Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Addressing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Discrimination by Federal Contractors (OMB Control No. 9000-XXXX)

A coalition of local governments, including the City and County of San Francisco, opposes the proposed information collection regarding DEI discrimination by federal contractors. They argue that the proposed requirements are fatally ambiguous, impose undue administrative burdens on contractors, and lack a supported basis for the claim that DEI activities cause waste or inefficiency.

The ANCSA Regional Association (ARA) opposes the proposed information collection because it fails to exclude Alaska Native Corporation (ANC) programs, which are based on political status rather than racial discrimination. They argue that the collection lacks practical utility for ANCs, understates the regulatory burden, and request explicit exclusions and clearer definitions to prevent the misapplication of the rule to their statutorily mandated programs.

The National Industry Liaison Group (NILG), representing over sixty local Industrial Liaison Groups (ILGs), supports the proposed information collection but argues it currently fails to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act. They request that the FAR Council withdraw and revise the request to include specific details on the information to be collected, the reasons for its necessity, and the frequency of collection.

The Institute for Workplace Equality, a non-profit employer association, opposes the proposed Information Collection Request (ICR) because it fails to meet Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) standards. They argue that the proposal lacks sufficient detail regarding what specific information will be collected, how it will be used, and what the actual burden on contractors will be, and therefore request that the ICR be withdrawn and revised.

The Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU) opposes the proposed certification requirements, arguing they violate the Paperwork Reduction Act by being duplicative and burdensome. They contend that the proposal relies on unsettled administrative interpretations rather than settled law, which creates compliance uncertainty and risks significant policy swings between different federal administrations.

Chugach Alaska Corporation opposes the proposed information collection as currently drafted, arguing that it fails to account for the legal distinction between racially discriminatory DEI activities and the programs ANCSA corporations operate for their shareholders and communities. The corporation requests an explicit exclusion for ANCSA-mandated programs, asserting that the collection lacks practical utility for these entities and imposes an unnecessary legal and administrative burden.

The Native American Contractors Association (NACA) opposes the proposed contract clause because it fails to distinguish between unlawful racial discrimination and lawful political classifications for Native entities. They argue that the reporting requirements are overbroad, impracticable, and threaten tribal sovereignty, trade secrets, and proprietary information.

Ho-Chunk, Inc., a tribal-entity business, opposes the proposed FAR clause because it could lead to the misclassification of mandatory tribal programs as discriminatory DEI activities. They argue that tribal programs are based on unique government-to-government legal obligations and political status rather than race, and express concern that the broad language of the clause could lead to unintended legal consequences or malicious claims by competitors.

The commenter, identifying as the Director of a research organization, argues that the proposed clause is problematic due to its unclear compliance requirements. They express concern that the language could be used to easily terminate scientific contracts and suggest that related legal debates should be settled before the policy is implemented.

The Attorneys General of 21 states and the District of Columbia oppose the proposed information collection, arguing it violates the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) by being conducted before OMB clearance and lacking sufficient specificity. They also contend that the estimated burden on federal contractors is inaccurately low, that the collection is unnecessary, and that it poses significant risks to privacy and security.