60-Day FR Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2016 / Notices
can view this document, as well as all
other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF). To use PDF you must
have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at: www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
Dated: January 26, 2016.
Lynn B. Mahaffie,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy,
Planning, and Innovation Delegated the
Duties of the Assistant Secretary for
Postsecondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2016–01746 Filed 1–29–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION
[3046–0007]

Agency Information Collection
Activities: Revision of the Employer
Information Report (EEO–1) and
Comment Request
Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission.
ACTION: Proposed revision of the
employer information report (EEO–1)
and comment request.
AGENCY:

In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the
Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission)
announces that it intends to submit to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) a request for a three-year PRA
approval of a revised Employer
Information Report (EEO–1) data
collection. This revised data collection
has two components. Component 1
collects the same data that is gathered
by the currently approved EEO–1:
Specifically, data about employees’
ethnicity, race, and sex, by job category.
Component 2 collects data on
employees’ W–2 earnings and hours
worked, which EEO–1 filers already
maintain in the ordinary course of
business. For the 2016 reporting cycle,
all EEO–1 filers would submit the data
under Component 1. Starting in 2017,
filers with 100 or more employees (both
private industry and Federal contractor)
would submit data in response to both
Components 1 and 2. Contractors with
50 to 99 employees would only submit
data for Component 1. In this notice, the

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:33 Jan 29, 2016

Jkt 238001

EEOC solicits public comment on the
utility and burden of collecting pay and
hours-worked data through the EEO–1
data collection process.
DATES: Written comments on this notice
must be submitted on or before April 1,
2016.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e–8(c), a
public hearing concerning the proposed
changes to the EEO–1 will be held at a
place and time to be announced. To
request an opportunity to present your
views orally at the hearing, please
submit a written request to the EEOC’s
Executive Secretariat (street address
below) no later than February 22, 2016
to be assured of consideration. Please
include your contact information.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice
may be submitted to the EEOC in three
ways; please use only one.
Comments and attachments may be
submitted online at http://
www.regulations.gov, which is the
Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the
instructions on the Web site for
submitting comments. Comments
received here will be posted publicly on
the same portal without change,
including any personal information you
provide. However, the EEOC reserves
the right to refrain from posting
comments, including those that contain
obscene, indecent, or profane language;
that contain threats or defamatory
statements; that contain hate speech
directed at race, color, sex, sexual
orientation, national origin, ethnicity,
age, religion, or disability; or that
promote or endorse services or
products.
Hard copy comments and all requests
to participate in the hearing may be
submitted to Bernadette Wilson, Acting
Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat,
Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, 131 M Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20507.
The Executive Secretariat also will
accept documents 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 (TTY). (These are not toll-free
telephone numbers.)
Subject to the conditions noted above,
the EEOC will post online at http://
www.regulations.gov all comments
submitted in hard copy or by fax with
the Executive Secretariat. The EEOC
Headquarters’ library also will make

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

5113

available hard copies of all comments,
by advance appointment only, between
the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
Time. To schedule an appointment to
inspect the comments at the EEOC’s
library, contact the library staff at (202)
663–4630 (voice) or (202) 663–4641
(TTY). (These are not toll-free numbers.)
For reference when commenting on
this notice, the current EEO–1 (and
proposed Component 1) can be found at
http://www.eeoc.gov/employers/
eeo1survey/upload/eeo1-2.pdf. An
illustration of the data to be collected by
both Components 1 and 2 can be found
at http://www.eeoc.gov/employers/
eeo1survey/2016_new_survey.cfm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ronald Edwards, Director, Program
Research and Surveys Division, Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission,
131 M Street NE., Room 4SW30F,
Washington, DC 20507; (202) 663–4949
(voice) or (202) 663–7063 (TTY).
Requests for this notice in an alternative
format should be made to the Office of
Communications and Legislative Affairs
at (202) 663–4191 (voice) or (202) 663–
4494 (TTY).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The EEO–1 Survey and Its Legal
Authority
Section 709(c) of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) requires
employers to make and keep records
relevant to the determination of whether
unlawful employment practices have
been or are being committed, to preserve
such records, and to produce reports as
the Commission prescribes by
regulation or order.1 Pursuant to this
statutory authority, the EEOC in 1966
issued a regulation requiring certain
employers to file executed copies of the
EEO–1 survey in conformity with the
directions and instructions on the form,
which called for reporting employee
data by job category, ethnicity, race, and
sex.2 Pursuant to Executive Order
11246,3 the Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs (OFCCP), U.S.
Department of Labor (DOL), in 1978
issued its regulation describing the
EEO–1 as a report ‘‘promulgated jointly
with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission’’ and
requiring certain contractors to submit
‘‘complete and accurate reports’’
annually.4 Through the EEO–1 Joint
Reporting Committee housed at the
1 42

U.S.C. 2000e–8(c).
EEOC’s EEO–1 regulation is at 29 part 1602
Subpart B. The EEOC is responsible for obtaining
OMB’s PRA approval for the EEO–1 report.
3 Exec. Order No. 11,246, 30 FR 12,319 (Sept. 24,
1965).
4 41 CFR 60–1.7(a).
2 The

E:\FR\FM\01FEN1.SGM

01FEN1

5114

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2016 / Notices

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

EEOC, the EEO–1 is administered as a
single data collection to meet the
statistical needs of both agencies.5
Currently, the EEO–1 directs certain
covered employers with more than 50
employees (contractors) or 100
employees (private industry) 6 to report
annually the number of individuals they
employ by job category and by race,
ethnicity, and sex.7 The data include
seven race and ethnicity categories 8 and
ten job categories,9 by sex. A sample
copy of the currently approved EEO–1
can be found at http://www.eeoc.gov/
employers/eeo1survey/upload/eeo12.pdf.
5 The EEOC shares EEO–1 data with state and
local Fair Employment Practices Agencies under
the authority of section 709(d) of Title VII. Subject
to their agreement to comply with the
confidentiality provisions of 42 U.S.C. 2000e–8(e),
the EEOC shares EEO–1 reports with the
Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the National
Credit Union Administration (NCUA). The FDIC
and the NCUA use EEO–1 data pursuant to the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act of 2010 to help analyze diversity in
management, employment, and business activities.
DOJ uses the EEO–1 data when it defends OFCCP
in litigation, in the event a federal contractor sues
OFCCP to prevent debarment.
6 Unless otherwise noted, the term ‘‘contractor’’
refers to federal contractors and first-tier
subcontractors that satisfy the employee and
contract size coverage criteria that subject them to
the EEO–1 reporting obligations. The term ‘‘private
industry’’ refers to all other entities required to file
the EEO–1 that are not included in the ‘‘contractor’’
designation. The term ‘‘employer’’ or ‘‘filer’’ refers
collectively to all entities that file EEO–1 data.
7 The EEO–1 uses federal race and ethnic
categories, which were adopted by the Commission
in 2005 and implemented in 2007, pursuant to the
PRA.
8 Hispanic or Latino—A person of Cuban,
Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American,
or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race.
White (Not Hispanic or Latino)—A person having
origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the
Middle East, or North Africa.
Black or African American (Not Hispanic or
Latino)—A person having origins in any of the black
racial groups of Africa.
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (Not
Hispanic or Latino)—A person having origins in
any of the peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or
other Pacific Islands.
Asian (Not Hispanic or Latino)—A person having
origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East,
Southeast Asia, or the Indian Subcontinent,
including, for example, Cambodia, China, India,
Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine
Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
American Indian or Alaska Native (Not Hispanic
or Latino)—A person having origins in any of the
original peoples of North and South America
(including Central America), and who maintain
tribal affiliation or community attachment.
Two or More Races (Not Hispanic or Latino)—All
persons who identify with more than one of the
above five races.
9 The ten job groups are: Executive/Senior Level
Officials and Managers; First/Mid Level Officials
and Managers; Professionals; Technicians; Sales
Workers; Administrative Support Workers; Craft
Workers; Operatives; Laborers and Helpers; Service
Workers.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:33 Jan 29, 2016

Jkt 238001

Adding Pay Data to the EEO–1
In 1964, Congress enacted Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act, as amended, 42
U.S.C. 2000e, et seq., (Title VII), which
makes unlawful a wide range of
discriminatory employment practices,
including pay discrimination, because
of race, color, religion, national origin,
or sex. The EEOC is responsible for
enforcing Title VII and other federal
laws prohibiting employment
discrimination, including the Equal Pay
Act of 1963.10 The Equal Pay Act
prohibits sex-based wage discrimination
between men and women if they work
in the same establishment and perform
jobs that require substantially equal
skill, effort, and responsibility under
similar working conditions.11 OFCCP
enforces Executive Order 11246, as
amended, which prohibits
discrimination, including compensation
discrimination, based on race, color,
religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender
identity, or religion.12
In 2010, the EEOC joined other federal
agencies, including the DOL, as
members of the President’s National
Equal Pay Task Force to identify ways
to improve enforcement of federal laws
prohibiting pay discrimination. The
Task Force recommended, among other
things, that the EEOC engage the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to
conduct a study assessing how to most
effectively collect pay data to support its
wage discrimination law enforcement
efforts. The EEOC accordingly
commissioned a study, and the NAS
convened a Panel on Measuring and
Collecting Pay Information from U.S.
Employers by Gender, Race, and
National Origin. This Panel’s August 15,
2012, report (NAS Report) 13 recognized
the potential value for enforcement of
collecting pay data from employers by
sex, race, and national origin through a
survey such as the EEO–1, and
emphasized the importance of a
definitive plan for how the data would
be used in coordination with other
equal employment opportunity (EEO)
enforcement agencies. The NAS Report
also recommended that the EEOC
conduct a pilot to inform the parameters
for any pay data collection.14
10 29

U.S.C. 206(d).
Enforcement of the Equal Pay Act was
transferred from the DOL to the EEOC in 1978. 5
USCA APP. 1 REORG. PLAN 1 1978.
12 See Department of Labor, Office of Federal
Contractor Compliance Programs, Exec. Order
11246 as amended, http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/
statutes/eo11246.htm.
13 National Research Council. 2012. Collecting
Compensation Data From Employers. Washington,
DC: National Academies Press, 8. Available at
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_
id=13496.
14 Id. at 87–88.
11 Id.

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

Following the NAS Report
recommendation, the EEOC
commissioned an independent Pilot
Study to identify the most efficient
means to collect pay data. The Pilot
Study, completed in September 2015,
assisted the EEOC in formulating this
proposal and will guide the
development of analytic techniques to
make full use of the data to be
collected.15 The Pilot Study considered
a variety of statistical approaches that
could be used to detect pay differences
between groups and then tested these
approaches by applying them to
synthetic pay data 16 in order to identify
their strengths and weaknesses.17
Ultimately, the Pilot Study made
technical recommendations about
several central components of a data
collection, including: The unit of pay to
be collected; the best summary
measures of central tendency and
dispersion for rates of pay; appropriate
statistical test(s) for analyzing pay data;
and the most efficient and least costly
methods for transmitting pay data from
employers. The Pilot Study also
estimated employer burden-hour costs
and the processing costs associated with
the recommended method of collection.
Separately, the EEOC sought input
about updating all the EEO surveys,
including adding pay data, when its
staff held a two-day meeting in March
2012 with employer representatives,
statisticians, human resources
information systems (HRIS) experts, and
information technology specialists
15 ‘‘EEOC Pay Pilot Study,’’ September, 2015,
Sage Computing. Available at: http://www.eeoc.gov/
employers/eeo1survey/pay-pilot-study.pdf.
16 Two ‘‘synthetic’’ data bases were used. The first
synthetic data base used data from the auto parts
manufacturing industry and the Occupation
Employment Statistics (OES) as well as EEO–1 data
to construct a hypothetical firm in the auto parts
manufacturing industry. To do so, the number of
employees by EEO–1 job groups in an average sized
firm was estimated. EEO–1 job groups were then
mapped to the Standard Occupational Classification
(SOC) categories in the OES data. Using OES
statistics on the distribution of annual wages within
SOC categories, the likely wages for EEO–1 job
groups in an average firm were generated. These
samples represent typical or representative wages,
not actual wages, for auto parts employees. See
Pilot Study, page 79. The second data base used
data extracts from Current Population Survey (CPS)
data (downloaded from http://cps.ipums.org. March
CPS Annual Social and Economic Supplement).
The data were downloaded from the International
Public Use Microdata Series Web site for the 2010
to 2014 period. (King, M., S. Ruggles, J.T.
Alexander, S. Flood, K. Genadek, M.B. Schroeder,
B. Trampe, and R. Vick. 2010. Integrated Public Use
Microdata Series, Current Population Survey:
Version 3.0. [Machine-readable database].
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.) See Pilot
Study, page 56.
17 Synthetic pay data was used because
conducting a test survey of nine or more companies
would require PRA approval. 44 U.S.C.
3502(3)(A)(i).

E:\FR\FM\01FEN1.SGM

01FEN1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2016 / Notices

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

(work group). The work group reviewed
the current data collection procedures,
provided feedback on future
modernization of the EEO surveys, and
engaged in brainstorming that led to
ideas submitted individually by group
participants on a number of topics,
including collecting pay data as well as
multiple-race category data on the EEO–
1. Employer stakeholders expressed
concern about the importance of
maintaining the confidentiality of any
individual filer’s pay data even if pay
data were only published in aggregated
form.18 The work group report 19 reflects
feedback from participants that the
burden of reporting pay data would be
minimal for EEO–1 filers.
On April 8, 2014, the Presidential
Memorandum, ‘‘Advancing Pay Equality
Through Compensation Data
Collection’’ was issued. It directed the
Secretary of Labor to develop a
compensation data collection
proposal.20 OFCCP issued a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on
August 8, 2014, proposing to amend one
of its implementing regulations for
Executive Order 11246 to add a
requirement that certain federal
contractors submit compensation data
reports to OFCCP.21 Under the NPRM,
OFCCP also proposed a sample of an
Equal Pay Report for collecting this
data.22
Public comments submitted to OFCCP
about the proposed Equal Pay Report
18 For example, reporting the average pay for
Hispanic or Latino women who are Executive/
Senior Level Officials and Managers, if there are
few Hispanic or Latino women in that job group,
may effectively reveal the pay of individual
employees. To allay these concerns, the EEOC
intends to re-examine the rules for testing statistical
confidentiality for publishing aggregate data to
make certain that tables with small cell-counts are
not made public.
19 ‘‘EEOC Survey System Modernization Work
Group Meeting, Draft Report,’’ March 19, 2012, Sage
Computing. Available at: http://www.eeoc.gov/
employers/eeo1survey/survey-modernization.pdf.
20 Presidential Documents, Memorandum of April
8, 2014, ‘‘Advancing Pay Equality Through
Compensation Data Collection,’’ Memorandum for
the Secretary of Labor, April 11, 2014 (79 FR
20751).
21 Government Contractors, Requirement to
Report Summary Data on Employee Compensation,
79 FR 46563 (August 8, 2014). This NPRM provided
detailed explanations for the design of the Equal
Pay Survey, which utilized W–2 information as a
measure of wages and reported cumulative wages.
It did not use pay bands like Component 2 of the
currently proposed EEO–1. In 2011, OFCCP had
issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPRM). Nondiscrimination in Compensation:
Compensation Data Collection Tool, 79 FR 49398
(August 10, 2011), in response to which
stakeholders provided extensive input and
information.
22 Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
and Office of Management and Budget, Equal Pay
Report, http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAViewIC?ref_nbr=201407-1250001&icID=212555.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:33 Jan 29, 2016

Jkt 238001

and rule argued for, among other things,
the need to improve interagency
coordination and decrease employer
burden for reporting compensation data
by using the EEO–1, rather than a new
OFCCP data collection, as well as the
need to protect privacy and data
confidentiality. The instant proposal
responds to these concerns.23 Similarly,
the NAS Report recommended that the
federal EEO enforcement agencies
develop a coordinated plan for using
compensation data. In the course of
developing this EEO–1 proposal, the
EEOC and OFCCP together consulted
with the Department of Justice, focusing
on how EEO–1 pay data would be used
to assess complaints of discrimination,
focus investigations, and identify
employers with existing pay disparities
that might warrant further examination.
The EEOC and OFCCP plan to develop
statistical tools that would be available
to staff on their computers, to utilize the
EEO–1 pay data for these purposes.
They also anticipate developing
software tools and guidance for
stakeholders to support analysis of
aggregated EEO–1 data. Finally, the
EEOC and OFCCP anticipate that the
process of reporting pay data may
encourage employers to self-monitor
and comply voluntarily if they uncover
pay inequities.
The following discussion explains the
justification for each component of the
proposed EEO–1 pay data collection. As
stated above, this proposal does not
compel employers to collect new data
but rather requires the reporting of pay
data that employers maintain in the
normal course of business. This notice
proposes a collection that will maximize
the utility of the pay data while
balancing respondent concerns about
confidentiality and the burden of the
collection.
Proposal To Add Pay Data to the
EEO–1
Who Will Report Pay Data and When
This Reporting Requirement Will Start
For the 2016 EEO–1 reporting cycle,
to ease the transition, all employers will
submit information that is identical to
the information collected by the
currently approved EEO–1 (Component
1). Starting in 2017, employers that are
subject to the EEO–1 reporting
requirement and that have 100 or more
employees will submit the EEO–1 with
pay and related information
(Components 1 and 2). By contrast,
23 OFCCP plans to utilize EEO–1 pay data for
federal contractors with 100 or more employees
instead of implementing a separate compensation
data survey as outlined in its August 8, 2014,
NPRM.

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

5115

contractors that are subject to the EEO–
1 reporting requirement and that have
between 50 and 99 employees will
continue to submit the same
information that is collected by the
current EEO–1 report (Component 1).
They will not be required to submit pay
and hours-worked data. A sample copy
of the currently approved EEO–1 report
provides an illustration of the data to be
collected by Component 1. It can be
found at http://www.eeoc.gov/
employers/eeo1survey/upload/eeo12.pdf. An illustration of the data to be
collected by both Components 1 and 2
can be found at http://www.eeoc.gov/
employers/eeo1survey/2016_new_
survey.cfm.
When Annual EEO–1 Reports Will Be
Due and How Employers Will Submit
Data
Currently, employers must collect
EEO–1 data from any pay period
occurring in the months of July through
September of the current survey year.
The EEO–1 must be filed by September
30th of the same year. These deadlines
would continue after the addition of pay
data, to minimize employers’ burden by
folding the new collection into longestablished deadlines. As explained
below regarding the utility and burden
of using W–2 data to describe pay,
requiring filers to report W–2 data as of
a pay period occurring in the months of
July through September should not be
burdensome given the capabilities of
HRIS software.
Beginning in 2017, all filers will be
required to submit the proposed EEO–
1 report electronically. Automated
electronic data collection promotes the
utility of the EEO–1 survey by reducing
the number of inadvertent human errors
in the data. Electronic data collection
also is less burdensome for employers
than assigning staff to complete the
survey. As of 2014, all but three of the
67,146 EEO–1 filers already used
electronic data submission.24 Any EEO–
1 filer seeking an exemption from this
electronic requirement may use the
existing EEO–1 process for seeking
special reporting procedures.25
24 The remaining three filers submitted hard copy
reports.
25 The EEO–1 instructions provide that ‘‘[a]n
employer who claims that preparation or the filing
of Standard Form 100 would create undue hardship
may apply to the Commission for a special
reporting procedure. In such cases, the employer
must submit in writing a detailed alternative
proposal for compiling and reporting information
to: The EEO–1 Coordinator, EEOC-Survey Division,
131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507. Only
those special procedures approved in writing by the
Commission are authorized. Such authorizations
remain in effect until notification of cancellation is
given. All requests for information should be sent

E:\FR\FM\01FEN1.SGM

Continued

01FEN1

5116

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2016 / Notices

Component 2 of the revised EEO–1
includes a request for data on the
amount of employer staff time used to
collect and report pay data on the EEO–
1. This will better enable the EEOC to
quantify the burden of this aspect of the
survey.
What Pay Data Will Be Collected

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Measure: Total W–2 Earnings
In selecting total W–2 earnings as the
measure of pay, the focus was on
maximizing utility of the EEO–1 pay
data while minimizing the burden on
employers to collect and report it. With
respect to maximizing utility, the goal
was to identify a measure of
compensation that encompasses as
much employer-paid income earned by
individuals as possible. With respect to
minimizing burden, the focus was on
finding a measure that is well-defined
and compatible with the data elements
in employers’ existing human resources
and pay systems. Consideration also
was given to the sample Equal Pay
Report proposed in OFCCP’s 2014
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which
used W–2 earnings.26
Five different measures of earnings
now used by federal data collection
systems were considered. The first three
were from the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS): The Occupation
Employment Statistics (OES); 27 the
National Compensation Survey (NCS); 28
to the address above.’’ See http://www.eeoc.gov/
employers/eeo1survey/2007instructions.cfm. Any
requests would be considered by the EEO–1
Coordinator, who is also responsible for issuing any
written approvals.
26 In the NPRM, OFCCP stated that it chose the
W–2 definition of compensation because it accounts
for a broad range of pay elements and because
collection of W–2 data would result in minimal
burden on contractors. 79 FR 46562 at 46576
(August 8, 2014). Public comments on the NPRM
were split on using the W–2, but EEOC and OFCCP
conclude that it remains the best option for the
reasons stated in this section.
27 The Occupation Employment Statistics (OES)
survey defines earnings to include base rate pay,
cost-of-living allowances, guaranteed pay,
hazardous-duty pay, incentive pay such as
commissions and production bonuses, tips, and oncall pay. The OES measure excludes back pay, jury
duty pay, overtime pay, severance pay, shift
differentials, nonproduction bonuses, employer
costs for supplementary benefits, and tuition
reimbursements. See U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Occupation Employment Statistics.
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_tec.htm. See
page 4 of http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/methods_
statement.pdf for the 12 wage intervals.
28 The National Compensation Survey (NCS) is a
BLS establishment survey of employee salaries,
wages, and benefits. In this survey, ‘‘[e]arnings are
defined as regular payments from employers to
their employees as compensation for straight-time
(not overtime) hourly wages or for any salaried
work performed.’’ The NCS does not include
premium pay for overtime, holidays, and weekends;
shift differentials such as night work;
nonproduction bonuses; tips; and uniform and tool
allowances. See U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:33 Jan 29, 2016

Jkt 238001

and the Current Employment Statistics
(CES) survey program.29 The remaining
options were from the Social Security
Administration (SSA) 30 and the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS).31
Of these five options, the focus was
on the relative strengths and weaknesses
of the OES and the W–2 definitions
because they are best known to
employers. The NAS Study
recommended the use of OES’ wage
definition because it is based on
widespread surveys,32 but the EEOC
ultimately decided not to use the OES
definition because it excludes widelyused elements of compensation such as
overtime pay, severance pay, shift
differentials, nonproduction bonuses,
year-end bonuses, holiday bonuses, and
tuition reimbursement.33 These
elements of pay, however, are
Overview on BLS Statistics on Pay and Benefits,
http://www.bls.gov/bls/wages.htm http://
www.bls.gov/ncs/ncswage2010.pdf, at pp 8–9.
However, this definition does include incentive pay
such as commissions, piece-rate payments,
production bonuses, cost-of- living adjustments,
hazard pay, payments for income deferred due to
participation in a salary reduction plan, and
deadhead pay (which is paid to a driver who is
driving an empty vehicle, typically when the driver
is traveling to pick up a delivery or after completion
of a delivery).
29 The Current Employment Statistics (CES)
survey program is a BLS and state cooperative
program that produces data on earnings but not
wages. Average hourly earnings exclude items such
as employee benefits, irregular bonuses and
commissions, retroactive payments, and the
employers’ share of payroll taxes and therefore, do
not represent employers’ total compensation costs
(as calculated by the National Compensation
Survey). See National Research Council. Collecting
Compensation Data from Employers. National
Academic Press 2013. http://www.nap.edu/
openbook.php?record_id=13496, at p. 8.
30 The Social Security Administration defines
income as any payment received during a calendar
month that can be used to meet needs for food or
shelter. It may be in cash or in kind (i.e., payment
in the form of the use of a good or service, such
as free rent). It includes earned income and
unearned income. Examples of unearned income
include social security, interest and dividends,
retirement income, unemployment benefits,
alimony, child support, and pay received for work
while an inmate in a penal institution. See
http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title16b/
1612.htm.
31 The Internal Revenue Service’s W–2 definition
of gross income includes wages, salaries, fees,
commissions, tips, taxable fringe benefits, and
elective deferrals. Amounts withheld for taxes,
including but not limited to income tax, Social
Security, and Medicare taxes, are considered
‘‘received’’ and must be included in gross income
of the given year they are withheld. See http://
www.irs.gov/publications/p17/ch05.html; see also
http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/What-is-EarnedIncome%3F.
32 National Research Council, 2012, Collecting
Compensation Data From Employers. Washington,
DC: National Academies Press, 8. Available at
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_
id=13496, at p.58.
33 United States Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment
Statistics-Frequently Asked Questions, http://
www.bls.gov/oes/oes_ques.htm

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

increasingly important. According to a
2014 survey of 1,064 U.S. companies,
‘‘91 percent of organizations offer a
variable pay program and expect to
spend 12.7 percent of payroll on
variable pay for salaried exempt
employees in 2015.’’ 34 Another recent
survey of companies’ bonus practices
found that 74 percent of respondents
used a sign-on bonus program and 61
percent used a retention bonus program
in 2014.35
By contrast, the W–2 definition
provides a more comprehensive report
of earnings at the employee level than
the OES definition. W–2 gross income
includes wages, salaries, fees,
commissions, tips, taxable fringe
benefits, and elective deferrals.
Amounts withheld for taxes, including
but not limited to income tax, Social
Security, and Medicare taxes, are
considered ‘‘received’’ and are included
as gross income of the given year they
are withheld.36 The W–2 encompasses
all earned income, including
supplemental pay components such as
overtime pay, shift differentials, and
nonproduction bonuses (e.g., year-end
bonuses, hiring and referral bonuses,
and profit-sharing cash bonuses).37
Nonproduction bonuses account for
over 11 percent of cash compensation
for management, business, and financial
operations occupations, while shift
differentials are a significant component
of compensation for healthcare
workers.38 A panel of HRIS experts
convened for the Pilot Study agreed that
the trend is toward paying higher-level
executives in bonuses, which are
34 See Press Release, Aon Hewitt, 2014 U.S.
Salary Increase Survey, (Aug. 27, 2014), http://
aon.mediaroom.com/New-Aon-Hewitt-SurveyShows-2014-Variable-Pay-Spending-Spikes-toRecord-High-Level.
35 WorldatWork. ‘‘Bonus Programs and
Practices.’’ Available at http://
www.worldatwork.org/adimLink?id=75444, at p.10.
36 Internal Revenue Service. 2014. ‘‘Wages,
Salaries, and Other Earnings.’’ In: Internal Revenue
Service. Your Federal Income Tax (Individuals).
Available at http://www.irs.gov/publications/p17/
ch05.html; and Internal Revenue Service. 2015.
‘‘What Is Earned Income?’’ Available at http://
www.irs.gov/Individuals/What-is-EarnedIncome%3F.
37 U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
‘‘Fact Sheet for the June 2000 Employment Cost
Index Release.’’ Available at http://www.bls.gov/
ncs/ect/sp/ecrp0003.pdf.
38 John L. Bishow, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics. ‘‘A Look at Supplemental Pay:
Overtime Pay, Bonsues, and Shift Differentials.’’
Available at http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/cwc/alook-at-supplemental-pay-overtime-pay-bonusesand-shift-differentials.pdf at pp 5–7. ‘‘Analysis is
limited to jobs that receive positive payments—that
is, those jobs that actually receive supplemental
pay, as opposed to the average for all jobs—the
percentage for each type of supplemental pay is
higher.’’

E:\FR\FM\01FEN1.SGM

01FEN1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2016 / Notices

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

counted as W–2 income but are not
included in the OES definition.39
Using the W–2 definition is less likely
to be burdensome for most respondents
than using the OES wage definition.
Federal law requires all employers to
generate W–2s for each of their
employees. Although W–2 data may not
be routinely compiled until the end of
the calendar year, and EEO–1 reports
are due on September 30th, several
approaches are possible. First, because
payroll records are cumulative,
generating reports at any given point in
time should not be complicated for
employers with automated payroll
systems. The W–2 data can be imported
into a HRIS, and a data field can be
established to accumulate W–2 data for
the EEO–1. Alternatively, employers
could obtain this pay information by
utilizing quarterly payroll reports for the
previous four quarters. Employers that
do their payroll in-house will be able to
report this data utilizing most major
payroll software systems or by using offthe-shelf payroll software that is
preprogrammed to compile data for
generating W–2s. For employers that
outsource their payroll, there would be
a one-time burden of writing custom
programs to import the data from their
payroll companies into their HRIS
systems.
Organizing and Reporting W–2 Data
In determining how employers would
be required to organize and report their
employees’ W–2 data, the focus was on
collectability, burden, confidentiality,
and data utility.40 The NAS Report and
the Pilot Study reviewed various
alternative approaches for reporting
compensation, which ranged from
highly detailed to general. Of these
alternatives, the most comprehensive
collection proposals required collecting
data at the individual employee level
and would have included human capital
qualifications data as well as pay data.
Although these options would reduce
ambiguity and help assess the existence
of potential discrimination, they also
raise significant confidentiality and
burden concerns.41
Options for collecting aggregate pay
data include using pay rates (calculated
by employer), range of pay with a
maximum and minimum provided by
employer, total pay, and average or
median pay. There are disadvantages to
each of these approaches. Total pay
39 The

panel included individuals with expertise
in HRIS and SAP, and in compensation, payroll,
and benefits.
40 Collecting Compensation Data from Employers,
National Academies of Science http://de.nlx.org/
pdfs/20140825_nrc-report-august2012.pdf.
41 See supra note 19, at 2.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:33 Jan 29, 2016

Jkt 238001

could be impractical and would be
dependent on the number of employees.
Average pay by occupation would
provide limited information about
variation. Collecting the range of pay or
average pay could produce biased
estimates as pay is often distributed in
a manner where a few individuals are
paid much more than others. This might
create misleading data when ranges or
means are used as a measure. Simply
gathering rates of pay, without standard
deviation measures, would not assist in
parity/disparity analysis, and asking
employers to calculate standard
deviations would not only be
burdensome but also would risk a
higher rate of inaccuracy.
Using pay bands appears to be more
likely to generate reliable data while
being less burdensome for employers
than other reporting alternatives.
Therefore, Component 2 of the revised
EEO–1 will collect aggregate W–2 data
in 12 pay bands for the 10 EEO–1 job
categories. Employers will simply count
and report the number of employees in
each pay band. For example, a filer will
report on the EEO–1 that it employs 3
African American women as
professionals in the highest pay band.
As to data utility, pay bands will allow
the EEOC to compute within-jobcategory variation, across-job-category
variation, and overall variation, which
would support the EEOC’s ability to
discern potential discrimination while
preserving confidentiality.42 At the
same time, pay bands would not require
the computation of mean earnings or a
measure of variance as alternative
approaches might, thus avoiding a
source of employer burden. Finally, as
distinguished from mean earnings, pay
bands can effectively use statistical tests
that do not rely on an assumption that
pay is normally distributed.
By choosing to use pay bands, the
EEOC also is adopting a methodology
that will limit employer burden. HRIS
software developers already are familiar
with using pay bands on the EEO–4
survey, which collects pay data from
state and local government employers.43
By choosing to use pay bands for the
EEO–1, the EEOC and OFCCP will allow
HRIS software developers to build on
their existing experience with the EEO–
4. Consistent with the recommendations
of the Pilot Study, however, the EEO–
1 pay bands (Table 2) will track the 12
42 See also Micklewright, John and Schnepf,
Sylke V., How Reliable are Income Data Collected
with a Single Question? (November 2007). See also
IZA Discussion Paper No. 3177, http://ftp.iza.org/
dp3177.pdf.
43 See U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, EEO–4 Survey, https://egov.eeoc.gov/
eeo4/.

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

5117

‘‘wage intervals’’ used by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics in the OES survey.44

TABLE 1—EEO–4 PAY BANDS
Pay bands
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................

Pay bands label
$100–$15,999.
$16,000–$19,999.
$20,000–$24,999.
$25,000–$32,999.
$33,000–$42,999.
$43,000–$54,999.
$55,000–$69,999.
$70,000 and over.

TABLE 2—PROPOSED EEO—1 PAY
BANDS
Pay bands

Pay bands label

1 .................................
2 .................................
3 .................................
4 .................................
5 .................................
6 .................................
7 .................................
8 .................................
9 .................................
10 ...............................
11 ...............................
12 ...............................

$19,239 and under.
$19,240–$24,439.
$24,440–$30,679.
$30,680–$38,999.
$39,000–$49,919.
$49,920–$62,919.
$62,920–$80,079.
$80,080–$101,919.
$101,920–$128,959.
$128,960–$163,799.
$163,800–$207,999.
$208,000 and over.

Hours Worked
Consistent with the recommendations
of the Pilot Study, Component 2 of the
revised EEO–1 will collect the total
number of hours worked by the
employees included in each EEO–1 pay
band cell. This data will allow analysis
of pay differences while considering
aggregate variations in hours. The total
hours worked also will permit an
analysis that accounts for periods when
the employees were not employed, thus
reflecting part-time work.45
The EEOC seeks employer input with
respect to how to report hours worked
for salaried employees. One approach
would be for employers to use an
estimate of 40 hours per week for fulltime salaried workers. The EEOC is not
proposing to require an employer to
begin collecting additional data on
actual hours worked for salaried
workers, to the extent that the employer
does not currently maintain such
44 See Survey Methods and Reliability Statement
for the May 2014 Occupational Employment
Statistics Survey. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/
methods_statement.pdf.
45 Collection of the hours-worked data will
account for the fact that some individuals are
employed for less than the entire reporting year,
and therefore, may work fewer hours. For example,
if a large number of women are hired part way into
a reporting year, their W–2 compensation will be
lower than the compensation of men who worked
for the entire reporting year.

E:\FR\FM\01FEN1.SGM

01FEN1

5118

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2016 / Notices

information. Employers are encouraged
to comment on this issue.46
Generally, however, the initial
conclusion is that requiring employers
to provide the total number of hours
worked would impose a minimal
burden. Employers will report only data
that they already maintain. The panel of
HRIS experts convened for the Pilot
Study reported that ‘‘total hours
worked’’ data is maintained by almost
all payroll systems. The information is
available for the previous quarter, the
previous four quarters, and the calendar
year. For employers that outsource
payroll, this variable could be added to
the one-time reporting query that is
written to download income data.
Analysis of W–2 Pay Data
Statistical tests will be used as an
initial check of the W–2 data to be
collected on the EEO–1, specifically,
statistical significance tests that do not
rely on an assumption of a normal
distribution. The Pilot Study
recommended several statistical
techniques to test within-job categories
and then suggested further examining
companies and establishments with low
probabilities that the differences
between examined groups, such as men
and women, occurred by chance.47 The
Pilot Study also noted that the issue of
calibrating error rates (power vs.
significance level) needed to be
addressed to detect discrimination
without suffering too many false
positives. This process would include
recognition of how sample sizes may
influence results and also of judicial
precedents regarding definitions of
statistical probabilities.48

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

46 Some

commentators on OFCCP’s proposed data
collection suggested that hours-worked data should
not be collected based, in part, on their concerns
that the collection would be burdensome and that
some employers do not collect this data for exempt
employees. For this reason, the EEOC encourages
employers to provide specific, detailed input on
this aspect of its proposed data collection.
47 For example, the Pilot Study recommends
using the Mann-Whitney test for grouped data and
comparison of two groups (for example, gender
(men versus women) or race (African Americans
versus Whites)), and the Kruskal-Wallis test for
comparison of more than two groups (e.g., race).
These tests are the most appropriate for an initial
review of establishments as a whole. Analyses can
be conducted by computing the statistical tests
within job categories and then proceeding to more
closely investigate companies and establishments
with low p-values. Interval regressions can be used
to examine the impact of hours worked, race and
gender on distributions within pay bands. It may
also be appropriate to compare a particular firm’s
regression coefficients for the hours worked, race
and gender variables to those derived from an
analysis of the relevant labor market as a whole.
48 The EEOC’s statistical analysis techniques are
consistent with judicially recognized statistical
standards for identifying meaningful discrepancies.
Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. United States, 433 U.S. 299,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:33 Jan 29, 2016

Jkt 238001

The EEOC and OFCCP plan to
develop a software tool that will allow
their investigators to conduct an initial
analysis by looking at W–2 pay
distribution within a single firm or
establishment, and by comparing the
firm’s or establishment’s data to
aggregate industry or metropolitan-area
data.49 This application would highlight
statistics of interest.
Confidentiality
The EEOC and OFCCP jointly collect
the data on the EEO–1 report through
their Joint Reporting Committee, which
has represented the two agencies for the
purpose of administering the EEO–1
since the reporting requirement began.
All data is initially submitted to the
Joint Reporting Committee housed at the
EEOC and then provided to OFCCP.
EEOC is required to hold its EEO–1 data
confidential under Section 709(e) of
Title VII, which forbids ‘‘any [EEOC]
officer or employee’’ from making
‘‘public in any manner whatever any
information obtained by the
Commission . . . prior to the institution
of any [Title VII] proceeding . . .
involving such information.’’ 42 U.S.C.
2000e–8(e). Any EEOC officer or
employee who violates this prohibition
is guilty of a misdemeanor. Id.
The EEOC publishes aggregate EEO–1
data in a manner that does not reveal
any particular employer’s data,
consistent with Section 709(e). For
example, the EEOC has published
aggregate EEO–1 data at the national,
regional, and industry levels.50 The
EEOC also publishes reports analyzing
aggregate EEO–1 data based on industry
(e.g., finance, media, and law firms) or
311 n.17 (1977) (‘‘a fluctuation of more than two or
three standard deviations would undercut the
hypothesis that decisions were being made
randomly with respect to [a protected trait]);’’ see
also, Wright v. Stern, 450 F.Supp.2d 335, 363
(S.D.N.Y. 2006) (court denied employer’s motion for
summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiffs
presented sufficient statistical and other evidence
for a jury to conclude that the employer engaged in
widespread discrimination against AfricanAmerican and Hispanic employees, in terms of
promotions and compensation. The court noted
that, ‘‘[t]hough not dispositive, statistics
demonstrating a disparity of two standard
deviations outside of the norm are generally
considered statistically significant.’’)
49 Operationally, this application, or dashboard,
could relate the nominal results of statistical tests
(that is, test statistics or their p-values) to those
encountered in the location and the labor market
based on the relevant industry and geography. On
such a dashboard, the EEOC investigator would see
technical information such as the values of the
main statistics used to describe the establishment,
and its relation to the same statistic encountered in
other comparable establishments.
50 See U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, ‘‘Job Patterns for Minorities and
Women in Private Industry (EEO–1), http://
www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/employment/jobpateeo1/index.cfm.

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

particular groups of people (e.g., women
of color).51
After collecting and reconciling EEO–
1 data, the Joint Reporting Committee at
the EEOC provides a database to
OFCCP. OFCCP holds confidential the
data for contractor filers to the
maximum extent permitted by law, in
accordance with Exemption 4 of the
Freedom of Information Act and the
Trade Secrets Act.52 With respect to
EEO–1 data for companies that are not
under OFCCP’s jurisdiction, the
confidentiality provisions of Section
709(e) apply.53 Accordingly, OFCCP
refers all requests for such data to the
EEOC for a response.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
The EEOC intends to submit to OMB
a request for a three-year PRA approval
of a revised EEO–1. The revised EEO–
1 data collection has two components.
The first component (Component 1) will
collect information identical to that
collected by the currently approved
EEO–1. The second component
(Component 2) will collect data on
employees’ W–2 pay and hours worked.
Component 1 can be found at http://
www.eeoc.gov/employers/eeo1survey/
upload/eeo1-2.pdf. An illustration of
the data to be collected by both
Components 1 and 2 can be found at
http://www.eeoc.gov/employers/
eeo1survey/2016_new_survey.cfm.
For the 2016 reporting cycle, EEO–1
filers would only submit the Component
1 data. Beginning with the 2017
reporting cycle, the EEOC proposes to
51 See U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, Special Reports, http://www.eeoc.gov/
eeoc/statistics/reports/index.cfm.
52 See 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(4). FOIA does not apply
to ‘‘trade secrets and commercial or financial
information obtained from a person and privileged
or confidential’’; 18 U.S.C. 1905. Under the Trade
Secrets Act, criminal penalties may apply to an
officer or employee of the United States who
‘‘publishes, divulges, discloses, or makes known in
any manner or to any extent not authorized by law
. . . confidential statistical data. . . .’’ See also 79
FR 46562 at 46583 (August 8, 2014).
53 See relevant Paperwork Reduction Act
provision, 44 U.S.C. 3510. ‘‘(a) The Director may
direct an agency to make available to another
agency, or an agency may make available to another
agency, information obtained by a collection of
information if the disclosure is not inconsistent
with applicable law. (b)(1) If information obtained
by an agency is released by that agency to another
agency, all the provisions of law (including
penalties) that relate to the unlawful disclosure of
information apply to the officers and employees of
the agency to which information is released to the
same extent and in the same manner as the
provisions apply to the officers and employees of
the agency which originally obtained the
information. (2) The officers and employees of the
agency to which the information is released, in
addition, shall be subject to the same provisions of
law, including penalties, relating to the unlawful
disclosure of information as if the information had
been collected directly by that agency.’’

E:\FR\FM\01FEN1.SGM

01FEN1

5119

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2016 / Notices
require EEO–1 filers with 100 or more
employees to submit Component 2 data
in addition to Component 1 data.
However, contractor filers with 50 to 99
employees will only submit Component
1 data.
2016 Overview of Information
Collection—Component 1
Collection Title: Employer
Information Report (EEO–1).
OMB Control Number: 3046–0007.
Frequency of Report: Annual.
Description of Affected Public: Private
industry filers with 100 or more
employees and federal government
contractor filers with 50 or more
employees.
Number of Respondents: 67,146.
Reporting Hours: 228,296.4.
Respondent Burden Hour Cost:
$5,531,621.77.
Federal Cost: $1,330,821.
Number of Forms: 1.
Form Number: EEOC Form 100.

2017 and 2018 Overview of Information
Collection—Components 1 and 2
Collection Title: Employer
Information Report (EEO–1).
OMB Control Number: 3046–0007.
Frequency of Report: Annual.
Number of Forms: 1.
Form Number: EEOC Form 100.
Federal Cost: $318,000 for one-time
costs and $1,621,300 54 for recurring
staffing costs.

more employees will submit pay and
hours-worked data under Component 2
in addition to the demographic and job
category data under Component 1.
Number of Respondents: 60,886.
Reporting Hours: 401,847.6.
Respondent Burden Hour Cost:
$9,736,767.35.

Component 1 (Demographic and Job
Category Data)
Description of Affected Public: In
2017 and 2018, contractor filers with 50
to 99 employees will submit only the
demographic and job category data
collected by Component 1.
Number of Respondents: 6,260.
Reporting Hours: 21,284.
Respondent Burden Hour Cost:
$515,711.32.

2016: Component 1

PRA Burden Statement

Burden Statement: In 2016, all EEO–
1 filers will submit only Component 1,
which includes the data collected by the
currently approved EEO–1. The
estimated number of respondents
required to submit the annual EEO–1
survey is 67,146.55 This data collection
is estimated to impose 228,296.4 burden
hours in 2016 or 3.4 hours per filer.56
See Table 3. The estimated burden is
based on electronic, rather than paper
filing, which significantly reduces the
survey burden.

Components 1 and 2 (Demographic and
Job Category Data Plus Pay and HoursWorked Data)
Description of Affected Public: In
2017 and 2018, EEO–1 filers with 100 or

TABLE 3—ANNUAL BURDEN—2016 (COMPONENT 1)
[All EEO–1 filers: Private industry employers with 100 or more employees and Federal Government contractors and first-tier subcontractors with
50 or more employees]
Annual burden
hours

Total annual
burden hours

Wage rate

Total burden
hour cost

Reading instructions ..........................................................
Collecting, verifying, validating and reporting data ............

0.5
2.9

67,146
67,146

33,573
194,723.4

$24.23
24.23

$813,473.79
4,718,147.98

Total ............................................................................

3.4

67,146

228,296.4

........................

5,531,621.77

2017 and 2018: Components 1 and 2

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Filers

Burden Statement—Component 1
Only: Starting in 2017, the estimated
number of annual respondents who are
contractor filers with 50 to 99
employees is 6,260.57
The burden on these contractor filers
is estimated as follows:
• Annual Burden Calculation: The
estimated total annual burden hours
required to complete Component 1 of
the EEO–1 data collection in 2017 and
2018 is 21,284, with an associated total
annual burden hour cost of
$515,711.32.58 See Table 4.

Burden Statement—Components 1
and 2: Starting in 2017, the estimated
number of annual respondents that will
submit Components 1 and 2 is 60,886
private industry and contractor filers.
Filers required to complete both
Components 1 and 2 are estimated to
incur 401,847.6 burden hours annually
or 6.6 hours per filer. The estimated
burden is based on electronic, rather
than paper, filing, which significantly
reduces the survey burden.
The burden imposed on all private
industry employer filers and contractor
filers with 100 or more employees as a

result of the proposed collection of W–
2 pay data is estimated as follows:
• Annual Burden Calculation: The
estimated total annual burden hours
needed for filers to report demographic
and W–2 pay data via Components 1
and 2 of the revised EEO–1 Report is
401,847.6, with an associated total
annual burden hour cost of
$9,736,767.35. This burden estimate
includes reading instructions and
collecting, merging, validating, and
reporting the data electronically.59 See
Table 4.

54 The addition of W–2 pay data to the EEO–1 is
expected to increase EEOC’s internal staffing costs
by approximately $290,478. The annual federal cost
figure of $1,621,300 includes both the increase in
contract costs resulting from the addition of the pay
data collection and the estimated internal staffing
costs. It reflects an increase of more than $290,478
compared to the estimated federal costs provided in
previously published Federal Register notices
seeking PRA approval of this information collection
because past estimates reflected the cost of the
contract with the vendor whose services the EEOC

procures to assist with administration and
processing of the EEO–1 but did not include EEOC’s
internal staffing costs associated with processing
the EEO–1.
55 In 2014, 67,146 firms filed EEO–1 reports.
56 In 2014, all but three reporting firms submitted
electronic, rather than paper survey responses.
These burden estimates assume that virtually all
respondents will continue to file electronically.
57 Of the 67,146 firms that filed EEO–1 reports in
2014, 6,260 were federal contractor filers with fewer
than 100 employees.

58 This estimate is calculated as follows: 3.4 hours
per respondent × 6,260 respondents = 21,284 hours
× $24.23 per hour = $515,711.32. See Bureau of
Labor Statistics in the publication ‘‘Employer Costs
for Employee Compensation’’ (December 2013),
which lists total compensation for administrative
support as $24.23 per hour, http://www.bls.gov/
news.release/archives/ecec_03122014.htm (last
accessed September 23, 2014).
59 This estimate is calculated as follows: 6.6 hours
per respondent × 60,886 respondents = 401,847.6
hours × $24.23 per hour = $9,736,767.35. See

Continued

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:33 Jan 29, 2016

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\01FEN1.SGM

01FEN1

5120

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2016 / Notices

• One-Time Implementation Burden:
The estimated one-time implementation
burden hour cost for submitting the
information required by Component 2 of
the revised EEO–1 Report is
$23,000,295.60 This calculation is based

Further, the EEOC estimates that the
addition of W–2 pay data to the EEO–
1 will raise its internal staffing cost by
$290,478 due to the increased staff time
needed to process the additional data.

on the one-time cost for developing
queries related to Component 2 in an
existing human resources information
system, which is estimated to take 8
hours per filer at a wage rate of $47.22
per hour.

TABLE 4—ANNUAL BURDENS—2017 AND 2018
[Revised EEO–1 Data Collection—Components 1 and 2]
Annual burden
hours

Annual burden

Filers

Total annual
burden hours

Wage rate

Total annual
burden hour
cost

Component 1 Only
Contractor filers with 50 to 99 employees
Reading instructions ......................................................
Collecting, verifying, validating and reporting data ........

0.5
2.9

6,260
6,260

3130
18,154

$24.23
24.23

$75,839.90
439,871.42

Total Annual Burden for Filers Submitting Component 1 ..................................................................

3.4

6,260

21,284

........................

515,711.32

Components 1 and 2
All private industry employer filers, as well as contractor filers with 100 or more employees
Reading instructions ......................................................
Collecting, verifying, validating and reporting data ........

1
5.6

60,886
60,886

60,886
340,961.6

24.23
24.23

1,475,268
8,261,499.35

Total Annual Burden for Filers Submitting Components 1 and 2 ......................................................

6.6

60,886

401,847.6

........................

9,736,767.35

423,131.6

........................

10,252,478.67

Total Annual Burden—All Filers

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Total for Revised EEO–1 ........................................

..........................

67,146

The reporting hour burden
calculations in this notice reflect a
departure from the manner in which the
EEOC traditionally has estimated
reporting burden. In the past, the EEOC
estimated the reporting hour burden
based on the number of total cells in the
report(s) that a firm had to complete.
This approach viewed each report filed
by a firm as a separate reporting
requirement, analogous to a paper
report. In reporting year 2014, however,
the number of paper reports declined to
just three. In addition, employers now
rely extensively on automated HRIS to
generate the information they submit on
the EEO–1 report.61 As a result, each
additional report filed has just a
marginal additional cost.62 To
accurately reflect the manner in which
employers now collect and submit the
data for filing, the estimated reporting
burden set forth in this notice is
calculated per firm, rather than per

report. This burden calculation is based
on the time spent on the tasks involved
in filing the survey, rather than on ‘‘key
strokes’’ or data entry. As such, it more
accurately reflects how virtually all
employers actually complete the EEO–1
and the EEOC’s practice of providing
filers alternative methods for filing their
reports such as data uploads using
various formats and online filing.
The EEOC seeks employer input on
this burden calculation. The EEOC
reviewed OFCCP’s ANPRM and NPRM
and the public comments relating to the
burden calculation for OFCCP’s
proposal to collect pay data and
consulted with OFCCP about burden
estimates.63 The Pilot Study approached
some private employers to seek data
about the possible cost of collecting pay
information but few employers
responded, and the employers that did
respond did not provide quantitative
feedback. The EEOC encourages

employers, in their comments
responding to paragraph 2 in the
‘‘Solicitation of Public Comment’’
section below, to provide: (1)
Quantitative information about the
burden associated with completing the
currently approved EEO–1, as well as
the anticipated estimated burden to also
submit pay and hours-worked data, and
(2) data regarding the estimated time
that staff will spend to report the
employer’s pay and hours-worked data
and the corresponding wage rates for
that staff.
Solicitation of Public Comment:
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 solicits public comment to
enable it to:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
Commission’s functions, including

Bureau of Labor Statistics in the publication
‘‘Employer Costs for Employee Compensation’’
(December 2013), which lists total compensation for
administrative support as $24.23 per hour, http://
www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/
ecec_03122014.htm (last accessed September 23,
2014).
60 This is estimate is calculated as follows: 8
hours per respondent × 60,886 employers = 487,088
× $47.22 per hour = $23,000,295. See Bureau of
Labor Statistics in the publication ‘‘Employer Costs

for Employee Compensation’’ (December 2013),
which lists total compensation for a professional as
$47.22 per hour, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/
archives/ecec_03122014.htm (last accessed
September 23, 2014).
61 Surveys have shown that more than 90 percent
of human resource departments operate with some
form of computerized HRIS. See Public Personnel
Management, Volume 39, No. 3, Fall 2010.
62 In fact, a number of firms file by uploading a
data file so that the information goes nearly directly

from an electronic file generated by the HRIS to the
survey data base. In 2014, 1,449 firms filed EEO–
1 reports by uploading a data file, accounting for
704,654 of the EEO–1 reports filed in that year.
63 OFCCP plans to utilize EEO–1 pay data for
federal contractors with 100 or more employees
instead of implementing a separate compensation
data survey as outlined in its August 8, 2014,
NPRM.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:33 Jan 29, 2016

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\01FEN1.SGM

01FEN1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2016 / Notices
whether the information will have
practical utility;
2. Improve the accuracy of the
Commission’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 those who
are required to respond, including the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.

Conclusion
This notice summarizes the EEOC’s
proposal to submit a revised EEO–1 to
OMB for 3-year PRA approval to require
private employer filers, as well as most
federal government contractor filers, to
submit data on employee pay starting
with the 2017 reporting cycle. This data
collection would meet the statistical
needs of both the EEOC and OFCCP. It
would also enable employers to selfassess their pay practices and policies
and thereby support voluntary
compliance. In developing this PRA
proposal, the EEOC has balanced
enforcement objectives with the burden
and confidentiality concerns of
respondents.
Dated: January 21, 2016.

For the Commission.
Jenny R. Yang,
Chair.
[FR Doc. 2016–01544 Filed 1–29–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6570–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Sunshine Act Meeting
January 21, 2016.

The Federal Communications
Commission will hold an Open Meeting
on the subjects listed below on
Thursday, January 28, 2016, which is
scheduled to commence at 10:30 a.m. in
Room TW–C305, at 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC.

Item No.

Bureau

Subject

1 ...................

MEDIA .......................................................

2 ...................

PUBLIC SAFETY & HOMELAND SECURITY.

3 ...................

WIRELINE COMPETITION AND WIRELESS TELE-COMMUNICATIONS.

TITLE: Expansion of Online Public File Obligations to Cable and Satellite TV Operators and Broadcast and Satellite Radio Licensees (MB Docket No. 14–127).
SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Report and Order which modernizes
the public inspection file rules by requiring cable and satellite TV operators and
broadcast and satellite radio companies to post public inspection files on the
FCC’s online database.
TITLE: Amendment of Commission’s Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System
(PS Docket No. 15–94) and Wireless Emergency Alerts (PS Docket No. 15–91).
SUMMARY: The Commission plans to discuss strengthening the Emergency Alert
System (EAS) by promoting participation on the state and local levels, supporting
greater testing and awareness of EAS, leveraging technological advances, and
bolstering EAS security.
TITLE: Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps
to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act (GN
Docket No. 15–191). SUMMARY: The Commission will consider the 2016
Broadband Progress Report examining whether advanced telecommunications
capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion,
pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

*

*

*

*

*

Consent Agenda
The Commission will consider the
following subjects listed below as a

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

5121

1 ...................

GENERAL COUNSEL ...............................

2 ...................

GENERAL COUNSEL ...............................

3 ...................

GENERAL COUNSEL ...............................

4 ...................

GENERAL COUNSEL ...............................

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:33 Jan 29, 2016

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

consent agenda and these items will not
be presented individually:

TITLE: Mitchell F. Brecher Request for Inspection of Records (FOIA Control No.
2014–338). SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion
and Order concerning the Application for Review filed by Mitchell F. Brecher regarding the denial of his request for inspection of records under the Freedom of
Information Act.
TITLE: SMS/800 Inc. Request for Inspection of Records (FOIA Control No. 2015–
044). SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and
Order concerning the Application for Review filed by SMS/800 Inc. regarding the
release of records pertaining to SMS/800 Inc. in response to a request for inspection of records under the Freedom of Information Act filed by Mark Lewyn.
TITLE: Rachel A. Avan Request for Inspection of Records (FOIA Control No. 2014–
572). SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and
Order concerning the Application for Review filed by Rachel A. Avan regarding
the denial of her request for inspection of records under the Freedom of Information Act.
TITLE: Russell Carollo Request for Inspection of Records (FOIA Control No. 2015–
553). SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and
Order concerning the Application for Review filed by Russell Carollo regarding the
partial denial of his request for inspection of records under the Freedom of Information Act.

Frm 00029

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\01FEN1.SGM

01FEN1