Federal Interagency Working Group for
Research on Race and Ethnicity for revisions to OMB's Standards for
Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and
Ethnicity. These proposals and requests for further public comment
appear in the final chapter of the Working Group's report (LINK) and
are presented here for ease of reference. Note that these are issues
presented by each separate Subgroup and do not necessarily represent a
consensus of the entire Working Group as a whole. The Working Group
will continue to deliberate and take into consideration comments
received from the public before making final proposals for OMB's
consideration.
1. Questionnaire Format and Nonresponse
(a) Initial Plans: The Subgroup plans to continue its review of
current Federal agency practices to determine whether or how a revised
question format might improve the collection, tabulation, and utility
of race/ethnicity statistics for Federal programs and policies. From
this review, the Subgroup plans to prepare (initial) proposals for
consideration.
(b) Request for Public Comment: The Subgroup's review of current
agency practices to collect and report data on race/ethnicity has
identified challenges faced by some agencies with the implementation of
the current standards. The Subgroup also identified challenges
anticipated if the current standards were revised from a Separate
Questions format to a Combined Question format. The public comments
received to date also articulated both of these concerns, with the
public generally noting that a Combined Question approach resonates
with personal conceptions of race/ethnicity. (That is, most
commentators thought there was no basis to distinguish between race and
ethnicity.) However, concerns were also raised regarding the
anticipated operational feasibility and cost for implementing this
change, particularly among Federal commentators. Analyses to date
suggested that collecting these data using a Combined Question may
improve information quality for some respondents in some information
collections. However, these results may apply most readily to self-
reported collections conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, whose data
collection and data coding procedures differ from those used by other
Federal agencies due to a Congressional requirement particular to
Census (See H.R. 2562, 2005-2006). Further, the results do not seem to
generalize easily to the collection of race/ethnicity through
administrative records--a method on which many Federal agencies rely
heavily. Administrative record data collections, which are used more
routinely to generate Federal statistics, rely on complementary data
collections by administrative units, which add to the complexity of
making changes to the racial and ethnic classifications. In effect,
each of the individual administrative units must implement the revised
categories. In some cases, this implementation may be within systems
relying on the same record systems, such in the cases of schools within
a district or state. In other cases, changes to administrative record
systems may require changing procedures for large numbers of individual
institutions, businesses, or organizations. It is clear, however, that
both the magnitude and scope of anticipated benefits and costs must be
considered.
Therefore, to assist in its deliberations, the Subgroup requests
public comment on the following questions. Thinking about how
information is collected:
1. What factors should be considered when evaluating anticipated
information quality? Should both
[[Page 12245]]
magnitude and scope (that is, the majority of collections) be
considered? Should magnitude of the improved information outweigh the
scope of the improved change, or vice versa? What amount of improvement
would be considered meaningful? How should an improvement in data
quality in some Federal data systems be balanced against decreased data
quality in other systems?
2. What factors should be considered when evaluating anticipated
feasibility? Should burden to local, State, and Federal agencies be
considered? What amount of cost spent to augment systems and labor
hours used to implement changes would caution against implementing a
change? How should potential lags in data delivery be weighed?
3. What factors should be considered when evaluating anticipated
cost of implementing a change? Should costs be weighed differently when
experienced at a local, State, or Federal level? How should the costs
of improving or failing to improve information quality be considered?
4. When considering information quality, feasibility, and cost, how
should benefits and costs be weighed? In which cases would information
quality outweigh feasibility and cost concerns? In which cases would
feasibility and cost concerns outweigh information quality?
2. Classification of Middle Eastern or North African Race/Ethnicity
(a) Initial Proposal: The Subgroup proposes that a Middle Eastern
or North African (MENA) classification be added to the standards. The
classification for the Middle Eastern and North African population
should be geographically based. The MENA classification should be
defined as: ``A person having origins in any of the original peoples of
the Middle East and North Africa. This includes, for example, Lebanese,
Iranian, Egyptian, Syrian, Moroccan, Israeli, Iraqi, Algerian, and
Kurdish.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The rationale for using these examples is to include the two
largest Middle Eastern Arab nationalities (Lebanese and Syrian), the
two largest North African Arab nationalities (Egyptian and
Moroccan), and the two largest non-Arab nationalities within the
Middle Eastern/North African region (Iranian and Israeli) as the
first six examples. This is followed by the next largest Middle
Eastern Arab nationality (Iraqi), the next largest North African
Arab nationality (Algerian); as well as an example of a
transnational, non-Arab group (Kurdish).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Subgroup bases this initial recommendation on public comment
and analyses to date. During the public comment process for the 1997
standards, OMB received a number of requests to add an ethnic category
for Arabs and Middle Easterners to the minimum collection standards.
OMB heard those requests and encouraged further research on how to
collect and improve data on the Arab and Middle Easterner population.
Since that time, research has continued and, with the benefit of
quantitative and qualitative information collections conducted by the
Census Bureau as well as public comment and stakeholder engagement, the
results have overwhelmingly supported the classification of a MENA
category. (See Interim Report.)
Last, findings from the Census Bureau's 2015 Forum on Ethnic Groups
from the Middle East and North Africa (http://www.census.gov/library/working-papers/2015/demo/2015-MENA-Experts.html) and a review of public
comments on Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; 2015
National Content Test (12/2/2014) found that some experts and
stakeholders believe that a classification of this population should be
geographically based.
(b) Request for Public Comment: However, some questions remain.
Some of the groups proposed for inclusion under a MENA classification
were also ethnoreligious groups. A challenge to ethnicity measurement
can be the intersection of ethnicity with religious affiliation. The
race/ethnicity standards are not intended to measure religion (see Pub.
L. 94-521), and it is unclear how to address inclusion of
ethnoreligious groups while clearly maintaining the intent and use of
the resulting measure as not indicating religion. Further, although the
great majority of public comments received on the measurement of MENA
supported an additional, required minimum reporting category, the cost
and burden of requiring this additional reporting category when race/
ethnicity is measured across the Federal government is unclear.
1. If MENA were collected as a separate reporting category,
assuming that separate race/ethnicity questions continue to be the
standard, should MENA be considered an ethnicity or a race? [Note that,
in either case, respondents still will be able to report more than
one.]
2. Beyond potentially establishing a specification of a MENA
classification (i.e., a description of the national origins and
populations that would be included as MENA), the IWG is also
researching the potential establishment of MENA as a separate required
minimum reporting category. Should the MENA category be a required
minimum reporting category that is separate from the White minimum
reporting category?
3. Outreach conducted with the Israeli American Council and Jewish
American organizations indicates that persons of Ashkenazi, Mizrahi,
and Sephardi origin do not wish to be included in the MENA category, as
these ethnicities directly identify persons as Jewish. Moreover,
experts at the Census Bureau's 2015 Forum on Ethnic Groups from the
Middle East and North Africa expressed that those who identify as
Assyrian, Chaldean, Coptic, or Druze would like to be included in a
MENA category. We ask for public comment regarding the following
question: Which, if any, specific ethnoreligious groups should be
included in a MENA classification?
4. The Subgroup has also observed from initial feedback that the
definition of MENA may be misunderstood to include only persons who are
foreign born. Our intention is that a MENA category, should it be
adopted, would include persons of MENA origins, regardless of country
of birth. We are interested in receiving feedback as to how to best
communicate this to respondents.
5. What is the estimated cost and public burden associated with
requiring an additional reporting category for MENA across Federal
information collections? Given the estimated size of the MENA group,
would a separate reporting category allow reporting of statistically
reliable estimates? Would the size of the MENA group present
confidentiality or privacy concerns? How should the anticipated
improvement in information quality be weighed against anticipated
feasibility and cost if the additional reporting category were
encouraged? If it were required?
3. Additional Minimum Reporting Categories
The initial review of the 1997 standards did not identify
additional, minimum reporting categories for detailed race/ethnicity
groups as an element for evaluation. However, during the public comment
period for September 30, 2016's Federal Register Notice, the Working
Group received more than 1,200 comments expressing the need for further
disaggregated data for Asian communities and Native Hawaiian or Other
Pacific Islander communities. Other comments express a similar need for
disaggregated data, including 10 comments advocating for the
disaggregation of the ``Black or African American'' category.
(a) Initial Proposal: Based on public comment and Federal agency
input
[[Page 12246]]
received to date, the Subgroup proposes that OMB issue specific
guidelines for the collection of detailed data for American Indian or
Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino,
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White groups for self-
reported race and ethnicity collections. By providing these guidelines,
consistent collection of detailed race and ethnicity data will be
supported across Federal agencies. Such direction would not be applied
to the collection of observed race/ethnicity, since the accuracy at
such a detailed level would be a concern in this form of reporting.
Further, the Subgroup plans to consider under what other conditions
detailed data should not be collected. However, the Subgroup plans to
continue its deliberations as to whether OMB should require or,
alternatively, strongly support but not require Federal agencies to
collect detailed data.
1. The Subgroup proposes that OMB issue specific guidelines for the
collection of detailed race and ethnicity data for collections that are
self-reported.
(b) Request for Public Comment: The Subgroup requests public
comments on the guidelines that should be provided for collecting
detailed race and ethnicity data. Additionally, to evaluate whether or
not the reporting of detailed categories should be required, or if such
reporting should be strongly encouraged but not required, additional
information is needed. The Subgroup recognizes that collecting detailed
race and ethnicity data likely would impose a substantial cost on
Federal agencies, State and local agencies, and private sector entities
and burden on the public. Therefore, the Subgroup requests public
comment on the consideration that should be given to evaluate the value
of improved information quality taking into account anticipated cost
and public burden. Specifically, the Subgroup seeks public comment on
the following questions:
1. If issuing specific guidelines for the collection of detailed
American Indian or Alaska Native race and ethnicity data, should OMB
adopt the 2015 National Content Test (NCT) method, which includes
separately Navajo Nation, Blackfeet Tribe, Mayan, Aztec, Native Village
or Barrow Inupiat Traditional Government, and Nome Eskimo Community? If
not, how should OMB select the detailed race and ethnicity categories?
2. If issuing specific guidelines for the collection of detailed
Asian race and ethnicity data, should OMB adopt the 2010 Decennial
Census and NCT format, which includes separately Chinese, Filipino,
Asian Indian, Vietnamese, Korean, Japanese, and an ``other Asian''
category? \2\ If not, how should OMB select the detailed Asian race and
ethnicity categories?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The checkboxes used in Census 2010 were Asian Indian,
Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Other Asian
with five additional examples of Hmong, Laotian, Thai, Pakistani,
and Cambodian.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. If issuing specific guidelines for the collection of detailed
Black or African American race and ethnicity data, should OMB adopt the
NCT format, which includes separately African American, Jamaican,
Haitian, Nigerian, Ethiopian, and Somali? If not, how should OMB select
the detailed race and ethnicity categories?
4. If issuing specific guidelines for the collection of detailed
Hispanic or Latino race and ethnicity data, should OMB adopt the NCT
format, which includes separately Mexican or Mexican American, Puerto
Rican, Cuban, Salvadoran, Dominican, and Colombian? If not, how should
OMB select the detailed race and ethnicity categories?
5. If issuing specific guidelines for the collection of detailed
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders race and ethnicity data,
should OMB adopt the 2010 Decennial Census format, which includes
separately Native Hawaiian, Chamorro,\3\ Samoan, and an ``other Pacific
Islander'' category? Should it use the NCT format, which includes
separately Native Hawaiian, Samoan, Chamorro, Tongan, Fijian, and
Marshallese? If neither of these, how should OMB select the detailed
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander race and ethnicity
categories?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In the 1997 standards, the actual OMB standards used the
term Guam, not Guamanian. Census 2010 featured the following
checkboxes: Native Hawaiian, Guamanian or Chamorro, Samoan; and
provided the following examples listed for other NHPI: Fijian and
Tongan. Since Census 2010, based on feedback received by members of
the Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander community, Census no
longer includes the term Guamanian in its collections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. If issuing specific guidelines for the collection of detailed
White race and ethnicity data, should OMB adopt the NCT format, which
includes separately German, Irish, English, Italian, Polish, and
French? \4\ If not, how should OMB select the detailed race and
ethnicity categories?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ These are the examples used when MENA was included in NCT
questionnaires. When MENA was not included in NCT questionnaires,
the examples are as follows: German, Irish, English, Italian,
Lebanese, and Egyptian.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. What burden and cost would a Federal requirement to collect
detailed race and ethnicity data place on Federal agencies, State and
local agencies, private sector entities and the public? How should this
burden and cost be weighed against any anticipated improvement in
information quality?
8. Should Federal agencies be required to collect detailed race and
ethnicity data even when such data could not be responsibly reported
due to statistical reliability and confidentiality concerns? If so, in
which cases? What factors should be considered?
9. If OMB were to strongly encourage, but not require, collection
of detailed race and ethnicity data by Federal agencies, how likely are
Federal agencies to adopt collection of detailed race and ethnicity
data?
10. If OMB were to strongly encourage, but not require, collection
of detailed race and ethnicity data by Federal agencies, what criteria
should be used to encourage and evaluate conformance with such
guidance?
4. Relevance of Terminology
(a) Initial Proposals:
1. The Subgroup proposes no changes be made to the current
standards to specifically incorporate the following geographic
locations into any existing race or ethnicity category: Australian
(including the original people of Australia/the Aborigines), Brazilian,
Cape Verdean, New Zealander, and Papua New Guinean. This proposal takes
into account the low prevalence of these geographic locations appearing
as write-in responses according to the research presented above.
2. Based on its analyses to date, the Subgroup proposes more
research and public input be conducted to enable a more complete
consideration of adding more specific South or Central American
subgroups to the current description of the American Indian or Alaska
Native (AIAN) category in order to improve identification with the
reporting category.
3. The Subgroup proposes that the duplicate initial mention of
``Cuban'' be deleted in the definition of ``Hispanic or Latino'' so
that the listing is presented according to population size. The
Subgroup also considered whether the current ordering of the
classification listing should be updated to reflect current population
size. As a next step, the Subgroup plans to apply this rationale to the
classification listing and determine the magnitude and benefit of any
resulting changes. The results of this analysis are intended to be
shared with the public.
4. The Subgroup proposes that the term ``Negro'' be removed from
the standards. Further, the Subgroup recommends that the term ``Far
East'' be removed from the current standards.
[[Page 12247]]
5. The Subgroup also proposes that OMB provide guidance to Federal
agencies that race/ethnicity coding procedures be documented and made
publicly available, as this would allow greater transparency and
promote further consistency in Federal data collections.
6. The Subgroup proposes further clarifying the standards to
indicate the classification is not intended to be genetically based,
nor based on skin color. Rather, the goal of standards is to provide
guidelines for the Federal measurement of race/ethnicity as a social
construct and therefore inform public policy decisions.
(b) Request for Public Comment: The Subgroup also considered
whether referring to Black or African American as the ``principal
minority race'' is still relevant, meaningful, accurate, and
acceptable. Given that many of the groups classified as racial and
ethnic minorities have experienced institutionalized or State-
sanctioned discrimination as well as social disadvantage and
oppression, many consider it to be important to continue identifying
the principal minority group in Federal data collections and reporting
systems. However, it is not clear if the referent groups should change
given changing demographics.
1. Should Hispanic or Latino be among the groups considered among
``principal minorities''? Would alternative terms be more salient
(e.g., ``principal minority race/ethnicity'')? Hispanic or Latino
usually is considered an ethnicity while ``minority'' is usually used
when referencing race.
The overall goal of the standards' review is to ensure the quality
of information that is used to inform Federal policy, without imposing
undue burden on the public. Comments are requested on any aspect of the
Working Group's proposals. When evaluating the proposals, readers may
wish to refer to the set of general principles used by Working Group
members to govern its review (enumerated in Section 1 of the Working
Group's interim report)--a process that has attempted to balance
statistical issues, data needs, and social concerns. We recognize these
principles may in some cases represent competing goals for the
standards. For example, having categories that are comprehensive in the
coverage of our Nation's diverse population (Principle 4) and that
would facilitate self-identification (Principle 2) may not be
operationally feasible in terms of the burden that would be placed upon
respondents and the public and private costs that would be associated
with implementation (Principle 8).
D. Conclusion
This Notice affords a second opportunity for the public to comment
on the interim progress of the Working Group. None of the proposals has
been adopted and no interim decisions have been made concerning them.
OMB can modify or reject any of the proposals, and OMB has the option
of making no changes. The report and its proposals are published in
this Notice because OMB believes that they are worthy of public
discussion, and OMB's decision will benefit from obtaining the public's
views on the recommendations. OMB plans to announce its decision in
spring 2017 so that revisions, if any, can be reflected in preparations
for the 2020 Census.
Dominic J. Mancini,
Acting Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2017-03973 Filed 2-28-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P