30-day Federal Register Notice

16340

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 56 / Monday, March 23, 2020 / Notices
TABLE III—TEST INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM 02/01/2020 TO 02/29/2020—Continued

Case No.

Received date

LM–18–0050

02/19/2020

P–18–0159 ..

02/04/2020

P–18–0202 ..

01/29/2020

Type of Test Information

Chemical Substance

Fish Acute Toxicity Test (OCED
Test Guideline 203), Ready
Biodegradability
(OECD
Test
Guideline 301F), Hydrolysis as a
function of pH (OECD Test Guideline 111), S, E, R, F Value Table.
Acute Oral Toxicity in the Rat
(OECD Test Guideline 420).
Water Solubility: Column Elution
Method; Shake Flask Method
(OCSPP
Test
Guideline
830.7840).

(G) Heterocyclic amine, 1-[2-[[4-[2-[2-amino-6-[2-[2,5-dialkoxy-4-[[2(sulfooxy)alkyl]sulfonyl]aromaticyl]]diazenyl]-5-hydroxy-7-sulfo-1aromaticyl]]diazenyl]-3-sulfoaromaticyl]]sulfonyl]alkyl]-3-carboxy-, inner
salt, alkali metal.

If you are interested in information
that is not included in these tables, you
may contact EPA’s technical
information contact or general
information contact as described under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to
access additional non-CBI information
that may be available.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.
Dated: March 12, 2020.
Pamela Myrick,
Director, Information Management Division,
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2020–06063 Filed 3–20–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Existing Collection
Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission.
ACTION: Notice of information
collection—request for new control
number and approval of collection:
Employer Information Report (EEO–1)
Component 1; revision of existing
approval for EEO–1 Component 2.
AGENCY:

In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the
Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission)
announces that it has submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) a request for a three-year PRA
approval of Component 1 of the
Employer Information Report (EEO–1).
The EEOC is seeking OMB approval to
remove Component 1 from OMB control
number 3046–0007 and assign it a new
PRA control number. The EEOC is not
submitting a request to approve
Component 2 of the EEO–1 collection.
DATES: Written comments on this notice
must be submitted on or before April 22,
2020.

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Mar 20, 2020

Jkt 250001

(G) Thiophenium, 1-(2,7-disubstituted-1-naphthalenyl)tetrahydro-, salt
with polyfluoro-n-polyfluoroalkylsulfonyl-1-alkanesulfonamide(1:1).
(G) Trialkyl alkanal, polymer with phenol.

Written comments and
recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent
within 30 days of publication of this
notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting
‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open
for Public Comments’’ or by using the
search function. Commenters are also
encouraged to send comments to the
EEOC using any of the following
methods—please use only one method:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions on the website for
submitting comments.
Mail: Comments may be submitted by
mail to Bernadette B. Wilson, Executive
Officer, Executive Secretariat, Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission,
131 M Street NE, Washington, DC
20507.
Fax: Comments totaling six or fewer
pages can be sent by facsimile (‘‘fax’’)
machine to (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 (800) 669–6820 (TTY).
(These are not toll-free telephone
numbers.)
Instructions: All comments received
must include the agency name and
docket number. All comments received
will be posted without change to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
However, the EEOC reserves the right to
refrain from posting libelous or
otherwise inappropriate 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, national
origin, age, religion, disability, or
genetic information; or that promote or
endorse services or products.

ADDRESSES:

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

All comments received, including any
personal information provided, also will
be available for public inspection during
normal business hours by appointment
only at the EEOC Headquarters’ Library,
131 M Street NE, Washington, DC
20507. Upon request, individuals who
require assistance viewing comments
are provided appropriate aids such as
readers or print magnifiers. To schedule
an appointment to inspect the
comments at the EEOC’s library, contact
the library staff at (202) 663–4630
(voice) or (800) 669–6820 (TTY). (These
are not toll-free numbers.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rashida Dorsey, Ph.D., MPH, Director,
Data Development and Information
Products Division and Senior Advisor
on Data Strategy, Office of Enterprise
Data and Analytics, Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street
NE, Washington, DC 20507, (202) 663–
4355 (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:

I. Background
A. The EEO–1 Report
Since 1966, the EEOC has required
EEO–1 filers to submit demographic
data (Component 1) on an annual basis.
All private employers that are covered
by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended (Title VII) 1 and that
have 100 or more employees are
required to file Component 1 data. In
addition, Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs (OFCCP)
regulations require certain federal
contractors to file the EEO–1 if they
have 50 or more employees and are not
1 42

U.S.C. 2000e, et seq.

E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM

23MRN1

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 56 / Monday, March 23, 2020 / Notices
exempt as provided for by 41 CFR 60–
1.5.2

C. Factors Necessitating the Intended
Positions in the 60-Day Notice

B. The 60-Day Notice: The
Commission’s Statement of Intention for
the EEO–1
On September 12, 2019, the
Commission published a Notice in the
Federal Register announcing its
intention to seek OMB approval for a
three-year PRA authorization to collect
EEO–1 Component 1 data from covered
employers (‘‘60-Day Notice’’). The 60Day Notice also stated the Commission’s
intention to request that OMB remove
Component 1 from OMB control number
3046–0007 and provide a new control
number.3 In the same 60-Day Notice, the
Commission announced that it did not
intend to seek OMB approval of PRA
authorization for Component 2 of the
EEO–1 (the summary pay data
component). The Commission reached
the decision to renew Component 1 but
not Component 2 based on its
assessment of the proven utility of
Component 1 data and the uncertain
utility of Component 2 data, balanced
against updated calculations of the
burden that the Components 1 and 2
collections impose on covered
employers, as defined by the PRA. In
the Notice, the Commission requested
public comments during a sixty-day
period ending November 12, 2019
(hence the Notice is referred to as the
‘‘60-Day Notice’’). In addition, on
November 20, 2019, the Commission
held a public hearing pursuant to
Section 709(c) of Title VII. 42 U.S.C.
2000e–8(c) and considered the
testimony of six witnesses representing
both employer and employee
stakeholders, as well as labor
economists.4

(1) EEO–1 Components 1 and 2 Now
Have Different Timelines
In 2016, the EEOC sought OMB
approval under the PRA to collect
specific summary pay data as
Component 2 of the long-established
EEO–1 report. On September 29, 2016,
OMB authorized the EEOC to collect
Component 2 data for calendar years
2017 and 2018 under OMB control
number 3046–0007, with the first filing
deadline being March 31, 2018 (for 2017
pay data). This OMB approval also
authorized the EEOC to collect
Component 1 EEO–1 data for calendar
years 2016, 2017, and 2018.5
On August 29, 2017, OMB exercised
its authority under the PRA to initiate
a review of the Component 2 collection
and stay the EEOC’s collection of
Component 2 data, but not Component
1 data.6 Subsequently, the National
Women’s Law Center and the League of
United Latin American Citizens
(LULAC) challenged this action in court
and, on March 4, 2019, the court in
National Women’s Law Center, et al. v.
Office of Management and Budget, et
al., Civil Action No. 17–cv–2458
(D.D.C.), vacated OMB’s stay of
Component 2. The court ordered that
OMB’s September 29, 2016 PRA
approval of the revised EEO–1 was in
effect. On April 25, 2019, the court
further ordered that the PRA approval
for the EEO–1, including Component 2
data, under OMB control number 3046–
0007, would expire no later than April
5, 2021. The court also ordered that the
collection of Component 2 data would
not be deemed complete until the
percentage of filers submitting
Component 2 reports equaled or
exceeded the mean percentage of EEO–
1 reporters that actually submitted EEO–
1 reports in each of the past four
reporting years. The court ordered the
EEOC to collect Component 2 data for
2017 and 2018 with a submission
deadline for covered employers of
September 30, 2019. On October 29,
2019, the court ordered the EEOC to
continue to collect Component 2 data
through January 31, 2020, and on
February 10, 2020, the court ordered
that the EEOC’s collection of

2 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
employers’’ or ‘‘private industry’’ refers to all other
entities required to file the EEO–1 that are not
included in the ‘‘contractor’’ designation. The terms
‘‘employer,’’ ‘‘covered employer,’’ or ‘‘filer’’ refer to
all entities that are required to file EEO–1 data.
3 84 FR 48138. The Commission voted to approve
this 60-Day Notice in September 2019. Chair Janet
Dhillon was sworn in as a Commission member on
May 15, 2019, ending a four-month period during
which the Commission lacked a quorum and
therefore could not consider or approve documents
like the 60-day Notice. There also was a partial
government shutdown from December 22, 2018–
January 25, 2019.
4 See Notice of public hearing on proposed EEO–
1 Report amendments, 84 FR 59619. The press
release on the hearing is available at EEOC
Examines the Efficacy of EEOC’s Pay Data
Collection Model (Nov. 20, 2019), https://
www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/11-2019.cfm. More information about the hearing is
available at EEOC, Hearing of November 20, 2019—
Public Hearing on the Proposed Revisions of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Mar 20, 2020

Jkt 250001

Employer Information Report (EEO–1), https://
www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/meetings/11-20-19/index.cfm.
5 These Component 1 collections were timely,
except for the collection of 2018 Component 1 data,
which was delayed due to the partial government
shutdown from December 22, 2018 through January
25, 2019. The filing deadline for that 2018
collection was extended to May 31, 2019.
6 During the term of this stay, the EEOC collected
Component 1 data for reporting years 2017 and
2018.

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

16341

Component 2 data was complete. This
case is now pending on appeal before
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit. National Women’s Law Center,
et al. v. Office of Management and
Budget, et al., Case No. 19–5130 (D.C.
Cir.).
The EEOC must now seek PRA
authorization from OMB to continue to
collect EEO–1 data for calendar years
2019, 2020, and 2021. To minimize
confusion in light of the abovereferenced litigation involving
Component 2, the EEOC is asking OMB
to approve Component 1 under a new
OMB control number.
(2) EEO–1 Burden Calculations in 2016
Were Based on Incorrect Assumptions
In May 2018, the EEOC created the
Office of Enterprise Data and Analytics
(OEDA) with the goal of creating a 21st
century data and analytics program
within the agency. OEDA is now staffed
largely by data scientists and
statisticians who did not work at the
EEOC in 2016 when the Commission
developed the 2016 PRA package for the
EEO–1. When the EEOC began
preparing materials to seek this PRA
approval of the EEO–1 collection, staff
in OEDA revisited the methodology
used in 2016 for calculating EEO–1
burden estimates. OEDA staff
considered the methodology the EEOC
used prior to 2016 and, significantly,
also referenced Government
Accountability Office (GAO)
statements 7 and OMB instructions 8 on
7 See Government Accountability Office Report
GAO–18–381, ‘‘PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT,
Agencies Could Better Leverage Review Processes
and Public Outreach to Improve Burden Estimates,’’
July 2018 (GAO Report), https://www.gao.gov/
assets/700/693057.pdf.
8 ROCIS HOW TO Guide for Agency Users of the
(ICR) Module, April 5, 2017, https://www.rocis.gov/
rocis/jsp3/common/ROCIS_HOW_TO_Guide_for_
AGENCY_Users_of_ICR_Module-04052017.pdf, p.
105, ¶ 12. (‘‘Provide estimates of the hour burden
of the collection of information. The statement
should: * Indicate the number of respondents,
frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an
explanation of how the burden was estimated.
Unless directed to do so, agencies should not
conduct special surveys to obtain information on
which to base hour burden estimates. Consultation
with a sample (fewer than 10) of potential
respondents is desirable. If the hour burden on
respondents is expected to vary widely because of
differences in activity, size, or complexity, show the
range of estimated hour burden, and explain the
reasons for the variance. Generally, estimates
should not include burden hours for customary and
usual business practices.
* If this request for approval covers more than
one form, provide separate hour burden estimates
for each form and aggregate the hour burdens.
* Provide estimates of annualized cost to
respondents for the hour burdens for collections of
information, identifying and using appropriate
wage rate categories. The cost of contracting out or
paying outside parties for information collection

E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM

Continued

23MRN1

16342

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 56 / Monday, March 23, 2020 / Notices

In light of these considerations, OEDA
staff concluded that the EEOC’s 2016
burden estimate for the EEO–1 had
underestimated the burden to submit
Component 1 and Component 2 data.
After Janet Dhillon was sworn in as
Chair of the EEOC on May 15, 2019, she
consulted with the Director of OEDA
about the EEO–1 burden calculation and
other aspects of the PRA process.
OEDA staff concluded that the 2016
methodology did not adhere to the
standard approach of OMB and GAO,
which was to account for the burden of
filing each different type of the EEO–1
‘‘report’’ (see explanation below of the
five types of EEO–1 reports). Rather, the
2016 burden methodology initially
assessed employer burden entirely at
the firm level, assuming that covered
employers would use automated data
systems to centralize EEO–1 data
collection and then utilize the EEOC’s
upload file function to send data to the
agency.10 Although later acknowledging
that tasks such as data entry would
necessarily be performed at the
establishment level, especially if a
covered employer did not use the
EEOC’s upload file function, the final
2016 burden methodology still asserted
that ‘‘the bulk of the tasks performed in
completing the EEO–1 report will be
completed at the firm level due to the
centrality of automation’’ and calculated
burden at the firm level.11 This

assumption led to the conclusion that
‘‘the total estimated annual burden hour
costs for employers and contractors that
will complete both Components 1 and 2
in 2017 and 2018 will be
$53,546,359.08.’’ 12
By contrast, the methodology used to
develop the burden estimates in this 30Day Notice returns to the approach used
by the EEOC prior to 2016, which
accounted for the burden of filing each
different type of EEO–1 ‘‘report.’’ The
EEO–1 Instructions direct covered
employers to use different reports for
different purposes, and OMB and GAO
direct agencies to account for the
burden of filing each different kind of
report.13 An employer with only a single
location files one EEO–1 report—a type
1 EEO–1 report—and an employer with
numerous locations files a
corresponding number of EEO–1
‘‘establishment’’ reports, plus a
headquarters report and a consolidated
report, as follows: 14
• A type 2 ‘Consolidated Report,’
which must include all employees of
the employer categorized by race,
gender and job category;
• A type 3 ‘Headquarters Report,’
which must include employees working
at the main office site of the employer
and those employees who work from
home and report to the corporate office.
In addition, a separate EEO–1 report for
the headquarters establishment is
required even if there are fewer than 50
employees working at the headquarters
establishment.
• A type 4 ‘Establishment Report’
must be submitted for each physical
establishment with 50 or more
employees. Employment data must be
categorized by race or ethnicity, gender,
and job category.
• A type 6 or type 8 ‘Establishment
Report’ must be submitted for each
establishment site with fewer than 50
employees:

activities should not be included here. Instead, this
cost should be included under ‘Annual Cost to
Federal Government’.’’)
9 GAO Report at p. 8, Footnote a. to Figure 2.
10 Agency Information Collection Activities;
Notice of Submission for OMB Review, Final
Comment Request: Revision of the Employer
Information Report (EEO–1), 81 FR 45479, 45493
(July 14, 2016) (‘‘the EEOC [initially] concluded that
most employers would be filing the EEO–1 with a
digital file upload by the time they file their EEO–
1 reports for 2017 and 2018. Therefore, in the 60Day Notice, the EEOC reasoned that ‘each
additional report filed [would have] just a marginal
additional cost.’ Accordingly, the burden
calculation in the [2016] 60-Day Notice was based
on the number of firms filing one or more EEO–1
reports, not on the number of reports submitted or
the number of separate establishments submitting
reports.’’)
11 Id. (‘‘Second, the EEOC no longer assumes that
all the EEO–1 reports for 2017 and 2018 will be

submitted by one data upload filed by the firm on
behalf of all the establishments. While still
reflecting that the bulk of the tasks performed in
completing the EEO–1 report will be completed at
the firm level due to the centrality of automation,
the EEOC’s 30-Day Notice recognizes that there are
certain tasks that will be performed at the
establishment level for employers who enter their
EEO–1 data directly onto the Joint Reporting
Committee’s secure portal. Therefore, the 30-Day
Notice burden calculations are based on the number
of hours needed to complete the tasks at the firm
level and also at the establishment level for the
proportion of EEO–1 filers who do not now use
centralized, secure data uploads.’’)
12 Id.
13 Not all employers are required to file all form
types.
14 See Table 1 in section V.B. for the projected
annual burden to report Component 1 data in
reporting years 2019–2021, by report type and
reporting time.

the appropriate methodology for
calculating burden estimates in federal
information collections. Per guidance
published in a 2018 GAO report:

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

A single information collection request
may contain multiple burden hour estimate
formulas depending, for example, on whether
there are different forms or different types of
respondents. The total annual burden hour
estimate is the sum of all of individual
burden hour estimate formulas. If the
information request is for the maximum 3year period, then the annual burden estimate
is the average over that 3-year period.9

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Mar 20, 2020

Jkt 250001

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

Æ An employer choosing to submit
type 8 ‘Establishment Reports’ provides
a separate type 8 report for each
establishment employing fewer than 50
employees. Like filers submitting the
type 4 ‘Establishment Report, filers
choosing to create a type 8 report enter
employment data categorized by race or
ethnicity, gender, and job category for
each type 8 report. The employment
data entered for each such
establishment on a type 8 report will
automatically populate the filer’s type 2
Consolidated Report on the EEOC’s
system.
Æ An employer choosing to submit a
type 6 ‘Establishment List’ should
provide the establishment names,
complete addresses, and total number of
employees for all physical location
where fewer than 50 employees are
working. Because the type 6 report does
not tally the number of employees,
employers choosing a type 6 data report
for each establishment employing fewer
than 50 employees must manually enter
data categorized by race or ethnicity,
gender, and job category to the type 2
‘Consolidated Report’ to include all
company employees.
Accounting for the burden of filing
each different type of form or report, the
Commission’s September 12, 2019 60Day Notice concluded that the burden
for Components 1 and 2 of the EEO–1
was $614,391,388 in 2017 and
$622,015,798 in 2018.15
II. The Public Comments on the 60-Day
Notice
The Commission received and posted
11,504 timely public comments in
response to the 60-Day Notice.16 The
comments were submitted by individual
members of the public, employers,
employer associations, Members of
Congress, civil rights groups, women’s
organizations, industry and trade
groups, human resources organizations,
and social scientists. Several thousand
of the posted comments were part of
mass comment-writing campaigns and
opposed the proposal not to continue
Component 2.
15 See 84 FR. 48138, 48140–48141. The EEOC
uses 2017 and 2018 data as an example because it
is the agency’s most recent data. For 2017, the
EEOC calculates that of the $614,391388,
$247,959,388 is attributable to Component 1 and
$366,431,751 is attributable to Component 2. For
2018, the EEOC calculates that of the $622,015,388,
$250,626,707 is attributable to Component 1 and
$371,389,091 is attributable to Component 2. See
footnote 28, infra (describing how the burden
estimates for Component 2 were calculated).
16 11,504 timely comments were posted on
regulations.gov. One timely comment was not
posted because its content was irrelevant to the 60Day Notice and therefore the EEOC determined it
was submitted in error.

E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM

23MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 56 / Monday, March 23, 2020 / Notices
III. Scope of the Public Comments on
the 60-Day Notice
A. Component 1

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

(1) Summary of 60-Day Notice
The 60-Day Notice announced the
Commission’s intention to continue its
collection of Component 1 data, even as
the EEOC recalculated the burden on
employers and concluded that it was
higher than previously contemplated.
Nonetheless, the Commission noted that
collection of Component 1 data is a
long-held practice that has occurred for
over 50 years and it has already proven
its utility to the EEOC’s enforcement of
employment discrimination laws in
many ways. The 60-Day Notice
recognized that Component 1 EEO–1
data is an important internal resource
for analysis of industries and regions,
and also for EEOC investigators who use
the EEO–1 along with other data sources
as they start to assess allegations of
discrimination. Under these
circumstances, even with a higher
burden estimate, the EEOC concluded
that the continued collection of
Component 1 data would be necessary
for the continued effectiveness of the
agency.
(2) Summary of Public Comments
Almost all the public comments
supported the EEOC’s proposal in the
60-Day Notice to continue to collect
Component 1 data.17 Even while
supporting the proposed continuation of
Component 1, however, many
commenters questioned the accuracy of
the Component 1 estimated burden
calculation as set forth in the 60-Day
Notice. Some of these commenters
stated that the EEOC’s higher burden
estimate for Component 1 still
underestimated the actual employer
burden. Notwithstanding this concern
about the accuracy of the burden
estimates, these commenters concluded
that the utility of the Component 1
collection continued to justify the
burden. Other commenters stated that
the estimated burden for Component 1
set forth in the 60-Day Notice overstated
the burden on employers. These
commenters nonetheless supported the
EEOC’s proposal to continue collecting
Component 1 data.
One commenter, representing a
consulting firm that assisted clients
with Component 2 filings, suggested the
EEOC should discontinue the
Component 1 collection in its entirety
and argued that all the demographic
17 One anonymous commenter expressed concern
about government oversight generally, and that
individuals should turn to internal HR processes or
litigation to address unfair treatment.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Mar 20, 2020

Jkt 250001

data currently collected on Component
1 could be collected just as accurately
but more efficiently if the EEOC
implemented only Component 2.
A small number of commenters
suggested changes to the Component 1
data collection. Two commenters, both
of which are firms that assist clients
with EEO–1 reporting, suggested the
EEOC should consider implementing
changes that would facilitate the
reporting of gender for non-binary
employees.
The few commenters who addressed
the EEOC’s request for a separate OMB
Control number for Component 1
supported the proposal.
B. Component 2
(1) Summary of 60-Day Notice
The EEOC announced its intention
not to seek approval of the Component
2 summary pay data collection in the
60-Day Notice because it determined
that the uncertain utility of the data was
outweighed by the burden on employers
collecting the data. The 60-Day Notice
outlined the EEOC’s methodology for
calculating the employer reporting
burden and why the EEOC decided to
use this methodology. The EEOC
explained in the 60-Day Notice that it
now calculated the burden by
deconstructing the total number of
reports submitted by report type and by
filer type, and then estimating an
average burden based on the number
and types of reports submitted.18 These
estimates account for the different
amounts of time required to complete
different types of EEO–1 reports,19 and
18 See footnote 2, supra; see also, e.g., Mortality
in Correctional Institutions, 84 FR 1507, 1508–09
(2019).
19 Using Component 1 2017 data as the basis for
an example of the new methodology, 75,043 EEO–
1 filers submitted a total of 1,597,036 Component
1 reports to the EEOC. Forty percent, or 30,203
filers, submitted a report for only a single
establishment. Single establishment filers are
referred to as ‘‘Type 1’’ filers by the EEOC. Each
Type 1 filer submitted a single report, yielding a
total of 30,203 reports in 2017. These Type 1 filers
have the lowest burden, with an average estimated
burden of 45 minutes annually to complete their
submission of Component 1. Multiple
establishment filers are referred to as ‘‘Type 2’’
filers by the EEOC. In 2017, Type 2 filers accounted
for 60%, or 44,840 filers of Component 1, and in
2017 submitted a total of 1,566,833 reports, or 98%
of all Component 1 EEO–1 reports submitted. Type
2 filers have a higher reporting burden because they
are required to submit a combination of reports: one
type 2 (‘‘consolidation’’) report, one type 3
(‘‘headquarters’’) report, and a type 4 establishment
report, a type 8 establishment report, or a type 6
establishment list for each establishment. The
estimated burden for Type 2 filers varies between
3.5 and 9.5 hours, depending on the report type
combination. This new method for calculating the
filers’ burden yielded a total estimated burden of
7,643,874 hours for 75,043 filers to submit
1,597,036 reports for data year 2017. Per U.S.

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

16343

are based on the EEOC’s experience
during the data submission process.
Even using modest assumptions about
the time needed to complete various
EEO–1 reports, as explained in detail in
the 60-Day Notice, the EEOC estimated
with this new methodology that the
combined burden hour costs for
submitting both Components 1 and 2
was $614,391,388 in 2017 and
$622,015,798 in 2018.20 The EEOC
concluded in the 60-Day Notice that the
revised burden calculation, which was
substantially higher than the
Commission’s 2016 burden calculation
and higher than the burden for
Component 1, was too high to justify the
continuance of the Component 2
collection, especially in light of
Component 2’s uncertain utility.
Because the EEOC must balance the
utility of the data to its enforcement
programs against the burden the data
collection imposes on the employers
who must submit it, the Commission
said in the 60-Day Notice that it should
consider information from the ongoing
Component 2 data collection before
deciding whether to submit another pay
data collection request to OMB. Without
this assessment,21 the 60-Day Notice
reasoned that the practical utility to the
EEOC’s enforcement program of the pay
data as defined in the 2016 Component
2 was far outweighed by the burden
imposed on employers that must
comply with the reporting obligation.
For this reason, the EEOC decided not
to seek renewal of the Component 2
summary pay data collection.
(2) Summary of Public Comments
Almost all commenters emphasized
the importance of addressing pay
inequity in the U.S. workforce. Many of
the commenters who had also provided
input on the original 2016 proposal to
Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics
wage rates, the associated total annual burden hour
cost is $297,381,066 for required filers. The EEOC
estimates that the total cost of the administration of
the EEO–1 Component data collection to the federal
government is $2 million annually.
20 The EEOC uses 2017 and 2018 data as an
example because it is the agency’s most recent data.
Because the 2016 PRA package combined the
Component 1 and 2 burdens for filers that would
complete both Components 1 and 2 in 2017 and
2018, the recalculated burden reflected in the 60Day Notice similarly provided a combined burden
calculation for Components 1 and 2 for 2017 and
2018. However, above the Commission has
provided a breakdown of how much the burden was
attributable to each Component. See footnote.15,
supra.
21 At the time of the September 12, 2019, 60-Day
Notice, the collection of Component 2 data for 2017
and 2018 was ongoing. The Component 2 data
collection has now been completed, pursuant to the
February 10, 2020 court order in the matter of
National Women’s Law Center, et al., v. Office of
Management and Budget, et al., Civil Action No.
17–cv–2458 (D.D.C.) . . .

E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM

23MRN1

16344

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 56 / Monday, March 23, 2020 / Notices

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

create Component 2 reiterated the
arguments they raised at that time,
whether for or against the Component 2
summary pay data collection.
a. Comments Supporting the
Discontinuation of Component 2
Almost all the comments urging the
discontinuation of the Component 2
collection were submitted by
consultants who provide compliance,
technical and/or human resources
assistance to EEO–1 filers, and by trade
and industry groups. Members of
Congress also submitted comments
urging the EEOC to discontinue the
Component 2 collection. Commenters
sometimes reiterated concerns they had
raised in 2016 with the Component 2
collection and stated that employers’
actual experiences with the 2017 and
2018 Component 2 collections not only
validated, but in some respects
heightened, their earlier concerns.
These comments questioned the EEOC’s
authority to implement the Component
2 collection, expressed concerns about
both the burden and the utility of the
Component 2 collection, and expressed
unease about the confidentiality and
privacy of the data the EEOC collects.
Many commenters asserted that any
EEOC pay data collection should be
undertaken only pursuant to
rulemaking, which they argued would
provide for a more robust notice-andcomment process.
With respect to the burden
calculations, some commenters
indicated that although the Component
2 burden in the 60-Day Notice was more
accurate than the 2016 estimate, they
believed the burden on employers was
even higher than the estimate in the 60Day Notice due to a number of factors.
These factors included the difficulty
matching the W–2, Box 1 information
with the demographic data, and
complications arising when employees’
employment status changes during the
reporting year—for example, when an
employee moves between exempt and
non-exempt status, or from one job
category to another. They argued that
addressing these issues required manual
adjustments and therefore the
Component 2 reporting process could
not be fully automated. They noted that
even when an employer used the upload
file function it nonetheless had to
expend significant time on manual
adjustments and analyses before
uploading the data. Commenters also
observed that many of these issues, as
well as complications caused by
business changes such as mergers and
acquisitions, meant this burden would
not be significantly reduced in future
years.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Mar 20, 2020

Jkt 250001

Similarly, one commenter, a
consulting firm representing multiple
businesses, explained why its own
experience with Component 2, and that
of its clients, demonstrated that the
burden of collecting, organizing, and
filing the data exceeded the firm’s own
estimates of the burden. All told, the
time actually spent by the firm on firstyear implementation costs as a thirdparty vendor was approximately 20%
greater than the time it had estimated
for this process in the firm’s 2016
Component 2 Comments to the EEOC.
The firm explained it took 280 hours to
update its software to accept employer
Component 2 data and create a data
upload file to comply with the
Component 2 Data Specifications. An
additional 20 hours of time was spent
by the firm’s consultants and subject
matter experts advising their
programming team on the Component 2
data requirements, reviewing, and
approving the programming files, and
communicating and resolving error
messages with the batch upload file
during the Component 2 filing process.
Notably, the consulting firm rejected the
notion that in the future employers
would be able to file Component 2 data
with little or no burden because of the
time already invested for the 2017 and
2018 collections. According to the firm,
the belief that the burden will be
significantly less for future collections
‘‘reflects a complete misunderstanding
of how employers store and use the data
points being collected.’’ This is just one
of the numerous examples provided by
commenters regarding the real-world
burden experienced in attempting to
complete the Component 2 data
collection.
Despite expressing concern about pay
inequities and reiterating their
commitment to identifying and
eliminating unfair pay practices, many
of these commenters concluded the
Component 2 summary pay data
collection would be ineffective in
addressing pay equity issues. Many
commenters argued that both the W–2,
Box 1 data and the hours-worked data
were inaccurate and inappropriate
measurements and, when combined
together, created further inaccuracies
because the W–2, Box 1 wages, which
include pay for hours not worked, did
not correspond with the hours-worked
data. Commenters also argued that
organizing the data into job categories
and pay bands resulted in inaccurate
and misleading comparisons. Some
commenters also stated that collecting
and reporting aggregate W–2, Box 1
wage data in wide pay bands across
broad occupational categories increases

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

both ‘‘false positives’’ (Type 1 statistical
errors) and ‘‘false negatives’’ (Type 2
statistical errors) and that extensive
Type 1 and Type 2 errors would render
the data of minimal to no utility for
attributing any differences observed to
the presence of illegal employment
discrimination. Some commenters and
some hearing witnesses (including
EEO–1 filers and entities that provide
filing assistance to said filers) said their
experience conducting the 2017 and
2018 Component 2 collections
demonstrated that the Component 2 pay
data would not be useful to them for
assessing their own pay policies and
practices and that it was burdensome.
Commenters similarly argued that any
EEOC publications of aggregated data
organized in pay bands and job
categories would not be useful to
employers in undertaking selfassessments for the purposes of
voluntarily complying with equal pay
laws. One economist/consultant who
worked with employers filing
Component 2 data testified that the
Component 2 pay bands are unlikely to
reflect actual compensation distribution
at many companies, and that
Component 2 does not collect any
information about the legitimate factors
for pay differentials (e.g., length of
employment). He noted that an
employee starting her career would be
reported in the same way as an
employee with 30 years of experience in
the same occupation. This consultant
also stated that a simulated study found
the predictive value of Component 2
pay data was no better than random
selection (using either Mann-Whitney or
compared to other firms).
Some commenters noted that the
EEOC failed to implement the
recommendations in the 2012 report
from the National Research Council,
National Academy of Sciences (NAS
Report).22 Many of these commenters
argued that the EEOC failed to
implement the NAS Report’s
recommendation to conduct a true pilot
study. Some commenters argued that
the Commission possibly could have
developed a pay data collection that
addressed their utility and burden
concerns had it more fully implemented
the recommendations of the NAS
Report. Other commenters suggested
there may be no form of pay data
collection that would have sufficient
utility to justify the burden on
respondents.
22 National Research Council, 2012. Collecting
Compensation Data from Employers. Washington,
DC: National Academies Press, http://
www.nap.edu/read/13496/chapter/1#ii.

E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM

23MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 56 / Monday, March 23, 2020 / Notices
Commenters also expressed concern
that the EEOC failed to address
adequately the NAS Report’s
recommendations that would more
adequately protect the confidentiality of
sensitive employer pay data and that
would ensure employee personal
identifying information would not be
exposed in any EEOC publications of
aggregated pay data. They also
expressed concerns that the pay data
may not be adequately protected from
disclosure when it is shared outside the
EEOC, including with OFCCP 23 and
other agencies that are not bound by
Title VII’s confidentiality provisions.24
b. Comments Opposing the
Discontinuation of Component 2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

Comments opposing the EEOC’s
decision to discontinue the Component
2 collection were submitted by members
of Congress, several employee advocacy
groups representing diverse workers in
several segments of the U.S. workforce,
academics, and thousands of concerned
individuals. Most of the thousands of
individual comments were submitted as
part of comment-writing campaigns. In
many instances, those who had
commented on the EEOC’s 2016
proposal reiterated arguments
supporting the Component 2 summary
pay data collection that were reflected
in those earlier comments.
Comments opposing the
discontinuation of Component 2
generally argued that Component 2 is a
necessary and effective tool for
identifying and addressing the
persistent gender and race/ethnicity pay
gaps, and that the decision not to
continue the Component 2 collection
undermines the EEOC’s ability to
combat pay discrimination. They
asserted that Component 2 not only is
an essential tool for the EEOC to fulfill
its enforcement mandate, but that it also
provides critical information for
workers and employers to help identify
pay inequities. The majority of these
commenters also criticized the EEOC for
not addressing and analyzing the utility
of Component 2 in the 60-Day Notice
before concluding its utility could not
justify the reporting burden on
employers. Commenters stated that the
EEOC’s burden calculations were
23 The EEOC’s 2016 Component 2 proposal had
reflected the contemporaneous expectation that the
EEOC would share some part of the Component 2
dataset with OFCCP. As discussed in the ‘‘Data
Sharing’’ section below, the EEOC no longer intends
to provide any Component 2 data to OFCCP.
24 42 U.S.C. 2000e–8(e). Title VII forbids the
EEOC or any EEOC officer or employee from
making public any information, including EEO–1
data, before a Title VII proceeding is instituted that
involves that information.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Mar 20, 2020

Jkt 250001

inadequately explained and/or based on
faulty assumptions or calculations.
In addressing the pay gap,
commenters focused on how the pay
gap impacts workers, their families,
businesses, and the economy as a
whole. Commenters often cited pay gap
statistics, frequently focusing on the pay
gap impacting their members and
constituents. Commenters also
frequently highlighted statistics
showing how the pay gap is wider for
women of color. These commenters
concluded that the Component 2
collection was a critical tool for
identifying and addressing these pay
inequalities. In addition to serving as a
critical tool for the EEOC’s effective and
efficient enforcement of equal pay laws,
the commenters argued Component 2
would incentivize employers to
voluntarily comply with those laws and
would provide them useful data that
will assist their self-assessments.25
Finally, commenters contended the
aggregated data (job categories and pay
bands) would help to identify pay
trends in industries and geographic
areas, and would also expose other
forms of discrimination such as job
segregation.
Some commenters argued that the
EEOC was premature in concluding that
the Component 2 collection was overly
burdensome because the 2017 and 2018
collections were still underway when
the EEOC reached that conclusion.
These commenters questioned the
EEOC’s motivations for not seeking
renewal of the Component 2 collection,
suggesting the EEOC should have
continued the Component 2 collection
and assessed its burden only after the
2017 and 2018 collections had
concluded, thereby allowing the EEOC
to take into consideration the actual
experience of employers who filed
Component 2 for 2017 and 2018.
Some commenters asserted that many
of the initial implementation costs of
the Component 2 collection have
already been incurred by employers and
therefore future Component 2
collections would be less burdensome;
relatedly, they argued that a different
form of pay data collection would
increase employer burden. Commenters
also argued the EEOC’s burden
calculations do not adequately account
for how, in the long term, automation
and technology decrease employer
burden.
Finally, some commenters contrast
the process the EEOC used to develop
the 60-Day Notice burden estimates
25 Many of these commenters also argued that the
Component 2 data would enhance OFCCP’s
enforcement efforts.

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

16345

with the process the EEOC used to
develop the 2016 burden calculations,
arguing the 2016 process was more
transparent and the result of many years
of careful study and analysis, in
addition to notice and comment under
the PRA process and Title VII’s
requirement for a public hearing.
c. Comments Specific to the Burden
Estimation Methodology
The EEOC also received several
comments about the burden estimate
stated in the 60-Day Notice. Some
commenters said the 60-Day Notice
inadequately explained the estimated
time needed to complete the type 1 and
type 2 reports. Some commenters
expressed concern about how the EEOC
calculated the burden for single- vs.
multi-establishment firms and about the
EEOC’s assumptions relating to the time
needed to complete each report. One
commenter argues that the GAO
guidance referenced in the 60-Day
Notice does not require a calculation
based on number of forms. At least one
commenter questioned why the EEOC
included burden calculations for some
forms that employers would no longer
use. One commenter suggested that the
burden calculation includes an
arithmetic mistake and questioned why
the burden calculation does not assume
employers will use only the least costly
and least time-consuming alternatives
for filing.
IV. Commission Decisions and Final
EEOC Proposals to OMB
A. The EEOC Will Seek Three-Year
Extension of the EEO–1, Component 1,
and Request a New OMB Control
Number for Component 1
After evaluating the comments and
holding a public hearing, the
Commission will seek OMB approval for
a three-year extension of Component 1
of the EEO–1. The EEOC also will
request that OMB assign a new Control
number to Component 1, thereby
separating it from the collection of
Component 2 data under OMB Control
number 3046–0007 that was ongoing
until February 2020. The Component 1
data collection, which the Commission
has conducted for over 50 years,
continues to prove its utility to the
EEOC’s enforcement of employment
discrimination laws on a regular basis.
Component 1 EEO–1 data remains an
important tool for the Commission’s
enforcement of federal laws prohibiting
discrimination in employment. EEOC
investigators use the EEO–1, together
with other data sources, in their
assessments of allegations of
discrimination. The EEOC also uses the

E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM

23MRN1

16346

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 56 / Monday, March 23, 2020 / Notices

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

Component 1 data to analyze
employment patterns within companies,
industries, or regions. For these reasons,
and even with the higher burden
estimate for Component 1 outlined
below, as compared to the 2016 burden
estimates, the EEOC believes the
collection of Component 1 data is
necessary for the proper performance of
the agency’s functions and concludes its
practical utility to the fulfillment of the
EEOC’s mission justifies the burden on
employers.
Further, because the EEOC is not
seeking renewal of Component 2 for the
reasons addressed below, the EEOC is
requesting a new OMB control number
for Component 1 that is separate from
the current control number under which
the 2017 and 2018 Component 2
summary pay data collections were
being conducted until February 2020.
As noted in the 60-Day Notice and
above, Component 2 approval under
control number 3046–0007 will expire
no later than April 5, 2021, by order of
the court in National Women’s Law
Center, et al. v. Office of Management
and Budget, et al.26 A new and separate
control number for Component 1 will
minimize confusion for EEO–1 filers.
Because the number of Component 1
filers increased to 87,021 by the close of
data year 2018, the EEOC estimates that
the number of filers required to submit
Component 1 will increase again to
approximately 90,000 for data years
2019 through 2021. Table 1 below in the
‘Component 1’ subsection of the Formal
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
section provides a breakdown of the
number of estimated records by type
that will be submitted by the estimated
90,000 filers. Accordingly, the EEOC is
calculating the burden estimates in this
30-Day Notice based on this revised
estimate of the number of filers.
B. The EEOC Will Not Seek a PRA
Extension of Component 2
The necessity of filing now with OMB
to request a new PRA approval of the
EEO–1 requires the EEOC to make
decisions based on the information
available. After evaluating the
comments and holding a public hearing,
the Commission will not seek OMB
approval for an extension of Component
2. The Commission concludes that at
this time it cannot state that Component
2 data has significant practical utility in
assisting the Commission in fulfilling its
mission in combating illegal
employment discrimination. The
Commission’s decision is supported by
26 Civil Action No. 17–cv–2458 (D.D.C.) On
February 10, 2020, the court ordered that the 2017
and 2018 Component 2 collections were complete.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Mar 20, 2020

Jkt 250001

written comments and by testimony at
the November 20, 2019 hearing from
those with actual experience collecting
Component 2 data.27 Based on the
Commission’s evaluation of the public
comments received in response to the
60-Day Notice and the agency’s own
burden calculations,28 and because the
PRA requires an agency to demonstrate
that the practical utility of the
information collection outweighs the
burden of the collection, the
Commission cannot justify continuing
to collect Component 2 data.
If the EEOC seeks to pursue a pay data
collection in the future, it will do so
using notice and comment rulemaking
and a public hearing pursuant to Title
VII 29 because a pay data collection
would be a significant new collection
and reporting requirement. The EEOC
believes that there should be a
transparent and open process, aligning
with the recommendations in the EEOC27 See the summary of comments in Section
III.B.2 above.
28 The estimated number of respondents who
must file EEO–1 Component 2 data was 62,718
filers for calendar year 2017 and 66,126 filers for
calendar year 2018. The estimated number of
responses was 1,558,927 for reference year 2017
and 1,588,882 for reference year 2018. The EEOC
estimated that about 40% of Component 2
respondents (23,149 in 2017 and 24,182 in 2018)
would report data on a single establishment, and
that it would take these filers an average of 60
minutes per reporting year to complete their
Component 2 EEO–1 report. About 60% of
Component 2 filers (39,569 in 2017 and 41,944 in
2018) would report data on multiple
establishments. Multi-establishment filers complete
both type 2 and type 3 reports, in addition to
completing either a type 4, 6, or 8 report for each
establishment, totaling, 1,535,778 multiestablishment reports for reporting year 2017 and
1,564,700 multi-establishment reports for reporting
year 2018. Single establishments submitted 23,149
reports in 2017 and 24,182 in 2018.
For the 2017 and 2018 Component 2 data
collection effort, we estimated that a total of
3,147,809 reports would be submitted. While the
actual time spent by multi-establishment filers
varies based on a number of factors, as noted in the
Component 1 section above, we estimated that it
would take a filer, on average, 7.3 hours to complete
Component 2 data for 2018. We further estimated
that completing 2017 Component 2 data would be
more burdensome for filers than completing 2018
Component 2 data because filers would need
additional time to locate historical records. As a
result, we estimated that it would take a filer, on
average, 7.4 hours to complete Component 2 data
for 2017. We estimated the average burden for filers
to submit 2017 and 2018 Component 2 data to be
7.3 hours.
The collection of EEO–1 Component 2 data for
calendar years 2017 and 2018 is estimated to have
imposed total burden hours of 22,744,870 for
3,147,809 Component 2 reports. We estimate the
total cost of the 2017 collection ($366,443,051) and
2018 collection of ($371,400,532) Component 2 data
to be $737,843,583.
29 See, 42 U.S.C. 2000e–8(c). See also,
‘‘Amendments to the Regulations at 29 CFR part
1602 to Provide for a Pay Survey’’ in the EEOC’s
Fall 2019 Regulatory Agenda, https://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?
pubId=201910&RIN=3046-AB15.

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

commissioned 2012 study from the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS),
entitled ‘‘Collecting Compensation Data
from Employers,’’ (NAS Study),30 that
the EEOC:
1. Develops a plan for using pay data
before initiating any data collection.
Clearly articulating the ultimate uses of
the data will help determine both which
data elements need to be collected as
well as the best approach to collecting
the data to ensure the validity,
reliability, and utility of the data
collected.
2. Initiates a scientifically sound pilot
study to test the pay data collection
instrument and the plan for the use of
the data; and
3. Uses a definition of compensation
that is measurable, collectable, and
meaningful.
Further, the EEOC concludes that the
2016 burden estimate was developed
using an inadequate methodology that
significantly underestimated the burden
of the Component 2 collection. By
contrast, the methodology used to
develop the burden estimates in this 30Day Notice returns to the methodology
used by the EEOC prior to 2016 and
takes into consideration GAO and OMB
guidance on calculating burden
estimates in federal information
collections. Commenters’ experience
with submitting Component 2 data
confirmed the EEOC’s revised burden
estimates to submit Component 2 data.
These commenters explained why every
year, gathering and submitting
Component 2 data would continue to be
very time consuming, and that increased
automation would not meaningfully
reduce the burden and drive cost
savings. Based on these comments and
the Commission’s own calculations, the
burden estimate contained in the 60-Day
Notice and this Notice is more accurate
than the 2016 burden estimate.
In response to specific comments
about the burden calculations in the 60Day Notice, the EEOC responds as
follows:
1. Regarding the comments about the
estimated time needed to complete the
reports, as the EEOC indicated in the 60Day Notice and also concludes in this
30-Day Notice, the estimated average of
45 minutes 31 each to complete both the
30 National Research Council. 2012. Collecting
Compensation Data from Employers. Washington,
DC: National Academies Press. Available at https://
www.nap.edu/catalog/13496/collectingcompensation-data-from-employers.
31 This is the estimate for a single establishment
to file their EEO–1 Component 1 report, which is
being used because the Commission is seeking
approval for the collection of Component 1. The
Commission estimates under the burden
methodology set forth in the 60-Day Notice and this
Notice. that it would take a single establishment 60

E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM

23MRN1

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 56 / Monday, March 23, 2020 / Notices
type 1 and the type 2 report was based
on feedback that EEO–1 project staff
received from employers filing type 1
and type 2 reports during the 2018
EEO–1 Component 1 data collection. As
stated above, feedback from commenters
who file EEO–1 reports largely
supported the Commission’s revised
burden estimates and the determination
that the burden was higher for the EEO–
1 than the Commission estimated in
2016.
2. On the concerns about single vs.
multi-establishment firms, the 60-Day
Notice explains in detail the
calculations for single vs. multiestablishment firms as well as the
estimated completion time for each type
of required report. This 30-Day Notice
also explains that calculation in detail.
It also includes Table 1 (see below) to
further elucidate the Commission’s
approach.
3. Regarding the comment about GAO
guidance, as the EEOC explains in the
60-Day Notice and again in this 30-Day
Notice, the GAO report provides
guidance on scientifically sound
methods and techniques for calculating
burden for federal information
collections. In light of the GAO
guidance, we believe the scientifically
sound way to conduct this data
collection is to calculate based on forms.
Agency submission of accurate burden
estimates using scientifically sound
methods and techniques is required by
the PRA.
4. On the comment about estimating
for forms that are no longer used, all
estimates used by the EEOC in both the
60-Day Notice and this 30-Day Notice
are based on forms that were actually
filed by employers in the 2018 EEO–1
Component 1 data collection. As the
EEOC noted, not all employers are
required to file all form types.
5. Regarding the comment alleging an
arithmetic mistake, the burden
calculations in 60-Day Notice do not
contain any arithmetic mistakes. The
commenter is attempting to calculate
average burden at the individual
employer level which changes the unit
of analysis. As the EEOC explains in
both the 60-Day Notice and this 30-Day
Notice, the appropriate unit of analysis
for burden estimation is at the form type
level. Additionally, the EEOC does not
dictate filing methods (i.e., online portal
or upload) and employers are free to
choose whichever filing method they
deem appropriate.
As required by the PRA, the EEOC has
evaluated the significant burden of the
minutes to file an EEO–1 Component 2 report due
to the additional data elements. See footnote 28,
supra.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Mar 20, 2020

Jkt 250001

Component 2 collection against its
practical utility. Based on this
assessment, the EEOC has concluded
that the utility of the current
Component 2 collection does not justify
the burden of the collection on
employers. For this reason, the EEOC
does not seek OMB’s PRA approval to
continue the Component 2 information
collection.
C. Data Sharing
Title VII forbids the EEOC or any
EEOC officer or employee from making
public any information, including EEO–
1 data, before a Title VII proceeding is
instituted that involves that
information.32 EEOC staff who violate
this prohibition may be found guilty of
a criminal misdemeanor and could be
fined or imprisoned.
The EEO–1 data are collected under
Title VII and Executive Order 11246.
The EEO–1, administered by the EEOC’s
Office of Enterprise Data and Analytics,
is a single data collection designed to
meet the enforcement data needs of both
the EEOC and OFCCP while
simultaneously avoiding duplication.
With respect to sharing data with
OFCCP, and consistent with EEOC’s
updated practices, the EEOC will share
with OFCCP only Component 1 data for
federal contractors. Further, in light of
the OFCCP’s announcement of its
decision not to request, accept, or use
Component 2 data from the EEOC, the
EEOC does not intend to provide any
Component 2 data to OFCCP. See,
OFCCP Intention not to Request, Accept,
or Use Employer Information Report
(EEO–1) Component 2 Data, 84 FR
64932 (Nov. 25, 2019).33
The EEOC directly imposes Title VII’s
confidentiality requirement on all of its
contractors, including contract workers
and contractor companies, as a
condition of their contracts. With
respect to other federal agencies with a
legitimate law enforcement purpose, the
EEOC gives access to information
collected under Title VII only if the
agencies agree, by letter or
memorandum of understanding, to
32 42 U.S.C. 2000e–8(e). Consistent with these
confidentiality requirements, the EEOC has released
aggregate EEO–1 data in the past that does not
reveal the identity of individual filers.
33 In the Supporting Statement issued with the
2016 PRA, the EEOC stated: ‘‘OFCCP will not
receive EEO–1 summary pay data for companies
that are not federal contractors under OFCCP’s
jurisdiction.’’ FINAL EEO–1 Supporting Statement
(September 28, 2016). Notwithstanding this
statement, the EEOC’s practice was to share all
employer Component 1 data with OFCCP
(regardless of federal contractor status). The EEOC
has ceased the practice of sharing all Component 1
employer data with OFCCP and going forward, the
Commission will only provide OFCCP Component
1 EEO–1 data for federal contractors.

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

16347

comply with the confidentiality
provisions of Title VII. For the EEOC, its
agents and contractors, Title VII only
permits disclosure of information after
suit is filed in a particular matter on the
issues that were investigated at the
administrative level.
With respect to data-sharing with
state and local fair employment
practices agencies (FEPAs), Title VII
itself states that the EEOC may only give
FEPAs information (including EEO–1
data) about employers in their
jurisdiction on the condition that they
not make it public prior to the
institution of a proceeding under state
or local law involving such
information.34 The EEOC’s current
practice is to share EEO–1 data with a
contracted FEPA only upon request and
to share only EEO–1 data for an
employer within the FEPA’s jurisdiction
and only when that employer is a
respondent to a particular charge of
discrimination cited by the FEPA in its
data request. Title VII authorizes the
EEOC to decline to honor a FEPA’s
subsequent requests for information if
the FEPA violates Title VII’s
confidentiality requirements.35
To align with provisions of Title VII,
the Federal Information Security
Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA),36
the Foundations for Evidence-Based
Policymaking Act of 2018 (Evidence
Act),37 and OMB Memorandum M–19–
15 Improving Implementation of the
Information Quality Act issued on April
24, 2019,38 the EEOC is modernizing its
policies and procedures concerning data
access to EEO–1 data for approved
external data users. The EEOC is
reviewing and updating all current data
sharing memoranda with other federal
enforcement agencies. The EEOC will
only provide approved users access to
the minimum data necessary to adhere
to the specific terms of the relevant
memoranda. Consistent with the
requirements of the Evidence Act, the
EEOC is exploring secure mechanisms
to facilitate access to EEO–1 restricted
data for approved researchers for
statistical purposes and for developing
evidence. As defined by the Evidence
Act, ‘‘evidence’’ only means
‘‘information produced as a result of
statistical activities conducted for a
statistical purpose.’’ See, 44 U.S.C.
3561(6).
34 42

U.S.C. 2000e–8(d).

35 Id.
36 Public

Law 113–283 (2014).
Law 115–435 (2019).
38 https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/
uploads/2019/04/M-19-15.pdf.
37 Public

E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM

23MRN1

16348

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 56 / Monday, March 23, 2020 / Notices

V. Formal Paperwork Reduction Act
Statement
A. Overview of Information Collection
Component 1

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

Collection Title: Employer
Information Report (EEO–1) Component
1.
OMB Number: 3046–XXXX
(previously 3046–0007).
Frequency of Report: Annual.
Type of Respondent: Private
employers with 100 or more employees
and certain federal government
contractors and first-tier subcontractors
with 50 or more employees.
Description of Affected Public: Private
employers with 100 or more employees
and certain federal government
contractors and first-tier subcontractors
with 50 or more employees.
Reporting Hours: 9,167,393.
Respondent Burden Hour Cost: $297
million.39
Federal Cost: $2 million.
Number of Forms: 1.
Abstract: 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.40 Pursuant to this
statutory authority, the EEOC in 1966
issued a regulation requiring certain
employers to file executed copies of the
EEO–1 in conformity with the directions
and instructions on the form, which
called for reporting employee data by
job category, ethnicity, race, and sex.41
Pursuant to Executive Order 11246,42
the Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs (OFCCP), U.S.
Department of Labor, 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
39 This estimate is based on the most recent
median pay data from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics. We estimated that a computer support
specialist would account for 60% of the estimated
hourly wage; a database administrator would
account for 20%; an HR specialist would account
for 10%; legal counsel would account for 5% and
an CEO would account for 5%, for a total estimated
hourly wage of $32.44. See U.S. Dept. of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook
Handbook, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-andfinancial/human-resources-specialists.htm.
40 42 U.S.C. 2000e–8(c).
41 The EEOC’s EEO–1 regulation is at 29 CFR part
1602 Subpart B. The EEOC is responsible for
obtaining OMB’s PRA approval for the EEO–1
report.
42 Exec. Order No. 11,246, 30 FR 12,319 (Sept. 24,
1965).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Mar 20, 2020

Jkt 250001

accurate reports’’ annually.43 Currently,
Component 1 of the EEO–1 directs
certain covered employers with more
than 50 employees (contractors) or 100
employees (private industry) to report
annually the number of individuals they
employ by job category and by race,
ethnicity, and sex.44 The data include
seven race and ethnicity categories 45
and ten job categories,46 by sex. The
individual EEO–1 reports are
confidential. EEO–1 data are used by the
EEOC to investigate charges of
employment discrimination against
employers in private industry and to
provide information about the
employment status of minorities and
women.47
B. Burden Statement
The previous annual estimated
burden for Component 1 under the 2016
43 41 CFR 60–1.7(a). The EEOC may also share
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
retain confidentiality as required by 42 U.S.C.
2000e–8(e), the EEOC shares EEO–1 reports with
the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal
Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the National
Credit Union Administration (NCUA). The FDIC
and NCUA use EEO–1 data pursuant to the DoddFrank 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.
44 The EEO–1 uses federal race and ethnicity
categories, which were adopted by the Commission
in 2005 and implemented in 2007.
45 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.
46 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; and
Service Workers.
47 Any reports the EEOC publishes based on EEO–
1 data include only aggregated EEO–1 data that
protects the confidentiality of each employer’s
information, as well as the privacy of each
employee’s personal information.

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

clearance 48 was 1,952,146 hours. After
reviewing the methodology used to
calculate the 2016 burden for
Component 1, we identified an
approach we believe is substantially
more precise and is supported by
comments received in response to the
60-Day Notice and public hearing on
November 20, 2019.
The methodology used in this notice
to calculate the burden for Component
1 is to separate Type 1 (single
establishment) and Type 2 (multiestablishment) filers and calculate the
burden by considering the following
factors: Type of filer, the combination of
report types submitted by the filer, and
the total number of reports filers will
certify to complete their EEO–1
submission.
Reporting time estimates for EEO–1
Component 1 filers are based on the
most recently completed Component 1
collection cycle. During the 2018 data
collection cycle (which took place in
2019), 80,396 of the 87,021 eligible
EEO–1 Component 1 filers submitted a
total of 1,628,897 records. Based on data
trends over the last five data collection
years, we expect that the total number
of eligible filers submitting data will
increase to 90,000 filers. We further
estimate that of the 90,000 filers, Type
1 filers will continue to represent about
40% of filers and these filers will
submit less than 2% of all records,
while type 2 filers will continue to
represent about 60% of filers and will
submit more than 98% of records. We
have no reason to believe that
completion time by record type will
vary from previous years and we believe
that filers will continue to submit the
same record combination types, e.g.
Type 1 filers will submit a type 1 report
only, and type 2 filers will submit type
2 and type 3 reports, and then either
type 4, type 6 or type 8 reports,
depending on their business structure.
Using the 90,000 number, we estimate
that Component 1 EEO–1 filers will
submit a total of 1,915,345 records
annually, for data years 2019 and 2021.
We estimate that the 36,223 type 1 filers
will submit 36,223 type 1 records, and
it will take them 27,167 hours to submit
these records. We estimate the 53,777
type 2 filers will submit 1,879,122
records. Based on 2018 data, we
calculated that the ratio of type 2
records to type 3 records was 1:1, or
type 2 filers submit an equal number of
type 3 headquarters records. Since type
48 The 2016 burden was estimated to be 6.6 hours
per respondent, multiplied by 60,886 respondents.
The EEOC has now determined that the proper unit
of analysis to calculate burden should be the
number of reports submitted by report type, rather
than the number of respondents.

E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM

23MRN1

16349

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 56 / Monday, March 23, 2020 / Notices
4, 6 and 8 records report establishment
data, the ratios of type 4-to-type 2; type
6-to-type 2; and type 8-to-type 2 records
are considerably larger. Specifically, the
ratio of type 4 records to type 2 records
is 4.9:1, or for every type 2 record
submitted, nearly 5 type 4 records were
submitted. The ratio for type 6 records
to type 2 records is 14.9:1, or for every
type 2 record submitted, nearly 15 type
6 records were submitted. The ratio for

type 8 records to type 2 records is
13.1:1, or for every type 2 record, about
13 type records were submitted. These
ratios were then applied to the
estimated number of type 2 filers—
53,777—to estimate the total number of
records by type we expect to receive for
data years 2019 through 2021. We
estimate it will take filers a total of
9,140,226 hours to submit these records.
The total aggregate reporting time for

Component 1 EEO–1 filers is 9,167,393
hours. The aggregate reporting time for
Component 1 EEO–1 filers by record
type varies between a low of 27,167
hours for type 1 filers submitting type
1 reports, and 6,414,815 hours for type
2 filers submitting type 6 reports. The
table below outlines that number of
records, the average reporting time by
record type, and the total number of
hours estimated to submit these records.

TABLE 1—PROJECTED ANNUAL BURDEN FOR COMPONENT 1 DATA YEARS 2019–2021, BY REPORT TYPE AND REPORTING
TIME
Average
reporting time
(minutes)

Number of
records
Type
Type
Type
Type
Type
Type

Aggregate
reporting
time, hours

1 ..........................................................................................................................................
2 a ........................................................................................................................................
3 b ........................................................................................................................................
4 c ........................................................................................................................................
6 d ........................................................................................................................................
8 e ........................................................................................................................................

36,223
53,777
53,777
264,403
801,852
705,313

45
45
45
120
480
180

27,167
40,333
40,333
528,806
6,414,815
2,115,940

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

1,915,345

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

9,167,393

a The

Consolidated Report must include all employees of the company categorized by race, gender and job category.
Report (Required)—The Headquarters Report must include employees working at the main office site of the company and
those employees that work from home that report to the corporate office. Employment data must be categorized by race, gender and job category. A separate EEO–1 report for the headquarters establishment is required even if there are fewer than 50 employees working at the headquarters establishment.
c Establishment Report—A separate EEO–1 Type 4 report must be submitted for each physical establishment with 50 or more employees. Employment data must be categorized by race, gender and job category.
d Establishment list—includes establishment name, address and total number of employees for each location with less than 50 employees. Employers choosing Type 6 reports must also manually enter data categorized by race, gender and job category into the accompanying Type 2 report and include all company employees.
e A separate EEO–1 report must be submitted for each establishment employing fewer than 50 employees. Like the Type 4 report, Type 8 report employment data must also be categorized by race, gender and job category. Employers choosing Type 8 reports must enter employment
data categorized by race, gender and job category for each Type 8 report. The employment data entered for each such establishment will automatically populate the Type 2 Report.

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

b Headquarters

An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to
respond: The estimated number of
respondents who must annually file
EEO–1 Component 1 data for the next
three years is 90,000 filers each year.
The EEOC estimates that the 90,000
filers will submit 1,915,345 reports.
Reports represent the annual number of
responses. About 40% of Component 1
filers (36,223 filers) will submit a single
report on a single establishment, and it
is estimated that it will take these filers
an average of 45 minutes per reporting
year to complete their Component 1
EEO–1 report. About 60% of
Component 1 filers (53,777 filers) will
report data on multiple establishments.
All multi-establishment filers must
complete both type 2 and type 3 reports,
in addition to completing either a type
4, 6, or 8 report for each establishment
for each reporting year, for a total of
1,879,122 multi-establishment EEO–1
reports submitted by 53,777 multiestablishment filers. While the actual
submission time for single and multi-

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Mar 20, 2020

Jkt 250001

establishment filers varies,49 for
purposes of this exercise we estimate
that it will take a filer, on average, under
5 hours to complete their Component 1
EEO–1 report. Each filer will be asked
to respond to Component 1 of the EEO–
1 once annually. The burden estimate is
49 Burden for single establishment filers is based
on a single report. Burden for multi-establishment
reporters is cumulative and is based on the report
type combination. EEO–1 project staff estimate that
the average completion time for the type 2 report
would be 45 minutes, the completion of the type
3 report adds an average of 45 minutes to the
burden, and the completion of type 4 reports adds
an average of 2 hours to the burden, so a Type 2
filer completing type 4 reports will have an average
burden of 3.5 hours (45 minutes for the type 2
report, plus 45 minutes for the type 3 report, plus
2 hours for the type 4 reports). A Type 2 filer
completing type 6 reports will add—on average—
8 hours to the burden, for a total burden of 9.5
hours. A Type 2 filer completing type 8 reports will
add—on average—3 hours to the burden, for a total
burden of 4.5 hours. While this analysis recognizes
that individual filers’ burdens will vary, on average
a multi-establishment filer submitting 2/3/4 reports
would have the lowest estimated burden of 3.5
hours while a filer submitting 2/3/6 reports would
have the highest estimated average burden of 9.5
hours. Once Type 1, or single establishment filers,
and filers submitting 2/3/8 are considered, the
average estimated burden for EEO–1 filers is
approximately 5 hours.

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

based on data from prior
administrations of Component 1 of the
EEO–1.
An estimate of the total public burden
(in hours) associated with the collection:
The collection of EEO–1 Component 1
data for calendar years 2019, 2020, and
2021 is estimated to impose a total of
9,167,393 annual burden hours for
1,915,345 Component 1 reports. Filers
are encouraged to report data
electronically to decrease burden.
Dated: March 11, 2020.
For the Commission.
Janet Dhillon,
Chair.
[FR Doc. 2020–06008 Filed 3–20–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
Privacy Act of 1974; System of
Records
AGENCY:

Federal Trade Commission

(FTC).

E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM

23MRN1