81 FR 5113 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Revision of the Employer Information Report (EEO-1) and Comment Request

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 20 (February 1, 2016)

Page Range		5113-5121
FR Document		2016-01544

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 EEOC solicits public comment on the utility and burden of collecting pay and hours- worked data through the EEO-1 data collection process.

Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 20 (Monday, February 1, 2016)

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 20 (Monday, February 1, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5113-5121]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01544]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

[3046-0007]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Revision of the
Employer Information Report (EEO-1) and Comment Request

AGENCY: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

ACTION: Proposed revision of the employer information report (EEO-1)
and comment request.

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

SUMMARY: 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 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 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

[[Page 5114]]

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/eeo1-2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ 42 U.S.C. 2000e-8(c).
\2\ The 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).
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ 29 U.S.C. 206(d).
\11\ Id. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 5115]]

(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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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=201407-1250-001&icID=212555.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public comments submitted to OFCCP about the proposed Equal Pay
Report 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, 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/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.
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 long-established
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\

[[Page 5116]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Pay Data Will Be Collected
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\ 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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 on-call 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, 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-Earned-Income%3F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
widely-used 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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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
\34\ See Press Release, Aon Hewitt, 2014 U.S. Salary Increase
Survey, (Aug. 27, 2014), http://aon.mediaroom.com/New-Aon-Hewitt-Survey-Shows-2014-Variable-Pay-Spending-Spikes-to-Record-High-Level.
\35\ WorldatWork. ``Bonus Programs and Practices.'' Available at
http://www.worldatwork.org/adimLink?id=75444, at p.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 5117]]

counted as W-2 income but are not included in the OES definition.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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-Earned-Income%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/a-look-at-supplemental-pay-overtime-pay-bonuses-and-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.''
\39\ The panel included individuals with expertise in HRIS and
SAP, and in compensation, payroll, and benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 off-the-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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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-job-
category 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 ``wage intervals'' used
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the OES survey.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ See U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEO-4
Survey, https://egov.eeoc.gov/eeo4/.
\44\ See Survey Methods and Reliability Statement for the May
2014 Occupational Employment Statistics Survey. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/methods_statement.pdf.

Table 1--EEO-4 Pay Bands
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay bands Pay bands label
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................... $100-$15,999.
2.................................... $16,000-$19,999.
3.................................... $20,000-$24,999.
4.................................... $25,000-$32,999.
5.................................... $33,000-$42,999.
6.................................... $43,000-$54,999.
7.................................... $55,000-$69,999.
8.................................... $70,000 and over.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2--Proposed EEO--1 Pay Bands
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay bands Pay bands label
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................... $19,239 and under.
2.................................... $19,240-$24,439.
3.................................... $24,440-$30,679.
4.................................... $30,680-$38,999.
5.................................... $39,000-$49,919.
6.................................... $49,920-$62,919.
7.................................... $62,920-$80,079.
8.................................... $80,080-$101,919.
9.................................... $101,920-$128,959.
10................................... $128,960-$163,799.
11................................... $163,800-$207,999.
12................................... $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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 full-time 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

[[Page 5118]]

information. Employers are encouraged to comment on this issue.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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, 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 African-American 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.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 particular groups of people (e.g.,
women of color).\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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/jobpat-eeo1/index.cfm.
\51\ See U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Special
Reports, http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/reports/index.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 5119]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

PRA Burden Statement

2016: Component 1
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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.

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 Total annual Total burden
hours Filers burden hours Wage rate hour cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reading instructions........... 0.5 67,146 33,573 $24.23 $813,473.79
Collecting, verifying, 2.9 67,146 194,723.4 24.23 4,718,147.98
validating and reporting data.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................... 3.4 67,146 228,296.4 .............. 5,531,621.77
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2017 and 2018: Components 1 and 2
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\57\ Of the 67,146 firms that filed EEO-1 reports in 2014, 6,260
were federal contractor filers with fewer than 100 employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\58\ This estimate is calculated as follows: 3.4 hours per
respondent x 6,260 respondents = 21,284 hours x $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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\59\ This estimate is calculated as follows: 6.6 hours per
respondent x 60,886 respondents = 401,847.6 hours x $24.23 per hour
= $9,736,767.35. 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).

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

[[Page 5120]]

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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\60\ This is estimate is calculated as follows: 8 hours per
respondent x 60,886 employers = 487,088 x $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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Table 4--Annual Burdens--2017 and 2018
[Revised EEO-1 Data Collection--Components 1 and 2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total annual
Annual burden Annual burden Filers Total annual Wage rate burden hour
hours burden hours cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component 1 Only
Contractor filers with 50 to 99 employees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reading instructions.......... 0.5 6,260 3130 $24.23 $75,839.90
Collecting, verifying, 2.9 6,260 18,154 24.23 439,871.42
validating and reporting data
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Burden for 3.4 6,260 21,284 .............. 515,711.32
Filers Submitting
Component 1..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Components 1 and 2
All private industry employer filers, as well as contractor filers with 100 or more employees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reading instructions.......... 1 60,886 60,886 24.23 1,475,268
Collecting, verifying, 5.6 60,886 340,961.6 24.23 8,261,499.35
validating and reporting data
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Burden for 6.6 60,886 401,847.6 .............. 9,736,767.35
Filers Submitting
Components 1 and 2.......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Burden--All Filers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total for Revised EEO-1... ............... 67,146 423,131.6 .............. 10,252,478.67
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 5121]]

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 self-assess 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 Register / Vol. 81, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2016 / Notices 5115

(work group). The work group reviewed and rule argued for, among other things, contractors that are subject to the EEO–
the current data collection procedures, the need to improve interagency 1 reporting requirement and that have
provided feedback on future coordination and decrease employer between 50 and 99 employees will
modernization of the EEO surveys, and burden for reporting compensation data continue to submit the same
engaged in brainstorming that led to by using the EEO–1, rather than a new information that is collected by the
ideas submitted individually by group OFCCP data collection, as well as the current EEO–1 report (Component 1).
participants on a number of topics, need to protect privacy and data They will not be required to submit pay
including collecting pay data as well as confidentiality. The instant proposal and hours-worked data. A sample copy
multiple-race category data on the EEO– responds to these concerns.23 Similarly, of the currently approved EEO–1 report
1. Employer stakeholders expressed the NAS Report recommended that the provides an illustration of the data to be
concern about the importance of federal EEO enforcement agencies collected by Component 1. It can be
maintaining the confidentiality of any develop a coordinated plan for using found at http://www.eeoc.gov/
individual filer’s pay data even if pay compensation data. In the course of employers/eeo1survey/upload/eeo1-
data were only published in aggregated developing this EEO–1 proposal, the 2.pdf. An illustration of the data to be
form.18 The work group report 19 reflects EEOC and OFCCP together consulted collected by both Components 1 and 2
feedback from participants that the with the Department of Justice, focusing can be found at http://www.eeoc.gov/
burden of reporting pay data would be on how EEO–1 pay data would be used employers/eeo1survey/2016_new_
minimal for EEO–1 filers. to assess complaints of discrimination, survey.cfm.
On April 8, 2014, the Presidential focus investigations, and identify
Memorandum, ‘‘Advancing Pay Equality When Annual EEO–1 Reports Will Be
employers with existing pay disparities Due and How Employers Will Submit
Through Compensation Data that might warrant further examination.
Collection’’ was issued. It directed the Data
The EEOC and OFCCP plan to develop
Secretary of Labor to develop a statistical tools that would be available Currently, employers must collect
compensation data collection to staff on their computers, to utilize the EEO–1 data from any pay period
proposal.20 OFCCP issued a Notice of EEO–1 pay data for these purposes. occurring in the months of July through
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on They also anticipate developing September of the current survey year.
August 8, 2014, proposing to amend one software tools and guidance for The EEO–1 must be filed by September
of its implementing regulations for stakeholders to support analysis of 30th of the same year. These deadlines
Executive Order 11246 to add a aggregated EEO–1 data. Finally, the would continue after the addition of pay
requirement that certain federal EEOC and OFCCP anticipate that the data, to minimize employers’ burden by
contractors submit compensation data process of reporting pay data may folding the new collection into long-
reports to OFCCP.21 Under the NPRM, encourage employers to self-monitor established deadlines. As explained
OFCCP also proposed a sample of an and comply voluntarily if they uncover below regarding the utility and burden
Equal Pay Report for collecting this pay inequities. of using W–2 data to describe pay,
data.22 The following discussion explains the requiring filers to report W–2 data as of
Public comments submitted to OFCCP justification for each component of the a pay period occurring in the months of
about the proposed Equal Pay Report proposed EEO–1 pay data collection. As July through September should not be
stated above, this proposal does not burdensome given the capabilities of
18 For example, reporting the average pay for
compel employers to collect new data HRIS software.
Hispanic or Latino women who are Executive/
but rather requires the reporting of pay Beginning in 2017, all filers will be
Senior Level Officials and Managers, if there are required to submit the proposed EEO–
few Hispanic or Latino women in that job group, data that employers maintain in the
may effectively reveal the pay of individual normal course of business. This notice 1 report electronically. Automated
employees. To allay these concerns, the EEOC
proposes a collection that will maximize electronic data collection promotes the
intends to re-examine the rules for testing statistical
the utility of the pay data while utility of the EEO–1 survey by reducing
confidentiality for publishing aggregate data to the number of inadvertent human errors
make certain that tables with small cell-counts are balancing respondent concerns about
not made public. in the data. Electronic data collection
confidentiality and the burden of the
19 ‘‘EEOC Survey System Modernization Work also is less burdensome for employers
collection.
Group Meeting, Draft Report,’’ March 19, 2012, Sage than assigning staff to complete the
Computing. Available at: http://www.eeoc.gov/ Proposal To Add Pay Data to the survey. As of 2014, all but three of the
employers/eeo1survey/survey-modernization.pdf.
20 Presidential Documents, Memorandum of April
EEO–1 67,146 EEO–1 filers already used
8, 2014, ‘‘Advancing Pay Equality Through electronic data submission.24 Any EEO–
Who Will Report Pay Data and When
Compensation Data Collection,’’ Memorandum for 1 filer seeking an exemption from this
the Secretary of Labor, April 11, 2014 (79 FR This Reporting Requirement Will Start
electronic requirement may use the
20751). For the 2016 EEO–1 reporting cycle,
21 Government Contractors, Requirement to
existing EEO–1 process for seeking
to ease the transition, all employers will special reporting procedures.25
Report Summary Data on Employee Compensation,
79 FR 46563 (August 8, 2014). This NPRM provided submit information that is identical to
detailed explanations for the design of the Equal the information collected by the 24 The remaining three filers submitted hard copy

Pay Survey, which utilized W–2 information as a currently approved EEO–1 (Component reports.
measure of wages and reported cumulative wages. 1). Starting in 2017, employers that are 25 The EEO–1 instructions provide that ‘‘[a]n
It did not use pay bands like Component 2 of the employer who claims that preparation or the filing
currently proposed EEO–1. In 2011, OFCCP had subject to the EEO–1 reporting of Standard Form 100 would create undue hardship
issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking requirement and that have 100 or more may apply to the Commission for a special
(ANPRM). Nondiscrimination in Compensation: employees will submit the EEO–1 with reporting procedure. In such cases, the employer
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Compensation Data Collection Tool, 79 FR 49398 must submit in writing a detailed alternative
(August 10, 2011), in response to which
pay and related information
proposal for compiling and reporting information
stakeholders provided extensive input and (Components 1 and 2). By contrast, to: The EEO–1 Coordinator, EEOC-Survey Division,
information. 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507. Only
22 Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 23 OFCCP plans to utilize EEO–1 pay data for those special procedures approved in writing by the
and Office of Management and Budget, Equal Pay federal contractors with 100 or more employees Commission are authorized. Such authorizations
Report, http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ instead of implementing a separate compensation remain in effect until notification of cancellation is
PRAViewIC?ref_nbr=201407-1250- data survey as outlined in its August 8, 2014, given. All requests for information should be sent
001&icID=212555. NPRM. Continued

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:33 Jan 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01FEN1.SGM 01FEN1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2016 / Notices 5119

require EEO–1 filers with 100 or more 2017 and 2018 Overview of Information more employees will submit pay and
employees to submit Component 2 data Collection—Components 1 and 2 hours-worked data under Component 2
in addition to Component 1 data. Collection Title: Employer in addition to the demographic and job
However, contractor filers with 50 to 99 Information Report (EEO–1). category data under Component 1.
employees will only submit Component OMB Control Number: 3046–0007. Number of Respondents: 60,886.
1 data. Frequency of Report: Annual.
Number of Forms: 1. Reporting Hours: 401,847.6.
2016 Overview of Information Form Number: EEOC Form 100. Respondent Burden Hour Cost:
Collection—Component 1 Federal Cost: $318,000 for one-time $9,736,767.35.
Collection Title: Employer costs and $1,621,300 54 for recurring
staffing costs. PRA Burden Statement
Information Report (EEO–1).
OMB Control Number: 3046–0007. Component 1 (Demographic and Job 2016: Component 1
Category Data)
Frequency of Report: Annual. Burden Statement: In 2016, all EEO–
Description of Affected Public: In 1 filers will submit only Component 1,
Description of Affected Public: Private 2017 and 2018, contractor filers with 50
industry filers with 100 or more which includes the data collected by the
to 99 employees will submit only the
employees and federal government currently approved EEO–1. The
demographic and job category data
contractor filers with 50 or more estimated number of respondents
collected by Component 1.
employees. Number of Respondents: 6,260. required to submit the annual EEO–1
Number of Respondents: 67,146. Reporting Hours: 21,284. survey is 67,146.55 This data collection
Respondent Burden Hour Cost: is estimated to impose 228,296.4 burden
Reporting Hours: 228,296.4. hours in 2016 or 3.4 hours per filer.56
$515,711.32.
Respondent Burden Hour Cost: See Table 3. The estimated burden is
$5,531,621.77. Components 1 and 2 (Demographic and
Job Category Data Plus Pay and Hours- based on electronic, rather than paper
Federal Cost: $1,330,821. Worked Data) filing, which significantly reduces the
Number of Forms: 1. survey burden.
Description of Affected Public: In
Form Number: EEOC Form 100. 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 Total annual Total burden
Filers Wage rate
hours burden hours hour cost

Reading instructions .......................................................... 0.5 67,146 33,573 $24.23 $813,473.79
Collecting, verifying, validating and reporting data ............ 2.9 67,146 194,723.4 24.23 4,718,147.98

Total ............................................................................ 3.4 67,146 228,296.4 ........................ 5,531,621.77

2017 and 2018: Components 1 and 2 Burden Statement—Components 1 result of the proposed collection of W–
and 2: Starting in 2017, the estimated 2 pay data is estimated as follows:
Burden Statement—Component 1
number of annual respondents that will • Annual Burden Calculation: The
Only: Starting in 2017, the estimated
number of annual respondents who are submit Components 1 and 2 is 60,886 estimated total annual burden hours
contractor filers with 50 to 99 private industry and contractor filers. needed for filers to report demographic
employees is 6,260.57 Filers required to complete both and W–2 pay data via Components 1
Components 1 and 2 are estimated to and 2 of the revised EEO–1 Report is
The burden on these contractor filers
is estimated as follows: incur 401,847.6 burden hours annually 401,847.6, with an associated total
or 6.6 hours per filer. The estimated annual burden hour cost of
• Annual Burden Calculation: The
burden is based on electronic, rather $9,736,767.35. This burden estimate
estimated total annual burden hours
required to complete Component 1 of than paper, filing, which significantly includes reading instructions and
the EEO–1 data collection in 2017 and reduces the survey burden. collecting, merging, validating, and
2018 is 21,284, with an associated total The burden imposed on all private reporting the data electronically.59 See
annual burden hour cost of industry employer filers and contractor Table 4.
$515,711.32.58 See Table 4. filers with 100 or more employees as a
54 The addition of W–2 pay data to the EEO–1 is procures to assist with administration and 58 This estimate is calculated as follows: 3.4 hours

expected to increase EEOC’s internal staffing costs processing of the EEO–1 but did not include EEOC’s per respondent × 6,260 respondents = 21,284 hours
by approximately $290,478. The annual federal cost internal staffing costs associated with processing × $24.23 per hour = $515,711.32. See Bureau of
the EEO–1.
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

figure of $1,621,300 includes both the increase in Labor Statistics in the publication ‘‘Employer Costs
contract costs resulting from the addition of the pay 55 In 2014, 67,146 firms filed EEO–1 reports. for Employee Compensation’’ (December 2013),
data collection and the estimated internal staffing 56 In 2014, all but three reporting firms submitted which lists total compensation for administrative
costs. It reflects an increase of more than $290,478 electronic, rather than paper survey responses. support as $24.23 per hour, http://www.bls.gov/
compared to the estimated federal costs provided in These burden estimates assume that virtually all news.release/archives/ecec_03122014.htm (last
previously published Federal Register notices respondents will continue to file electronically. accessed September 23, 2014).
seeking PRA approval of this information collection 57 Of the 67,146 firms that filed EEO–1 reports in 59 This estimate is calculated as follows: 6.6 hours

because past estimates reflected the cost of the 2014, 6,260 were federal contractor filers with fewer per respondent × 60,886 respondents = 401,847.6
contract with the vendor whose services the EEOC than 100 employees. 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: on the one-time cost for developing Further, the EEOC estimates that the
The estimated one-time implementation queries related to Component 2 in an addition of W–2 pay data to the EEO–
burden hour cost for submitting the existing human resources information 1 will raise its internal staffing cost by
information required by Component 2 of system, which is estimated to take 8 $290,478 due to the increased staff time
the revised EEO–1 Report is hours per filer at a wage rate of $47.22 needed to process the additional data.
$23,000,295.60 This calculation is based per hour.

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

Total annual
Annual burden Total annual
Annual burden Filers Wage rate burden hour
hours burden hours cost

Component 1 Only
Contractor filers with 50 to 99 employees

Reading instructions ...................................................... 0.5 6,260 3130 $24.23 $75,839.90
Collecting, verifying, validating and reporting data ........ 2.9 6,260 18,154 24.23 439,871.42

Total Annual Burden for Filers Submitting Compo-
nent 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 ...................................................... 1 60,886 60,886 24.23 1,475,268
Collecting, verifying, validating and reporting data ........ 5.6 60,886 340,961.6 24.23 8,261,499.35

Total Annual Burden for Filers Submitting Compo-
nents 1 and 2 ...................................................... 6.6 60,886 401,847.6 ........................ 9,736,767.35

Total Annual Burden—All Filers

Total for Revised EEO–1 ........................................ .......................... 67,146 423,131.6 ........................ 10,252,478.67

The reporting hour burden report. This burden calculation is based employers, in their comments
calculations in this notice reflect a on the time spent on the tasks involved responding to paragraph 2 in the
departure from the manner in which the in filing the survey, rather than on ‘‘key ‘‘Solicitation of Public Comment’’
EEOC traditionally has estimated strokes’’ or data entry. As such, it more section below, to provide: (1)
reporting burden. In the past, the EEOC accurately reflects how virtually all Quantitative information about the
estimated the reporting hour burden employers actually complete the EEO–1 burden associated with completing the
based on the number of total cells in the and the EEOC’s practice of providing currently approved EEO–1, as well as
report(s) that a firm had to complete. filers alternative methods for filing their the anticipated estimated burden to also
This approach viewed each report filed reports such as data uploads using submit pay and hours-worked data, and
by a firm as a separate reporting various formats and online filing. (2) data regarding the estimated time
requirement, analogous to a paper The EEOC seeks employer input on that staff will spend to report the
report. In reporting year 2014, however, this burden calculation. The EEOC employer’s pay and hours-worked data
the number of paper reports declined to reviewed OFCCP’s ANPRM and NPRM and the corresponding wage rates for
just three. In addition, employers now and the public comments relating to the that staff.
rely extensively on automated HRIS to burden calculation for OFCCP’s Solicitation of Public Comment:
generate the information they submit on proposal to collect pay data and Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
the EEO–1 report.61 As a result, each consulted with OFCCP about burden Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and
additional report filed has just a estimates.63 The Pilot Study approached OMB regulation 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), the
marginal additional cost.62 To some private employers to seek data Commission solicits public comment to
accurately reflect the manner in which about the possible cost of collecting pay enable it to:
employers now collect and submit the information but few employers 1. Evaluate whether the proposed
data for filing, the estimated reporting responded, and the employers that did collection of information is necessary
burden set forth in this notice is respond did not provide quantitative for the proper performance of the
calculated per firm, rather than per feedback. The EEOC encourages Commission’s functions, including

Bureau of Labor Statistics in the publication for Employee Compensation’’ (December 2013), from an electronic file generated by the HRIS to the
‘‘Employer Costs for Employee Compensation’’ which lists total compensation for a professional as survey data base. In 2014, 1,449 firms filed EEO–
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

(December 2013), which lists total compensation for $47.22 per hour, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ 1 reports by uploading a data file, accounting for
administrative support as $24.23 per hour, http:// archives/ecec_03122014.htm (last accessed 704,654 of the EEO–1 reports filed in that year.
www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ September 23, 2014). 63 OFCCP plans to utilize EEO–1 pay data for
ecec_03122014.htm (last accessed September 23, 61 Surveys have shown that more than 90 percent

2014). of human resource departments operate with some federal contractors with 100 or more employees
60 This is estimate is calculated as follows: 8 form of computerized HRIS. See Public Personnel instead of implementing a separate compensation
hours per respondent × 60,886 employers = 487,088 Management, Volume 39, No. 3, Fall 2010. data survey as outlined in its August 8, 2014,
× $47.22 per hour = $23,000,295. See Bureau of 62 In fact, a number of firms file by uploading a NPRM.
Labor Statistics in the publication ‘‘Employer Costs data file so that the information goes nearly directly

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 5121

whether the information will have Conclusion For the Commission.
practical utility; Jenny R. Yang,
This notice summarizes the EEOC’s Chair.
2. Improve the accuracy of the proposal to submit a revised EEO–1 to
Commission’s estimate of the burden of OMB for 3-year PRA approval to require
[FR Doc. 2016–01544 Filed 1–29–16; 8:45 am]
the proposed collection of information, private employer filers, as well as most BILLING CODE 6570–01–P
including the validity of the federal government contractor filers, to
methodology and assumptions used; submit data on employee pay starting
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and with the 2017 reporting cycle. This data FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
clarity of the information to be collection would meet the statistical COMMISSION
collected; and needs of both the EEOC and OFCCP. It
would also enable employers to self- Sunshine Act Meeting
4. Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who assess their pay practices and policies January 21, 2016.
are required to respond, including the and thereby support voluntary The Federal Communications
use of appropriate automated, compliance. In developing this PRA Commission will hold an Open Meeting
electronic, mechanical, or other proposal, the EEOC has balanced on the subjects listed below on
technological collection techniques or enforcement objectives with the burden Thursday, January 28, 2016, which is
other forms of information technology, and confidentiality concerns of scheduled to commence at 10:30 a.m. in
e.g., permitting electronic submission of respondents. Room TW–C305, at 445 12th Street SW.,
responses. Dated: January 21, 2016. Washington, DC.

Item No. Bureau Subject

1 ................... MEDIA ....................................................... TITLE: Expansion of Online Public File Obligations to Cable and Satellite TV Opera-
tors 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.
2 ................... PUBLIC SAFETY & HOMELAND SECU- TITLE: Amendment of Commission’s Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System
RITY. (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.
3 ................... WIRELINE COMPETITION AND WIRE- TITLE: Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capa-
LESS TELE-COMMUNICATIONS. bility to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps
to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommuni-
cations 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 consent agenda and these items will not
The Commission will consider the be presented individually:
following subjects listed below as a

1 ................... GENERAL COUNSEL ............................... 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 re-
garding the denial of his request for inspection of records under the Freedom of
Information Act.
2 ................... GENERAL COUNSEL ............................... 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 inspec-
tion of records under the Freedom of Information Act filed by Mark Lewyn.
3 ................... GENERAL COUNSEL ............................... 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 Informa-
tion Act.
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

4 ................... GENERAL COUNSEL ............................... 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 Infor-
mation Act.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:33 Jan 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01FEN1.SGM 01FEN1

Document Created: 2016-01-30 01:17:25
Document Modified: 2016-01-30 01:17:25

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Notices
Action		Proposed revision of the employer information report (EEO-1) and comment request.
Dates		Written comments on this notice must be submitted on or before April 1, 2016.
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).
FR Citation		81 FR 5113