30-Day FR Notice

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Notices
supported by the rationales included in
those documents.
Following public comment, the
Agency will issue interim or final
registration review decisions for the
pesticides listed in the tables in Unit II.
The registration review program is
being conducted under congressionally
mandated time frames, and EPA
recognizes the need both to make timely
decisions and to involve the public.
Section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
(7 U.S.C. 136a(g)) required EPA to
establish by regulation procedures for
reviewing pesticide registrations,
originally with a goal of reviewing each
pesticide’s registration every 15 years to
ensure that a pesticide continues to
meet the FIFRA standard for
registration. The Agency’s final rule to
implement this program was issued in
August 2006 and became effective in
October 2006, and appears at 40 CFR
part 155, subpart C. The Pesticide
Registration Improvement Act of 2003
(PRIA) was amended and extended in
September 2007. FIFRA, as amended by
PRIA in 2007, requires EPA to complete
registration review decisions by October
1, 2022, for all pesticides registered as
of October 1, 2007.
The registration review final rule at 40
CFR 155.58(a) provides for a minimum
60-day public comment period on all
proposed interim registration review
decisions. This comment period is
intended to provide an opportunity for
public input and a mechanism for
initiating any necessary amendments to
the proposed interim decision. All
comments should be submitted using
the methods in ADDRESSES, and must be
received by EPA on or before the closing
date. These comments will become part
of the docket for the pesticides included
in the tables in Unit II. Comments
received after the close of the comment
period will be marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not
required to consider these late
comments.
The Agency will carefully consider all
comments received by the closing date
and may provide a ‘‘Response to
Comments Memorandum’’ in the
docket. The interim registration review
decision will explain the effect that any
comments had on the interim decision
and provide the Agency’s response to
significant comments.
Background on the registration review
program is provided at: http://
www2.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:33 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

Dated: July 6, 2016.
Michael Goodis,
Acting Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation
Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2016–16709 Filed 7–13–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION
[3046–007]

Agency Information Collection
Activities; Notice of Submission for
OMB Review, Final Comment Request:
Revision of the Employer Information
Report (EEO–1)
Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:

In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) announces that it is
submitting to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) a request for a threeyear PRA approval of a revised
Employer Information Report (EEO–1)
data collection. Employers have
submitted the EEO–1 report for over
fifty years. The Commission is
responsible for PRA compliance for the
EEO–1, although it is a joint data
collection to meet the statistical needs
of both the EEOC and the U.S.
Department of Labor’s Office of Federal
Contract Compliance Programs
(OFCCP). This PRA submission has two
components. Component 1 describes the
data now collected by the currently
approved EEO–1, which is data about
employees’ ethnicity, race, and sex by
job category (demographic data).
Component 2 describes the W–2 (Box 1)
and hours-worked data that will be
added to the EEO–1 with OMB’s
approval under this PRA request (pay
data). EEO–1 respondents must comply
with the 2016 filing requirement for the
currently approved EEO–1.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
August 15, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice
must be submitted to Joseph B. Nye,
Policy Analyst, Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th
Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,
email oira_submission@omb.eop.gov.
Commenters are also encouraged to
send comments to the EEOC online at
http://www.regulations.gov, which is
the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow
the instructions on the Web site for
submitting comments. In addition, the
SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

45479

EEOC’s Executive Secretariat will accept
comments in hard copy by delivery by
COB on August 15, 2016. Hard copy
comments should be sent to Bernadette
Wilson, Acting Executive Officer, EEOC,
131 M Street NE., Washington, DC
20507. Finally, the Executive Secretariat
will accept comments totaling six or
fewer pages by facsimile (‘‘fax’’)
machine before the same deadline at
(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.)
The EEOC will post online at http://
www.regulations.gov all comments
submitted via this Web site, in hard
copy, or by fax to the Executive
Secretariat. These comments will be
posted without change, including any
personal information you provide.
However, the EEOC reserves the right to
refrain from posting libelous or
otherwise inappropriate comments
including those that contain obscene,
indecent, or profane language; that
contain threats or defamatory
statements; that contain hate speech
directed at race, color, sex, national
origin, age, religion, disability, or
genetic information; or that promote or
endorse services or products. All
comments received, including any
personal information provided, also will
be available for public inspection during
normal business hours by appointment
only at the EEOC Headquarters’ Library,
131 M Street NE., Washington, DC
20507. Upon request, individuals who
require assistance viewing comments
will be provided appropriate aids such
as readers or print magnifiers. To
schedule an appointment, contact EEOC
Library staff at (202) 663–4630 (voice) or
(202) 663–4641 (TTY). (These are not
toll-free numbers.)
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:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. The EEOC’s Legal Authority To Propose
This EEO–1 Report
A. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM

14JYN1

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

45480

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Notices

B. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
III. Revisions to the EEO–1 Report Are
Necessary for the Enforcement of Title
VII, the EPA, and Executive Order 11246
IV. Who Will Report Pay Data on the Revised
EEO–1
A. Employers That Currently File the EEO–
1
B. 60-Day Notice: Which Employers Would
File Pay Data
C. Public Comments
D. 30-Day Notice: Employers With 100 or
More Employees Will File Components 1
&2
V. When To File: Filing Deadline and
Workforce Snapshot Period
A. 60-Day Notice
B. Public Comments
C. 30-Day Notice
1. Deadline for Filing the EEO–1
2. ‘‘Workforce Snapshot’’ Period
VI. What Pay Data To Report: Measure of Pay
for the EEO–1
A. 60-Day Notice: Options for Measuring
Pay
B. Public Comments
1. Supporting the Use of W–2 Income
2. Opposing the Use of W–2 Income
C. 30-Day Notice: W–2 (Box 1) Income Is
the Measure of Pay
1. W–2 Income and Employee Choice
2. Supplemental Income Is Important and
May Be Linked to Discrimination
3. Bridging HRIS and Payroll
VII. What Data To Report: Hours Worked
A. 60-Day Notice
B. Public Comments
C. 30-Day Notice
1. The Importance of Collecting Hours
Worked
2. Defining ‘‘Hours Worked’’
3. Reporting Hours Worked for Nonexempt
Employees
4. Reporting Hours Worked for Exempt
Employees
VIII. How To Report Data in Component 2:
Pay Bands and Job Categories
A. 60-Day Notice
B. Public Comments
C. 30-Day Notice
IX. How the EEOC Will Use W–2 and HoursWorked Data
A. 60-Day Notice
B. Public Comments
C. 30-Day Notice
1. Early Assessment of Charges of
Discrimination
2. EEOC Publications Analyzing Aggregate
EEO–1 Data
3. EEOC Training on the Pay Data
Collection
X. Confidentiality of EEO–1 Data
A. 60-Day Notice
B. Public Comments
C. 30-Day Notice
1. Legal Confidentiality
a. EEOC
b. OFCCP
2. Data Protection and Security
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act Burden
Estimates
A. Background
B. 60-Day Notice
C. 30-Day Notice
1. Annual Burden Hours
2. Hourly Wage Rates

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:33 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

XII. Formal Paperwork Reduction Act
Statement
A. Overview of Information Collection
1. 2016 Overview of Information
Collection—Component 1
2. 2017 and 2018 Overview of Information
Collection—Components 1 and 2
a. Component 1 (Demographic and Job
Category Data)
b. Components 1 and 2 (Demographic and
Job Category Data Plus W–2 and Hours
Worked Data)
B. 30-Day Notice PRA Burden Statement

I. Background
This final proposal to supplement the
longstanding EEO–1 employer
information report (currently approved
by OMB under Control Number 3046–
0007) is intended to support the EEOC’s
pay discrimination investigations by
collecting employer- and gender-, race, and ethnicity-specific pay data to
identify pay disparities that may result
from discriminatory practices or
policies. This Notice provides
stakeholders with their second
opportunity to comment on this
proposal.
The EEOC published the first notice
of this proposed revision in the Federal
Register on February 1, 2016, for a 60day comment period (the ‘‘60-Day
Notice’’).1 It announced which
employers would be required to file pay
data, what data would be collected,
when the due date would be, how the
data would be analyzed, and how the
proposed collection and analysis would
protect confidentiality and privacy. As
required, the 60-Day Notice estimated
the cost to employers of completing the
current EEO–1 (Component 1) and the
proposed revision of the EEO–1
(Components 1 and 2).
The EEOC received 322 timely public
comments in response to the 60-Day
Notice. The comments were submitted
by individual members of the public,
employers, employer associations,
Members of Congress, civil rights
groups, women’s organizations, labor
unions, industry groups, law firms, and
human resources organizations. Over
120 of the 322 comments were part of
mass mail campaigns mostly supporting
the proposal, although one mass mail
campaign opposed the proposal. The
mass mail campaigns included
submissions from organizations that
collected up to thousands of signatures
from their members or supporters.
The Commission also held a public
hearing on March 16, 2016, and heard
from 15 witnesses representing a range
of stakeholders including employers,
employees, and academics. The
Commission reviewed their detailed

PO 00000

1 81

FR 5113 (Feb. 1, 2016).

Frm 00032

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

written submissions, heard them
discuss their different perspectives on
the proposal, and asked them
questions.2
Pursuant to the required procedures
under the PRA, the Commission now
publishes its final proposal to
supplement the EEO–1 for a second
round of public comments, to last 30
days (hence the ‘‘30-Day Notice’’). The
EEOC also is formally submitting the
proposed EEO–1 revisions to OMB for
consideration and decision.
This 30-Day Notice summarizes the
60-Day Notice, describes the public
comments, and explains the
Commission’s decisions. In making
these decisions, the Commission took
into account all of the hearing testimony
and public comments. The Commission
also assessed government data regarding
components of compensation in United
States workplaces, relevant academic
literature on compensation practices
and on discrimination, and the
conclusions of two studies
commissioned by the EEOC to examine
how and whether to implement a pay
data collection.3 This 30-Day Notice sets
forth the EEOC’s conclusions about the
ways the proposed pay data collection
will be used to enhance and increase the
efficiency of enforcement efforts while
facilitating employer self-evaluation and
voluntary compliance.
II. The EEOC’s Legal Authority To
Propose This EEO–1 Report
In written comments in response to
the 60-Day Notice, several interested
parties questioned whether the EEOC
has legal authority to collect pay data
and whether the agency should have
conducted a formal rulemaking to
impose a pay data reporting
requirement. As explained in more
2 The press release on the hearing is available at
EEOC, EEOC Hears Wide Range of Views at Public
Hearing on Proposed Changes to EEO–1 Form (Mar.
16, 2016), https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/
release/3-16-16.cfm. The statements and
biographies of the witnesses are available at EEOC,
Hearing of March 16, 2016—Public Input into the
Proposed Revisions to the EEO–1 Report, http://
www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/meetings/3-16-16/.
3 The first EEOC-commissioned study, resulting
in a 2012 report from the National Research
Council, National Academy of Sciences (NAS
Report), outlined the potential value for EEOC
enforcement of collecting pay data from employers
by sex, race, and national origin through a report
such as the EEO–1. National Research Council,
2012. Collecting Compensation Data from
Employers. Washington, DC: National Academies
Press, http://www.nap.edu/read/13496/chapter/
1#ii. The second study, reported by an EEOC
contractor in 2015, provided detailed analysis of
different approaches to implementing the report
and included assessments of different statistical
analyses for employer data. Sage Computing, EEOC
Pay Pilot Study (September, 2015), http://
www.eeoc.gov/employers/eeo1survey/pay-pilotstudy.pdf.

E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM

14JYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Notices

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

detail below, the EEOC has the legal
authority to collect pay data under Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended (Title VII),4 without
conducting a formal rulemaking because
the EEOC is responsible for enforcing
federal laws that prohibit wage
discrimination on the basis of sex, race
and national origin, and Title VII grants
the EEOC broad authority to collect data
from employers regarding compliance
with federal anti-discrimination laws.
The EEOC has exercised this statutory
authority by implementing a regulation
to establish the EEO–1 reporting
requirement, and now administers the
EEO–1 report pursuant to the PRA.
A. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing
Title VII, which prohibits all
employment discrimination, including
pay discrimination, based on race, color,
religion, national origin, or sex.5 The
EEOC also enforces other federal laws
prohibiting employment discrimination,
including the Equal Pay Act of 1963
(EPA), which prohibits certain genderbased pay discrimination.6
The EEOC’s authority to promulgate
the EEO–1 report is found in section
709(c) of Title VII, which requires
employers covered by Title VII to make
and keep records relevant to 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, after public hearing,
‘‘as reasonable, necessary, or
appropriate for the enforcement of this
subchapter or the regulations . . .
thereunder.’’ 7 The Commission
prescribes the EEO–1 report by
regulation at 29 CFR part 1602, subpart
B, which requires private employers
with 100 or more employees to ‘‘file
[annually] with the Commission or its
delegate executed copies of [the] . . .
EEO–1 [report] in conformity with the
directions set forth in the form and
accompanying instructions.’’ The EEOC
administers the EEO–1 jointly with
OFCCP, which enforces the employment
discrimination prohibitions of Executive
Order 11246, as amended, for federal
contractors and subcontractors
(contractors), including specific
provisions regarding pay discrimination
and transparency.8 OFCCP’s regulations
4 42

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

5 Id.
6 29

U.S.C. 206(d).
U.S.C. 2000e–8(c).
8 E.O. 11246, as amended, 30 FR 12319, 41 CFR
60–1.7(a). Executive Order 13665 amends E.O.
11246 to promote pay transparency for federal
contractors, protect employees and job applicants,
7 42

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:33 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

require contractors to submit ‘‘complete
and accurate reports on Standard Form
100 (EEO–1) . . . or such form as may
hereafter be promulgated in its place.’’ 9
The Joint Reporting Committee,
composed of the EEOC and OFCCP and
located at the EEOC, administers the
EEO–1 as a single data collection to
meet the statistical needs of both
agencies while avoiding duplication.
B. The Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995
Since 1995, the EEO–1 report also has
been governed by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), which
provides standards for federal data
collections and requires periodic Office
of Management and Budget (OMB)
review and renewal.10 The EEOC is
responsible for maintaining PRA
approval of the EEO–1.
The EEOC, like other federal agencies
subject to the PRA, generally follows a
multi-step process for maintaining OMB
approval of an information collection,
which culminates in OMB deciding if
the proposed collection ‘‘strikes a
balance between collecting information
necessary to fulfill [the agency’s]
statutory mission[ ] and guarding
against unnecessary or duplicative
information that imposes unjustified
costs on the American public.’’ 11 The
first step is for the agency to publish a
proposed information collection for a
60-day public comment period, which
ran from February 1 to April 1, 2016 for
this EEO–1 revision.12 Then, in light of
the public comments and its statutory
mission, the agency formulates a final
and make it possible for employees and job
applicants to share information about their pay
without fear of discrimination. E.O. 13665, 79 FR
20749, available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/
DCPD-201400250/pdf/DCPD-201400250.pdf.
OFCCP’s recently adopted final rule on sex
discrimination (OFCCP Rule on Discrimination on
the Basis of Sex) addresses a number of sex-based
barriers to equal employment and fair pay. The rule
requires contractors to provide equal opportunities
‘‘without regard to sex.’’ 41 CFR part 60–20. See
also 81 FR 39108, 39125–39129 (June 15, 2016).
9 41 CFR 60–1.7(a).
10 According to the OMB, ‘‘collection of
information’’ may include: (1) Requests for
information to be sent to the government, such as
forms (e.g., the IRS 1040), written reports (e.g.,
grantee performance reports), and surveys (e.g., the
Census); (2) recordkeeping requirements (e.g.,
OSHA requirements that employers maintain
records of workplace accidents); and third-party or
public disclosures (e.g., nutrition labeling
requirements for food).
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
OMB, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive
Departments and Agencies and Independent
Regulatory Agencies, Information Collection under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (Apr. 7, 2010),
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
omb/assets/inforeg/PRAPrimer_04072010.pdf; See
also 5 CFR 1320.3(c).
11 Id.
12 81 FR 5113 (Feb. 1, 2016).

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

45481

data collection, which it publishes in
the Federal Register and submits to
OMB for approval, subject to a 30-day
public comment period.13 The current
document, which has been approved by
a majority of the Commission, is the
EEOC’s 30-Day Notice for the revised
EEO–1.
The EEOC has consistently used the
PRA renewal process to change the
EEO–1. Most recently, in 2006, the PRA
process was used to significantly revise
the EEO–1 by adding a new race
category, requiring employers to ask
employees to self-identify by race and
ethnicity, and requiring employers to
ask about ethnicity (Hispanic or Latino)
in a separate question.14 The 2006
EEO–1 revision also added a new job
category.15
III. Revisions to the EEO–1 Report Are
Necessary for the Enforcement of Title
VII, the EPA, and Executive Order
11246
Some public comments opposing the
EEOC’s proposal in the 60-Day Notice
questioned whether there are still pay
disparities that are caused by
discrimination linked to gender, race, or
ethnicity and, accordingly, whether
there is actually a need for more
effective enforcement of the
prohibitions on pay discrimination in
Title VII, the EPA, and E.O. 11246.
Based on federal data and a robust
body of research, the Commission
concludes that: (1) Persistent pay gaps
continue to exist in the U.S. workforce
correlated with sex, race, and ethnicity;
(2) workplace discrimination is an
important contributing factor to these
pay disparities; and (3) implementing
the proposed EEO–1 pay data collection
will improve the EEOC’s ability to
efficiently and effectively structure its
investigation of pay discrimination
charges.
First, persistent pay gaps exist in the
U.S. workforce correlated with sex, race,
and ethnicity. As of 2014, for women of
all races and ethnicities, the median
annual pay for a woman who held a
full-time, year-round job was $39,621,
while the median annual pay for a man
who held a full-time, year-round job
was $50,383.16
13 44

U.S.C. 3507(a)(1).
EEOC Implements Finals Revisions to
EEO–1 Report (Jan. 27, 2006), https://www.eeoc.gov/
eeoc/newsroom/release/archive/1-27-06.html; See
also 70 FR 71294 (Nov. 28, 2005); OMB approved
these changes on January 25, 2006, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, http://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_
nbr=200511-3046-001#.
15 Id.
16 Carmen DeNavas-Walt and Bernadette Proctor,
U.S. Census Bureau, Income and Poverty in the
14 EEOC,

E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM

Continued

14JYN1

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

45482

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Notices

African American and Hispanic or
Latina women nationwide now
experience the largest pay disparities.
As of 2014, African American women
were paid almost 40% less than white,
non-Hispanic, men and approximately
20% less than white, non-Hispanic
women.17 At a national level, African
American women were paid 18% less
than African American men.18
Similarly, Latina women were paid
approximately 44% less than white,
non-Hispanic men, and 27% less than
white, non-Hispanic, women in 2014.19
The result of the wage gap is that the
average Hispanic or Latina woman
would be paid approximately
$1,007,000 less than the average white,
non-Hispanic, male over a 40-year
period.20
A similar pattern exists for Native
Hawaiian and Pacific Islander women
and Native American women who were
paid approximately 38% and 41% less
than white, non-Hispanic men,
respectively.21 Asian American women
were paid 10% less than white, nonHispanic men.22
Wage disparities also exist for men of
color. In 2014, African American men
who worked full time in wage and
salary jobs had median weekly earnings
of $680, which represented
approximately 76% of white men’s
median weekly earnings ($897).23

Hispanic men earned $616, or
approximately 69%, of white men’s
median weekly earnings.24
Employment discrimination may play
both direct and indirect roles in creating
these pay disparities. Economists
Francine Blau and Lawrence Khan
found that 64.6% of the wage gap
between men and women can be
explained by three factors: Experience
(14.1%), industry (17.6%), and
occupation (32.9%).25 Men are more
likely to work in blue collar jobs that are
higher paying, including construction,
production, or transportation
occupations, whereas women are more
concentrated in lower paying
professions, such as office and
administrative support positions.26
Most of the remaining 35.4% of the
gender gap cannot be explained by
differences in education, experience,
industry, or occupation.27 Blau and
Khan argue that discrimination—
intentional or unintentional, systematic
or at the individual level—plays a role
in explaining the gap.28
Gender bias may become more
obvious when occupations have a
greater proportion of women. One study
found that, in an occupation dominated
by men, pay declines when women
enter that occupation in large numbers,
even after controlling for factors such as
education and work experience.29 The

United States: 2014, Current Population, 6 (2015),
Table 1: Income and Earnings Summary Measures
by Selected Characteristics: 2013 and 2014, https://
www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/
publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdf.
17 Joan Farrelly-Harrigan, U.S. Dep’t. of Labor,
Women’s Bureau, Black Women in the Labor Force
(Feb. 2016), https://www.dol.gov/wb/media/Black_
Women_in_the_Labor_Force.pdf (reporting that
African American women’s median annual earnings
in 2014 was $33,533, $41,822 for white, nonHispanic women, and $55,470 for white, nonHispanic men).
18 Id.
19 Michelle Vaca, U.S. Dep’t. of Labor Blog,
Celebrating Hispanic Women in the Labor Force
(Oct. 6, 2015), http://blog.dol.gov/2015/10/06/
celebrating-hispanic-women-in-the-labor-force/
(reporting that the 2013 median annual earnings for
Latinas was $30,209).
20 Joint Economic Committee, United States
Congress, Gender Pay Inequality, 3 (April 2016)
http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/
0779dc2f-4a4e-4386-b847-9ae919735acc/genderpay-inequality----us-congress-joint-economiccommittee.pdf.
21 American Association of University Women,
The Simple Truth About the Gender Pay Gap, 10
(Spring 2016), http://www.aauw.org/files/2016/02/
SimpleTruth_Spring2016.pdf (reporting that the
median annual earnings for Native Hawaiian and
Pacific Islander women was $32,893 and $31,191
for Native American women).
22 Id. (reporting that Asian American women’s
median earnings in 2014 was $47,776).
23 U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Women in the labor force; a databook, BLS Reports,
60–61 (Dec. 2015), Table 16: Median usual weekly
earnings of full-time wage and salary workers, in
current dollars, by race, Hispanic, or Latino

ethnicity, and gender, 1979–2014 annual averages,
http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womensdatabook/archive/women-in-the-labor-force-adatabook-2015.pdf.
24 Id.
25 Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn, The Gender
Wage Gap: Extent, Trends, and Explanations,
Institute for the Study of Labor, 73 (Jan. 2016),
Table 4: Decomposition of Gender Wage Gap, 1980
and 2010 (PSID), http://ftp.iza.org/dp9656.pdf (the
authors reported that the gender wage gap for
purposes of the study was approximately 79 cents
on the dollar in 2010).
26 DeNavas-Walt and Proctor, supra note 16 at 5;
see also PayScale, Inside the Gender Pay Gap,
(2016), http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/
gender-pay-gap (reporting that across the United
States women are more likely to be overrepresented
in lower paying jobs (jobs that pay less than $60,000
per year) and underrepresented in higher paying
jobs compared to men. In addition, female pay
levels off at $49,000 between the ages of 35–40
whereas men’s pay levels off at $75,000 for the ages
of 50–55).
27 Blau & Kahn, supra note 25 at 73, Table 4.
28 Id. A smaller portion of the gap (approximately
5%) can be attributed to geographic region (0.3%)
and race (4.3%). The authors do not provide an
explanation about why only 4% of the pay gap is
attributed to race despite federal data suggesting
that the wage gap between and within minorities is
much larger. However, women’s gains in education
helped to narrow the gender wage gap by almost
6% as women now exceed men in educational
attainment.
29 Asaf Levanon, Paula England, Paul Allison,
Occupational Feminization and Pay: Assessing
Casual Dynamics Using 1950–2000 U.S. Census
Data, Social Forces 88(2) (Dec. 2009), http://
statisticalhorizons.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/
01/88.2.levanon.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:33 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

opposite effect occurred when a larger
proportion of men entered a profession
previously dominated by women, i.e.,
pay increased.30
One way that gender discrimination
may influence pay is through implicit or
unconscious bias during hiring,
promotion decisions, or job
assignments.31 A study by McKinsey &
Company found that women are almost
three times more likely than men to
have missed out on an assignment,
promotion, or increase in wages because
of their gender.32 Another study shows
that women who engage in pay
negotiations are more likely than men to
face backlash due to gender
stereotypes.33
Similar to gender discrimination,
racial discrimination may influence pay
through implicit or unconscious bias. A
series of studies by MIT Sloan found
racial bias in salary negotiations even
after controlling for the applicants’
objective qualifications.34 Research by
30 Claire Cain Miller, As Women Take Over a
Male Dominated Field, the Pay Drops, NY Times
(Mar. 18, 2016), http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/
20/upshot/as-women-take-over-a-male-dominatedfield-the-pay-drops.html?_r=0 (reporting that when
more women became designers, for example, wages
fell by 34 percentage points. When male computer
programmers outnumbered women computer
programmers, the job began to pay more and earned
more prestige).
31 Nancy Lockwood, The Glass Ceiling: Domestic
and International Perspectives, 3 Society for Human
Resource Management Quarterly 2004, https://
www.shrm.org/Research/Articles/Articles/
Documents/040329Quaterly.pdf (reporting that
signs of the glass ceiling in the workplace can be
based on gender-based barriers that may be
invisible, covert, and overt).
32 Lean In & McKinsey & Company, Women in the
Workplace 2015, 13 (2015), http://
womenintheworkplace.com/ui/pdfs/Women_in_
the_Workplace_2015.pdf?v=5.
33 Hannah Riley Bowles & Linda Babcock, How
Can Women Escape the Compensation Negotiation
Dilemma? Relational Accounts Are One Answer,
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37.1, 81 (2013),
http://pwq.sagepub.com/content/37/1/
80.full.pdf+html (finding that ‘‘[n]egotiating for
higher compensation is socially costly for women
because it violates prescriptive gender stereotypes
derived from the gendered division of labor . . .,
and its resulting social hierarchy of men in charge
and women in caregiving and support roles’’).
34 Moreal Hernandez and Derek R. Avery, Getting
the Short End of the Stick: Racial Bias in Salary
Negotiations, MIT Sloan Management Review (June
15, 2016), http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/
getting-the-short-end-of-the-stick-racial-bias-insalary-negotiations/ (MIT conducted three studies
focused on racial bias in salary negotiations. In the
first study, evaluators reviewed resumes from white
and black job applicants. The evaluators were asked
to evaluate each job applicant and rate the
likelihood that the job applicant would negotiate
their salary if offered the job. After controlling for
each job applicant’s objective qualifications, the
evaluators identified the black job applicants as less
likely to negotiate compared to the white job
applicants. The second study tested whether the
evaluators had a racially-biased mindset, which was
defined as a person who believes one or a few races
were superior to others. The study found that the
evaluators had different role expectations of the

E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM

14JYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Notices

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Roland Fryer, Devah Pager, and Jo¨rg L.
Spenkuch found that discrimination
accounts for at least one-third of the
black-white wage gap.35 The authors
concluded that, compared to whites
with comparable resumes, black job
seekers were offered lower
compensation by potential new
employees and were more likely to
accept the lower compensation. The
researchers found that, although the
wage gaps narrow over time as black
workers stay at the same job, an
unexplained gap nonetheless persists.36
Voluntary compliance is an important
part of the effort to prevent
discrimination and improve pay equity,
and many employers are taking steps to
ensure equal pay for equal work. For
example, more than 25 companies have
signed a White House Equal Pay Pledge
to take action to reduce wage disparities
in the workplace.37 These employers
committed to conducting an annual
company-wide gender pay analysis
across occupations, reviewing hiring
and promotion processes and
procedures to reduce unconscious bias
and structural barriers, and embedding
equal pay efforts into broader
enterprise-wide equity initiatives.38
There is also evidence that pay equity
is good for business. For example, a
McKinsey & Company study found that
gender parity in the United States could
lead to $4.3 trillion of additional GDP
by 2025, which is 19% higher than if
current trends in pay inequity
continue.39 Another recent study found
black applicants compared to the white applicants
and they also identified the black job applicants as
less likely to negotiate. For the third study, the
evaluators and job applicants were required to
simulate a job negotiation. Although the black job
applicants reported that they negotiated comparably
(in terms of the number of offers and counteroffers
made) to their white counterparts, their evaluators
reported that the black job applicants had
negotiated more than the white job applicants. The
MIT professors concluded that because the
evaluators expected the black job applicants to
negotiate less, they had an exaggerated view of their
behavior during the job negotiation. In addition, the
professors found that the black job applicants
received lower starting salaries based on the
evaluators perception that the black job applicants
were more aggressive).
35 Roland Fryer, Devah Pager, and Jo
¨ rg L.
Spenkuch, Racial Disparities in Job Findings and
Offered Wages, Journal of Law and Economics,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(3), 22–23,
(Sept. 2011), http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/
files/racial_disparities_in_job_finding_and_offered_
wages.pdf.
36 Id.
37 The White House, White House Equal Pay
Pledge, https://www.whitehouse.gov/webform/
white-house-equal-pay-pledge. See also, Natalia
Merluzzi, These Businesses are Taking the Equal
Pay Pledge, White House Blog (June 14, 2016),
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/06/14/
businesses-taking-equal-pay-pledge.
38 Id.
39 McKinsey & Company, The Power of Parity:
Advancing Women’s Equality in the United States,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:33 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

that, on average, companies with greater
gender diversity outperformed their
peers with less diversity over the
previous five years, and had a higher
return on equity.40 The study measured
gender diversity according to the
following factors: (1) Equality in pay; (2)
empowerment (defined as number of
women at the highest levels of the
corporation and on key committees); (3)
representation of women at different
levels (including as members of the
board of directors, senior executives,
and regular employees); (4) work life
balance programs; and (5) diversity
policies. Pay parity and empowerment
were weighted more than the other
factors.41
Despite voluntary compliance and the
strong business case for fair pay, pay
discrimination persists as a serious
problem that EEOC and OFCCP are
statutorily required to address. The
EEOC’s mission is to stop and remedy
unlawful employment discrimination.
The OFCCP’s purpose is to enforce, for
the benefit of job seekers and wage
earners, the contractual promise of
affirmative action and equal
employment opportunity required of
those who do business with the federal
government. To fulfill these goals, the
EEOC and OFCCP need to be as effective
and efficient as possible in their
investigations of alleged discrimination.
They now lack the employer- and
establishment-specific pay data that,
prior to issuing a detailed request for
information or a subpoena, would be
extremely useful in helping enforcement
staff to investigate potential pay
discrimination. Balancing utility and
burden, the EEOC has concluded that
the proposed EEO–1 pay data collection
would be an effective and appropriate
tool for this purpose, for all of the
reasons explained below.42
(April 2016) http://www.mckinsey.com/globalthemes/employment-and-growth/the-power-ofparity-advancing-womens-equality-in-the-unitedstates.
40 Morgan Stanley, Gender Diversity is a
Competitive Advantage (May 12, 2016), http://
www.morganstanley.com/blog/women/genderdiversity-work; See also Morgan Stanley, Why it
Pays to Invest in Gender Diversity (May 11, 2016),
http://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/genderdiversity-investment-framework.html.
41 Id.
42 States also are addressing gender pay
inequities, including proposing to establish pay
transparency, prohibit retaliation against workers
who discuss their wages, and request state agencies
to examine their pay practices and develop best
practices. For a summary of state equal pay laws,
see National Conference of State Legislatures, State
Equal Pay Laws—July 2015, http://www.ncsl.org/
research/labor-and-employment/equal-paylaws.aspx. For a summary of state equal pay
legislation, see Kate Nielsen, American Association
of University Women, 2015 State Equal Pay
Legislation by the Numbers (August 20, 2015),

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

45483

IV. Who Will Report Pay Data on the
Revised EEO–1
A. Employers That Currently File the
EEO–1
All private employers that are covered
by Title VII and have 100 or more
employees now file an EEO–1 report
about the sex, race, and ethnicity of
their employees, which is designated
here as Component 1 (demographic
data).43 Federal contractors with 50 or
more employees also file the EEO–1 if
they are not exempt as provided for by
41 CFR 60–1.5. Single establishment
employers file one EEO–1, and multiestablishment employers file EEO–1
reports or data for each establishment.44
Federal contractors with 1 to 49
employees and other private employers
with 1 to 99 employees do not file EEO–
1 reports.
B. 60-Day Notice: Which Employers
Would File Pay Data
In the 60-Day Notice, the EEOC
proposed that EEO–1 private employers
and federal contractors with 100 or
more employees would submit the
EEO–1 with pay and hours-worked data
(Component 2) in addition to
Component 1 data. The 60-Day Notice
also stated that federal contractors with
between 50 and 99 employees would
continue to submit Component 1 data
but would not submit Component 2
data.
C. Public Comments
The EEOC received comments urging
it to remove employers with fewer than
http://www.aauw.org/2015/08/20/equal-pay-bystate/.
43 Private employers also must file the EEO–1 if
they have fewer than 100 employees but are owned
or affiliated with another company or have
centralized ownership, control or management so
that the group legally constitutes a single enterprise
and the entire enterprise employs a total of 100 or
more employees. EEOC, EEO–1: Who Must File,
https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/eeo1survey/
whomustfile.cfm.
44 Employers and contractors file different types
of EEO–1 reports depending on whether they are
single-establishment or multi-establishment filers.
Single-establishment filers only file one report, the
Type 1 report. Multi-establishment filers submit
several reports. These are: The Type 2—
Consolidated Report, which must include data on
all employees of the company; the Type 3—
Headquarters Report, which must include the
employees working at the main office site of the
company and those who work from home and
report to the corporate office; the Type 4—
Establishment Report, for each physical location
with 50 or more employees, which provides full
employment data categorized by race, gender and
job category. For sites with fewer than 50
employees, filers submit either: Type 6—
Establishment List, which provides only the
establishment name, complete address and total
number of employees; or Type 8—Establishment
Report, which is a full report for each establishment
employing fewer than 50 employees.

E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM

14JYN1

45484

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Notices

200, or fewer than 500, employees from
the requirement to report pay and
hours-worked data on the EEO–1
(Component 2), in order to avoid
imposing a burden on them. Some
comments also encouraged the EEOC to
eliminate the requirement to provide
establishment-level pay data for
establishments with fewer than 50 or
100 employees. These comments also
expressed concern that reporting pay
data for small employers, or small
employer establishments, could reveal
employee-level pay information.
Conversely, other comments urged the
EEOC to collect data from smaller
employers by lowering the reporting
threshold for pay data to 50 or more
employees for federal contractors.

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

D. 30-Day Notice: Employers With 100
or More Employees Will File
Components 1 and 2
The Commission has considered the
arguments for increasing the size of
those employers subject to Components
1 and 2 and has decided to retain the
same employee thresholds as in the 60Day Notice. Exempting employers with
fewer than 500 employees, or even
fewer than 250, from Component 2
would result in losing data for a large
number of employers who employ
millions of workers, and thus would
significantly reduce the utility of the
pay data collection. In addition, the
EEOC and OFCCP have decided not to
exempt federal contractors with 50–99
employees from filing Component 1 of
the EEO–1. The Commission’s proposal
reduces employer burden by changing
other aspects of the EEO–1, such as the
reporting deadline. See section V.
In sum, all employers with 100 or
more employees will be subject to
Components 1 and 2 of the EEO–1
starting with reporting year 2017.
Federal contractors with 50–99
employees will not experience a change
in their EEO–1 reporting requirements
as a result of this proposal; they will not
file Component 2 and will continue to
file only Component 1. Consistent with
current practice, federal contractors
with 1 to 49 employees and other
private employers with 1 to 99
employees will be exempt from filing
the EEO–1; they will file neither
Component 1 nor Component 2.
V. When To File: Filing Deadline and
Workforce Snapshot Period
This 30-Day Notice proposes to
change the EEO–1 filing deadline to
March 31st, of the year that follows the
reporting year. This Notice also
proposes to change the ‘‘workforce
snapshot’’ to a pay period between
October 1st and December 31st of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:33 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

reporting year, starting with the EEO–1
report for 2017.
Note that the reporting schedule for
2016 data remains unchanged; EEO–1
respondents must comply with the
September 30, 2016, filing requirement
for the currently-approved EEO–1, and
must continue to use the July 1st
through September 30th workforce
snapshot period for that report. Under
the proposed changes to the reporting
schedule, EEO–1 reports for 2017 data
would be due on March 31, 2018.
A. 60-Day Notice
In the 60-Day Notice, the EEOC
proposed to retain the current
September 30th EEO–1 filing deadline.
The EEOC explained that, starting in
2017, employers with 100 or more
employees would document their
employees’ W–2 earnings for a 12month period starting October 1st and
ending the next September 30th. The
60-Day Notice reasoned that W–2
earnings are generally recorded in 3month periods (calendar year quarters)
and that, because the third quarter ends
on September 30th, employers could
calculate the 12-month W–2 wages
without significant difficulty.45 The 60Day Notice also retained the current
‘‘workforce snapshot’’ approach of
allowing each employer to choose a pay
period between July 1st and September
30th during which it would count its
employees to be reported on the EEO–
1.46 The employees counted during this
pay period would be the ones reported
on the EEO–1.
B. Public Comments
Employers and other groups objected
vigorously to the burden of reporting
non-calendar year W–2 data (i.e.,
October 1st to September 30th). These
parties argued that the EEOC, by
choosing to impose this unique 12month reporting period, would
significantly increase their costs by
compelling them to recalculate W–2
earnings for the sole purpose of
completing the EEO–1.
On a related point, employers reliant
on human resource information systems
(HRIS) 47 and payroll software said that
they would have insufficient time to
budget, develop, and implement new
reporting systems if the 2017 EEO–1
report were to be due on September 30,
2017. Employers lacking HRIS and
payroll software said they would have a
variety of implementation challenges,
FR 5113 (Feb. 1, 2016).
EEO–1: When to File, https://
www.eeoc.gov/employers/eeo1survey/
whentofile.cfm.
47 These systems are also sometimes called
‘‘human resource management systems’’ or HRMS.

PO 00000

45 81

46 EEOC,

Frm 00036

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

depending on how they organized their
records.
Many commenters suggested changing
the 12-month EEO–1 reporting period to
be the same as the W–2 reporting period
(a calendar year) and moving the EEO–
1 filing deadline into the subsequent
year, preferably after W–2s are due. A
few stakeholders suggested that the
EEOC conduct the pay data collection
every two years.
C. 30-Day Notice
1. Deadline for Filing the EEO–1
For the upcoming 2016 EEO–1 report,
the filing deadline will remain
September 30, 2016. However,
beginning with the 2017 report, the
reporting deadline for all EEO–1 filers
will be March 31st of the year following
the EEO–1 report year. Thus, the 2017
EEO–1 report will be due on March 31,
2018. Changing the filing deadline will
give employers subject to Component 2
six more months to prepare their
recordkeeping systems for the 2017
report, and it will give them 1.5 years
without filing an EEO–1 report
(September 30, 2016 to March 31, 2018).
At the same time, this change will align
the EEO–1 with federal obligations to
calculate and report W–2 earnings as of
December 31st; the EEOC will not
require a special W–2 calculation for the
EEO–1.48 These changes will reduce the
burden on employers of gathering
Component 2 data.
The Commission declines to adopt an
alternate-year schedule for filing the
EEO–1 report. If collected only in
alternate years, the utility of EEO–1 data
would be diminished because it would
become stale before the new data
became available.
2. ‘‘Workforce Snapshot’’ Period
The ‘‘workforce snapshot’’ period
refers to the pay period when employers
count the total number of employees for
that year’s EEO–1 report. The EEO–1
has always used this ‘‘workforce
snapshot’’ approach, which gives
employers a choice but freezes EEO–1
employment numbers as of the chosen
pay period. Some employers criticized
the ‘‘workforce snapshot’’ approach
because it would not reflect same-year
promotions that have the effect of
moving the employee into a different
EEO–1 job category or pay band after the
‘‘snapshot’’ was taken. The Commission
48 Employers must send the W–2 to the Social
Security Administration by the last day of February,
although special due dates apply if the employer
terminated its business or is filing electronically.
Employers must furnish the W–2 to employees by
February 1. IRS, Topic 752—Filing Forms W–2 and
W–3 (Dec. 30, 2015), https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/
tc752.html.

E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM

14JYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Notices
addresses this concern in part by
moving the ‘‘workforce snapshot’’
period to the fourth quarter, October 1st
to December 31st, so that there are fewer
opportunities for unreported changes
after the ‘‘snapshot.’’ This will preserve
employer choice as to the ‘‘workforce
snapshot,’’ while at the same time
accommodating the established federal
schedule for preparing W–2’s. In sum,
while employers will count their
employees during a pay period between
October 1st and December 31st, they
will report W–2 income and hoursworked data for these employees for the
entire year ending December 31st.49
This change will not affect the 2016
EEO–1, for which the July 1st to
September 30th ‘‘workforce snapshot’’
period remains effective.

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

VI. What Pay Data To Report: Measure
of Pay for the EEO–1
This 30-Day Notice proposes that
employers use Box 1 of Form W–2
(hereafter ‘‘W–2 income’’) as the
measure of pay for Component 2 of the
EEO–1.50 By definition, W–2, Box 1
49 By changing the EEO–1 ‘‘workforce snapshot’’
to the last quarter of each calendar year, EEO–1
contractor filers that also file annual employee
reports under the Vietnam Era Veterans’
Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, as amended
(VEVRAA), 38 U.S.C. 4212(d), will be in a position
to align their VEVRAA data collections with the
new EEO–1. Under regulations implementing
VEVRAA, certain federal contractors must report
annually on form VETS–4212 the number of
employees and new hires protected under
VEVRAA. 41 CFR 61–300.10(d)(1). Form VETS–
4212 collects information for veterans protected by
VEVRAA using the EEO–1’s 10 job categories. For
each reporting year, the federal contractor must
report covered employees for the 12-month period
preceding a date it selects between July 1st and
August 31st that falls at the end of a payroll period.
Significantly, the regulations allow contractors to
select December 31st as the basis for reporting the
number of employees and as the ending date of the
twelve-month covered period, if the federal
contractor has ‘‘previous written approval from the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to do
so for purposes of submitting the Employer
Information Report EEO–1, Standard Form 100
(EEO–1 Report).’’ 41 CFR 61–300.10(d)(2). The
implementation notice for the revised EEO–1 will
serve as ‘‘previous written approval’’ from the
EEOC pursuant to this Department of Labor
VEVRAA rule.
50 The IRS instructions for Form W–2 list the
following categories of Box 1 taxable income: ‘‘(1)
Total wages, bonuses (including signing bonuses),
prizes, and awards paid to employees during the
year; (2) Total noncash payments, including certain
fringe benefits; (3) Total tips reported by the
employee to the employer; (4) Certain employee
business expense reimbursements; (5) The cost of
accident and health insurance premiums for 2%-ormore shareholder-employees paid by an S
corporation: (6) Taxable benefits from a section 125
(cafeteria) plan if the employee chooses cash; (7)
Employee contributions to an Archer MSA (medical
savings account); (8) Employer contributions to an
Archer MSA if includible in the income of the
employee; (9) Employer contributions for qualified
long-term care services to the extent that such
coverage is provided through a flexible spending or

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:33 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

includes income that is received
between January 1st and December 31st
of the relevant calendar year. In
reaching this decision, the Commission
considered government studies that
analyze compensation in U.S.
workplaces, relevant academic literature
on compensation practices, the public
comments and public testimony, and
the analyses reflected in the EEOC’s
NAS study 51 and its own Pilot Study.52
A. 60-Day Notice: Options for Measuring
Pay
The EEOC’s 60-Day Notice described
five different measures of individual
compensation that are used by the
federal government.53 After narrowing
similar arrangement; (10) Taxable cost of groupterm life insurance in excess of $50,000; (11) Unless
excludable under Educational assistance programs,
payments for non-job-related education expenses or
for payments under a nonaccountable plan; (12)
The amount includible as wages because you paid
your employee’s share of social security and
Medicare taxes (or railroad retirement taxes, if
applicable). If employer also paid the employee’s
income tax withholding, the employer treats the
grossed-up amount of that withholding as
supplemental wages and reports those wages in
boxes 1, 3, 5, and 7. (Employer uses box 14 if
railroad retirement taxes apply.) No exceptions to
this treatment apply to household or agricultural
wages; (13) Designated Roth contributions made
under a section 401(k) plan, a section 403(b) salary
reduction agreement, or a governmental section
457(b) plan; (14) Distributions to an employee or
former employee from an NQDC plan (including a
rabbi trust) or a nongovernmental section 457(b)
plan; (15) Amounts includible in income under
section 457(f) because the amounts are no longer
subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture; (16)
Payments to statutory employees who are subject to
social security and Medicare taxes but not subject
to federal income tax withholding must be shown
in box 1 as other compensation; (17) Cost of current
insurance protection under a compensatory splitdollar life insurance arrangement; (18) Employee
contributions to a health savings account (HSA);
(19) Employer contributions to an HSA if includible
in the income of the employee; (20) Amounts
includible in income under an NQDC plan because
of section 409A; (21) Payments made to former
employees while they are on active duty in the
Armed Forces or other uniformed services; and (22)
All other compensation, including certain
scholarship and fellowship grants.’’ IRS, 2016
General Instructions for Forms W–2 and W–3, (Jan.
5, 2016), https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/
iw2w3.pdf.
51 NAS Report, supra note 3.
52 Sage Computing, supra note 3. This EEOC Pilot
Study compared the OES definition of
compensation to the W–2 and concluded that ‘‘[t]he
W–2 definition of income . . . offers a more
comprehensive picture of earnings data and
therefore is more appropriate for identifying
discriminatory practices.’’ In contrast to the OES
definition of pay, the W–2 definition includes all
the elements of compensation that are captured by
the OES definition, but also includes forms of
compensation such as overtime wages, shift
differentials, fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and
bonuses. Box 1 on the W–2 excludes certain
elective deferrals or pre-tax deductions such as
employer-sponsored retirement plan (401(k) or
403(b)) contributions, flexible spending account
contributions for health and dependent care, and
medical contributions.
53 NAS Report, supra notes 3 and 51 at 32–34, 41–
45, http://www.nap.edu/read/13496/chapter/4#32.

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

45485

its consideration to two of these—the
Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational
Employment Statistics (OES) measure of
pay 54 and the Internal Revenue
Service’s W–2 definition 55 —the EEOC
proposed to use W–2 income because it
is already calculated by employers,
therefore limiting burden, and because
it is a comprehensive measure of pay
that would be more likely to capture the
effect of employment discrimination on
different kinds of compensation.56 In
the 60-Day Notice, the EEOC did not
specify which box on the W–2 it would
use, but the Commission now specifies
that employers will report on income
provided in Box 1 of the W–2 form.
B. Public Comments
1. Supporting the Use of W–2 Income
Comments in support of using W–2
income emphasized that it is a
comprehensive measure of pay that
encompasses overtime, shift
differentials, and production and nonproduction bonuses, which are
increasingly important elements of pay.
These parties stated that employment
discrimination can be manifested when
employers decide which employees get
opportunities to earn shift differentials
or overtime pay, or get large bonuses or
awards. Using a measure of pay that
excludes so much pay that could be
influenced by discrimination would
radically reduce the utility of this data
collection for the EEOC and OFCCP.
2. Opposing the Use of W–2 Income
Comments in opposition to using W–
2 income fell into three categories.
54 The Occupation Employment Statistics (OES)
survey defines earnings to include base rate pay,
cost-of-living allowances, guaranteed pay,
hazardous-duty pay, incentive pay such as
commissions and production bonuses, tips, and oncall pay. The OES measure excludes back pay, jury
duty pay, overtime pay, severance pay, shift
differentials, nonproduction bonuses, employer
costs for supplementary benefits, and tuition
reimbursements. U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, Occupation Employment Statistics,
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_tec.htm. OES
survey uses twelve wage intervals. U.S. Dept. of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Survey Methods
and Reliability Statement for the 2015 Occupational
Employment Statistics Survey, 4, http://
www.bls.gov/oes/current/methods_statement.pdf,
55 81 FR 5113, 5116 (Feb. 1, 2016). The EEOC
initially considered five measures of pay. Three of
those measures are used by the U.S. Bureau of
Labor and Statistics (BLS) when it reports national
employment data: the Occupation Employment
Statistics (OES); the National Compensation Survey
(NCS); and the Current Employment Statistics (CES)
survey programs. One measure was from the Social
Security Administration (SSA) and the final
measure was from the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) (W–2).
56 Sage Computing, supra notes 3 and 52.

E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM

14JYN1

45486

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Notices

Objection 1: W–2 Income Reflects
Employee Choice and Is Not a Reliable
Measure of Employer Discrimination

filing date for the revised EEO–1 from
September 30th to March 31st, the
EEOC has addressed this objection.

The most widely articulated objection
to using W–2 income was that it was not
indicative of discrimination because it
may reflect employee choice more than
employer discretion and that the EEOC
cannot differentiate the two in an
aggregate pay data collection.
Commenters making this argument
identified elective participation in
overtime, working shifts that provide
pay differentials, and working faster or
better than another employee (e.g.,
payments for piecework, commissions,
or production), as governed by
employee choice. Some of these
comments argued that using W–2
income will in fact cause the EEOC to
find ‘‘false-positives’’ indicating
discrimination because the agency will
assume that pay disparities are caused
by discrimination rather than employee
choice.
Some of these parties urged the EEOC
to use ‘‘base pay’’ rather than W–2
income because ‘‘base pay’’ is controlled
entirely by employers and therefore is
better suited to documenting potential
discrimination. Another advantage to
using ‘‘base pay,’’ they maintained, is
that it would be significantly less
expensive and easier for them to report
on the EEO–1 because their HRIS now
include records of base pay but not W–
2 income. These stakeholders did not
define ‘‘base pay,’’ apart from noting
that it does not include supplemental
pay such as overtime, shift differentials,
and bonuses, and that it can be stated
as an hourly rate or as an annual salary.

C. 30-Day Notice: W–2 (Box 1) Income
Is the Measure of Pay

Objection 2: Collection of W–2 Data
Burdens Employers by Requiring the
Integration of HRIS and Payroll Systems

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Employers argued that reporting W–2
income would impose an inordinate
burden and expense because they store
W–2 income data in computerized
payroll systems that are entirely
separate from the HRIS where they
maintain EEO–1 demographic data.
They asserted that procuring or
developing new software to bridge these
two systems would be time-consuming
and extremely costly.
Objection 3: Collection of W–2 Income
Data for October 1st to September 30th
Is Burdensome
Finally, employers argued that
reporting W–2 income for October 1st to
September 30th of every year would be
burdensome because employers’ payroll
systems collect and report W–2 income
on a calendar-year basis for tax
purposes. By proposing to change the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:33 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

1. W–2 Income and Employee Choice
The Commission is not persuaded by
the argument that W–2 income is an
unsuitable measure for a pay data
collection by an agency that enforces
anti-discrimination laws because it may
reflect employee choice as well as
employer policy or decisions. As the
White House Council of Economic
Advisers notes, ‘‘In many situations, the
delineations between discrimination
and preferences are ambiguous.’’ 57 For
example, higher commission income
may, as some public comments noted,
reflect an employee’s higher
performance, but it may also reflect an
employer’s discriminatory assignment
of more lucrative sales opportunities to
employees based on race, ethnicity,
and/or sex. As another example, a
statistically significant difference in
overtime pay between men and women
in the same job may result from an
employer’s gender-biased assumptions
that lead to more overtime opportunities
being offered to men than to women,
whom they may assume have competing
family responsibilities. Pay
discrimination is complex, and it would
be an oversimplification to conclude
that only those measures of pay that are
shown to be exclusively dependent on
an employer’s decision or policy can be
relevant to assessing allegations of pay
discrimination.
2. Supplemental Income Is Important
and May Be Linked to Discrimination
Based on its consideration of public
comments and government and private
sector research, the Commission
concludes that supplemental pay is a
critical component of compensation and
it can be influenced by discrimination,
so any measure of income for purposes
of enforcing the pay discrimination laws
should include supplemental pay. W–2
income incorporates different kinds of
supplemental pay that would not be
available for analysis if the EEOC were
to collect only ‘‘base pay’’ or another
basic measure of pay that ignored major
sources of compensation.58 For
57 Council of Economic Advisers Issue Brief, The
Gender Pay Gap on the Anniversary of the Lilly
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (Jan. 2016), https://
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/
20160128_cea_gender_pay_gap_issue_brief.pdf.
58 For example, although the FLSA requires
employers to maintain pay rates, those pay rates do
not include important sources of supplemental
income that the EEOC has determined is important

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

employers, W–2 income is a welldefined, familiar, and universallyavailable measure of pay; for the EEOC
and OFCCP, it is useful data for
exploring potential pay discrimination.
Supplemental pay is becoming more
and more prevalent in the United States.
As noted by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Department of Labor (BLS),
‘‘For many occupations in the U.S. labor
market supplemental pay—including
overtime, bonuses, and shift
differentials—is an important
component of overall cash
compensation. Overtime pay is
especially important in production
occupations and other blue-collar jobs;
bonus pay is mostly a feature of highwage managerial and sales occupations;
and shift differentials play a prominent
role in . . . healthcare [] and technical
occupations.’’ 59 This pattern also is
apparent in some of America’s highest
paying professions. In the legal
profession, for example, bonuses at law
firms can account for a significant
portion of an associate’s total
compensation, beyond base salary.60
The human resources consulting firm
Aon Hewitt’s 2014 U.S. Salary Increase
Survey of 1,064 organizations found that
variable pay (such as performance-based
bonuses) for exempt employees
comprised 12.7% of payroll that year.61
This represented the highest ratio
companies have paid out of their
budgets toward bonuses since the
consulting firm started keeping records
35 years ago and is an increase from
2008 when 10.8% of their total
compensation budgets were devoted to
variable pay for exempt employees.62
Ken Abosch, leader of Aon Hewitt’s
compensation practice, stated that
companies prefer to give performancebased pay because this practice ‘‘keeps
employees focused on good
performance rather than just showing
up, and it allows companies to reward
and retain their really valuable
employees.’’ 63 In addition, Abosch
to collect in order to identify potential sources of
pay discrimination.
59 John L. Bishow, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, A Look at Supplemental Pay:
Overtime Pay, Bonuses, and Shift Differentials
(March 25, 2009), http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/
cwc/a-look-at-supplemental-pay-overtime-paybonuses-and-shift-differentials.pdf.
60 National Association of Law Placement
(NALP), 2014 Associate Salary Survey, NALP, 67–
77 (September, 2014), Associate Bonuses.
61 Aon Hewitt, New Aon Hewitt Survey Shows
2014 Variable Pay Spending Spikes to Record-High
Level (Aug. 27, 2014), http://aon.mediaroom.com/
New-Aon-Hewitt-Survey-Shows-2014-Variable-PaySpending-Spikes-to-Record-High-Level.
62 Id.
63 Jenna McGregor, Bonuses are making up a
bigger and bigger percentage of companies’
payrolls, Washington Post, (Aug. 27, 2014), https://

E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM

14JYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Notices

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

noted that performance-based pay
allows companies to keep their base
salaries lower and that companies will
only allocate bonuses ‘‘if [the company]
has good or great results.’’ 64
In some industries, shift
differentials 65 and overtime pay 66 are
important aspects of income. Eightythree percent of manufacturing and
production companies, 59% of customer
service and support entities, and 51% of
transportation and distribution
companies surveyed in 2010 offered
shift differentials.67 Hospitals and
health care service organizations also
pay shift differentials for holiday and
weekend shifts more than other
industries.68 Overtime is particularly
important in production, transportation,
and material moving industries, with
workers earning 2% of their income in
overtime pay in December 2015.69
Employers can control who gets the
opportunity for assignments to lucrative
shifts that pay premium wages or
overtime pay, and withholding such
assignments because of a protected basis
such as race, ethnicity, or sex would
violate Title VII.
Incentive pay for top executives also
may be subject to discrimination. For
example, at the five highest executive
level positions (chief executive officer,
vice chair, president, chief financial
officer, and chief operating officer),
research based on data from 1992–2005
shows that women received a lower
share of incentive pay (including
bonuses and stock option grants) than
their male counterparts, accounting for
93% of the gender pay gap at that
www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/
2014/08/27/bonuses-are-making-up-a-bigger-andbigger-percentage-of-companies-payrolls/.
64 Id.
65 Shift differentials are paid to compensate
employees for working shifts other than regular
weekday hours.
66 Employees who are nonexempt under the Fair
Labor Standards Act are entitled to receive overtime
pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. 29
CFR 778.10. The overtime rate is not less than time
and one-half their regular pay rate. U.S. Dept. of
Labor, Wage and Hour Division, Overtime Pay,
https://www.dol.gov/whd/overtime_pay.htm. See
also U.S. Dept. of Labor, Wage and Hour Division,
Final Rule: Overtime, https://www.dol.gov/whd/
overtime/final2016/, and, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Wage
and Hour Division, Fact Sheet: Final Rule to Update
the Regulations Defining and Delimiting the
Exemption for Executive, Administrative, and
Professional Employees (May 2016), https://
www.dol.gov/whd/overtime/final2016/overtimefactsheet.htm.
67 SHRM, Shift Differentials: Compensation for
Working Undesirable Hours (Dec. 3, 2010), https://
www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/compensation/articles/
pages/shiftdifferentials.aspx.
68 Id.
69 U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
News Release-Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation (June 9, 2016), http://www.bls.gov/
news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:33 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

level.70 This difference remained even
after taking into account differences of
age, tenure, and titles.71
3. Bridging HRIS and Payroll
In light of employers’ argument that
bridging employers’ HRIS and payroll
software for the new EEO–1 will be so
burdensome that it outweighs the utility
of W–2 income, the EEOC examined
three of the HRIS tools that it sees most
often in systemic investigations: ADP
Enterprise, PeopleSoft, and UltiPro. All
three HRIS allow for the collection of
EEO–1 demographic data, and all three
offer the capacity to record year-to-date
gross and paid earnings.72 The EEOC
recognizes that many employers may
not choose to use this capacity, but its
existence suggests that creating software
solutions for the EEO–1, Components 1
and 2, may not be as complex or novel
as some comments suggested.
The EEOC intends to support
employers and HRIS vendors as
appropriate to accommodate
Component 2 of the proposed EEO–1.
For example, the EEO–1 Joint Reporting
Committee plans to post online its new
Data File Specifications for Components
1 and 2 of the modified EEO–1 as soon
as OMB approves the information
collection. The EEO–1 data file
specifications will be for data uploads
(submitting EEO–1 data in one digital
file), but they also will describe the
formatting of data for direct data entry
onto the firm’s secure EEO–1 account
with the Joint Reporting Committee. For
reference, the current EEO–1 data file
specifications can be found at https://
www.eeoc.gov/employers/eeo1survey/
ee1_datafile_2013.cfm.
70 Stefania Albanesi, Claudia Olivetti, Maria Jose
´
Prados, Liberty Street Economics: Incentive Pay and
Gender Compensation Gaps for Top Executives,
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, (Aug. 25, 2015),
http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2015/
08/incentive-pay-and-gender-compensation-gapsfor-top-executives.html#.VzovwP5JlR0.
71 Stefania Albanesi, How performance pay
schemes make the gender gap worse, World
Economic Forum, (Dec.23, 2015), https://
www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/12/howperformance-pay-schemes-make-the-gender-gapworse/.
72 The ADP HRIS software allows for the
collection of year-to-date gross pay and pay
earnings. It includes paycheck year-to-date totals
and provides fields for year-to-date tax amount,
overtime hourly earnings, overtime hours, total
overtime earnings, and total overtime hours.
Further, it appears to provide fields for year-to-date
taxable income, taxable gross income year-to-date,
and year-to-date taxable amounts. Ultipro allows
collection of weekly pay rate, hourly pay rate, and
year-to-date taxable gross income, in addition to
other measure of pay, hours, and bonus. Finally,
PeopleSoft allows collection of hourly rate,
minimum hourly rate, maximum hourly rate, and
Last 26 Pay Period gross income.

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

45487

VII. What Data To Report: Hours
Worked
A. 60-Day Notice
The Commission proposed collecting
the number of ‘‘hours worked’’ for nonexempt employees by job category,
subdivided into pay band cells, to
account for periods when employees
were not employed or were engaged in
part-time work. With regard to exempt
employees, the EEOC suggested that
‘‘[o]ne approach would be for employers
to use an estimate of 40 hours per week
for full-time salaried workers. The EEOC
[was] 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
information.’’ 73
B. Public Comments
Public comments from many
employers objected to collecting hours
worked data due to the cost of creating
new systems to collate and report data
about hours worked with W–2 income,
and EEO–1 Component 1 data. Some
employers inquired how the EEOC
would define ‘‘hours worked,’’ so they
would know what to report. These
employers focused on two alternatives:
(1) The FLSA definition of hours
worked; and (2) the Affordable Care Act
(ACA) approach.
The question of how to count hours
worked for employees exempt from
overtime received a lot of attention,
especially the EEOC’s proposal to count
40 hours per week for full time, exempt
workers. Supporters of the revised EEO–
1 said it was reasonable to use a proxy
of 40 hours per week for full-time
exempt employees. Those who objected
to using the 40-hours per week proxy
observed that it simply would not
reflect the reality of the hours worked
by many full-time exempt employees,
who may work substantially more than
40 hours in any given week and may
work less than 40 hours in another
week. Some comments argued that,
since the 40-hour estimate would be
incorrect in many instances, reporting
40 hours per week would require them
to submit and certify inaccurate
information to the federal government.
C. 30-Day Notice
1. The Importance of Collecting Hours
Worked
Collecting hours worked is of central
importance because this data will
enable the EEOC and OFCCP to account
for part-time and partial-year work and
to assess potential pay disparities in the
73 81

E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM

FR 5113, 5117 (Feb. 1, 2016).

14JYN1

45488

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Notices

context of this information. The
importance of ‘‘hours worked’’ data can
be illustrated by example. If two men
and two women in the same job
category are paid comparable wage
rates, but the men are employed fulltime and the women are employed parttime, it would initially appear on
Component 2 of the EEO–1—without
any data on their hours worked—that
the employer was paying the women
significantly less than the men (the
women would be counted in a lower
pay band). On the other hand, if it was
known that the men worked 40 hours
per week and the women worked 20
hours per week, then their different
hours would provide a potential
explanation of what initially appears to
be a gender-based pay disparity. Of
course, explaining a pay disparity in
this way would not rule out the
possibility that it was also caused by a
discriminatory practice or policy that
may be identified through further
investigation.
In addition to helping to assess pay
disparities, hours-worked data may be
useful in its own right. The EEOC
receives charges of discrimination
alleging that an employer gave the
charging party fewer hours than other
employees, or denied overtime or
premium pay hours based on race,
ethnicity, sex, or another statutorilyprotected basis. Collecting ‘‘hours
worked’’ data on the EEO–1 would be
useful in the initial stages of such an
investigation, as the EEOC seeks to
assess how the employer assigns work
hours.
2. Defining ‘‘Hours Worked’’

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

The Commission adopts the FLSA
definition for ‘‘hours worked’’ because it
is familiar to employers, designed in
conjunction with pay, and applies to all
employers subject to the EEO–1.74 By
contrast, the ACA approach to ‘‘service
hours’’ gives employers a range of
choices about how to count hours,
74 Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, employers
must keep certain records for employees who are
subject to the minimum wage provisions alone, or
to both the minimum wage and overtime
provisions, including records of hours worked each
workday and total hours worked each workweek. 29
CFR 516.2(a)(7). Employers are not required to
maintain hours worked records for employees who
are exempt from minimum wage or minimum wage
and overtime requirements. 29 CFR 516.3. ‘‘Hours
worked’’ under the FLSA includes ‘‘(a) [a]ll time
during which an employee is required to be on duty
or on the employer’s premises or at a prescribed
workplace and (b) all time during which an
employee is suffered or permitted to work whether
or not he is required to do so.’’ 29 CFR 778.223.
Unlike the ACA definition, it does not include paid
days off.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:33 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

which would not provide clarity for the
EEO–1.75
Under the FLSA, the term ‘‘hours
worked’’ includes ‘‘all time an employee
must be on duty, or on the employer’s
premises or at any other prescribed
place of work, from the beginning of the
first principal activity of the workday to
the end of the last principal activity of
the workday.’’ 76 Numerous court
decisions have also helped shape this
definition. The FLSA and its regulations
require employers to maintain certain
records for nonexempt employees,
including hours the employee worked
each day and the total hours the
employee worked each workweek.77
Payroll records are to be preserved for
at least three years and records upon
which wage computations were made
(e.g., time cards) should be maintained
for at least two years.78
Federal contractors that file the EEO–
1 also are subject to the 2014 Fair Pay
and Safe Workplaces Executive Order,
which, once implemented by regulation,
will require them to supply employees
with a document each pay period
showing the employee’s hours worked,
overtime hours, pay, and any additions
made to, or deductions made from, pay
as recorded for purposes of the FLSA.79
75 Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), all
employers with 50 or more full-time employees or
equivalents are considered applicable large
employers (ALEs) subject to ACA’s shared
responsibility provisions for providing health
insurance. For this purpose, a full-time employee is,
for a calendar month, an employee employed on
average at least 30 hours of service per week, or 130
hours of service per month. The ACA provides
employers the flexibility to use different
measurements of hours worked, or ‘‘service hours,’’
for different categories of exempt employees,
provided the measures are reasonable and
consistently applied. 26 CFR 54.4980H–3(b)(3)(i).
76 U.S. Dept. of Labor, Wage and Hour Division,
Handy Reference Guide to the Fair Labor Standards
Act (November, 2014), https://www.dol.gov/whd/
regs/compliance/hrg.htm.
77 Additional FLSA recordkeeping requirements
include (1) the employee’s sex and occupation, (2)
time and day of the week when employer’s
workweek begins, (3) basis on which employee’s
wages are paid, (4) employee’s regular hourly rate,
(5) employee’s total daily or weekly straight-time
earnings, (6) employee’s total overtime earnings for
the workweek, (7) employee’s total wages each pay
period, (8) date of payment to employee and pay
period covered by payment, and much more. 29
CFR 516. See also United States Department of
Labor, Wage and Hour Division, Fact Sheet #21:
Recordkeeping Requirements under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) (July, 2008), https://
www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs21.htm.
78 Id.
79 E.O. 13673, section 5, 79 FR 45309 (Aug. 5,
2014). The Paycheck Transparency provision of the
Executive Order on Fair Pay Safe Workplaces
provides: ‘‘(a) Agencies shall ensure that, for
contracts subject to section 2 of this order,
provisions in solicitations and clauses in contracts
shall provide that, in each pay period, contractors
provide all individuals performing work under the
contract for whom they are required to maintain
wage records under the Fair Labor Standards Act;

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

Adopting the FLSA definition of ‘‘hours
worked’’ for the EEO–1 promotes
consistency for contractors subject to
both requirements.
3. Reporting Hours Worked for
Nonexempt Employees
The Commission will require private
employers and contractors to report the
‘‘hours worked’’ as recorded for FLSA
purposes for nonexempt employees in
Component 2 of the proposed EEO–1.
‘‘Hours worked’’ will be reported for the
total number of employees in each pay
band by ethnicity, race, and gender, for
the entire calendar year. For example,
assume an employer reports on the
EEO–1 that it employs four African
American women as administrative
support workers in the sixth pay band.
The employer would report their total
‘‘hours worked’’ for the entire year in
the appropriate pay band cell under
‘‘Hours Worked’’ (for example, 8,160
hours). If one of the workers resigned
after the employer took its ‘‘workforce
snapshot’’ but before December 31st, the
employer would report only the total
number of hours she actually worked
that year prior to her resignation, which
would account for her partial-year
employment (for example, rather than
2,040 hours, it might report 1,900
hours).
4. Reporting Hours Worked for Exempt
Employees
Although the Commission seeks to
minimize employer burden, the
importance of hours-worked data
necessitates its collection on the EEO–
1. The EEO–1 Instructions will give
employers the option to: (1) Report a
proxy of 40 hours per week for full-time
exempt employees, and 20 hours per
week for part-time exempt employees,
multiplied by the number of weeks the
individuals were employed during the
EEO–1 reporting year; or (2) provide
actual hours of work by exempt
employees during the EEO–1 reporting
year if the employer already maintains
accurate records of this information.
40 U.S.C. chapter 31, subchapter IV (also known as
the Davis-Bacon Act); 41 U.S.C. chapter 67 (also
known as the Service Contract Act); or equivalent
State laws, with a document with information
concerning that individual’s hours worked,
overtime hours, pay, and any additions made to or
deductions made from pay. Agencies shall also
require that contractors incorporate this same
requirement into subcontracts covered by section 2
of this order. The document provided to individuals
exempt from the overtime compensation
requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act need
not include a record of hours worked if the
contractor informs the individuals of their overtime
exempt status. These requirements shall be deemed
to be fulfilled if the contractor is complying with
State or local requirements that the Secretary of
Labor has determined are substantially similar to
those required by this subsection.’’

E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM

14JYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Notices
With this approach, the company
official who certifies the firm’s EEO–1
report would certify that the reports are
‘‘accurate and . . . . prepared in
accordance with the instructions.’’
Since the new EEO–1 instructions will
give employers the option to record 40
hours per week for full-time exempt
employees and 20 hours per week for
part-time exempt employees, or to
report actual hours-worked data for
exempt employees, employers using the
proxies can certify with confidence that
they completed their EEO–1 reports
accurately and in accordance with the
instructions.
VIII. How To Report Data in
Component 2: Pay Bands and Job
Categories

A. 60-Day Notice

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

The 60-Day Notice proposed that
Component 2 of the EEO–1 report
would collect W–2 income and hoursworked data within twelve distinct pay
bands for each job category. These pay
bands were based on the twelve wage
intervals used by the BLS for the OES
survey, which is a semi-annual survey
designed to measure employment and
wage estimates 81 for over 800
occupations.82 These OES pay bands are
different from the pay bands used on the
80 U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Survey Methods and Reliability Statement for the
May 2015 Occupational Employment Statistics
Survey, supra note 54 at 3, (stating that
‘‘employment refers to the number of workers who
can be classified as full-or-part-time employees,
including workers on paid vacations or other types
of paid leave; exempt officers, executives, and staff
members of incorporated firms; employees
temporarily assigned to other units; and
noncontract employees for whom the reporting unit
is their permanent duty station regardless of
whether that unit prepares their paychecks.’’)
81 U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Occupational Employment Statistics Frequently
Asked Questions, http://www.bls.gov/oes/oes_
ques.htm.
82 Id. The OES survey produces estimates of
wages or salary paid to employees in non-farm
occupations in the United States, in a particular
State, or in a particular industry. The occupational
wage estimates can be estimates of mean wages or
percentiles, such as the median wage.

19:33 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

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

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

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

TABLE 2—PROPOSED EEO–1 PAY
BANDS
Pay bands

This 30-Day Notice does not change
the proposal to collect W–2 income and
hours-worked data in the twelve pay
bands used by the Department of
Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
Occupational Employment Statistics
(OES),80 for each of the 10 EEO–1 job
categories. Such data will support the
EEOC’s ability to discern significant pay
disparities in the early stages of its
investigations and, in conjunction with
other information, to make more
efficient decisions about how to plan
the investigations going forward.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

EEO–4 report now completed by state
and local government employers.

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

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

B. Public Comments
Many stakeholders argued that the
twelve OES pay bands are overly broad,
particularly for the highest pay band
($208,000 and over) and also for the
lower or middle income pay bands
($30,000 to $80,000). Opponents of the
proposal argued that broad pay bands
would not produce reliable data because
the employees within each pay band
may have different levels of experience
or hold different jobs within an
organization. Some comments
advocated for additional and narrower
pay bands to better capture pay
disparities.
C. 30-Day Notice
Collecting W–2 income and hoursworked data in the twelve OES pay
bands will enable the EEOC to gather
pay data about most employees and
EEO–1 filers, as the majority of wages in
the United States are well below the
highest OES pay band ($208,000 and
over), even after including some types of
supplemental income. According to the
U.S. Census Bureau, the estimated
median earnings for full-time, year
round civilian workers 16 years of age
and over were $43,545 in 2014. For
management occupations, the median
earnings were $71,112.83
Census Bureau, Table Packages, FullTime, Year-Round Workers and Median Earnings in

PO 00000

83 U.S.

Frm 00041

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

45489

In Component 2 of the EEO–1,
employers will report the number of
employees whose annual W–2 income
falls in each of the job category’s twelve
pay bands. For example, an employer
may report that it has twelve employees
in pay band 3 for Professionals, and that
four are white men, four are Asian men,
and four are white women.
The EEOC is not convinced that using
twelve pay bands in conjunction with
the EEO–1 job categories will
undermine the utility of W–2 income
and hours-worked data. The EEOC does
not intend or expect that this data will
identify specific, similarly situated
comparators or that it will establish pay
discrimination as a legal matter.
Therefore, it is not critical that each
EEO–1 pay band include only the same
or similar occupations. The data will be
useful for identifying patterns or
correlations that can inform the early
stages of the investigative process, as
explained in more detail in section IX.
In addition, many EEO–1 firms and
establishments do not report widely
divergent occupations in each EEO–1
job category. It also is likely that similar
firms and establishments in the same
geographic area will have similar
distributions of occupations within the
job groups and pay bands, thus making
statistical comparisons between EEO–1
reports a reasonable approach to using
this data.
IX. How the EEOC Will Use W–2 and
Hours-Worked Data
A. 60-Day Notice
As explained in the 60-Day Notice,
Component 2 data would support EEOC
data analysis at the early stages of an
investigation, using statistical tests to
identify significant disparities in
reported pay. EEOC enforcement staff
who conduct these analyses would use
them, in the larger context of other
available economic data and
information, to evaluate whether and
how to investigate the allegations of
discrimination in more depth.
Moreover, the 60-Day Notice also
explained how employers would be able
to use the summary pay data that the
EEOC intends to publish to generally
assess their own pay practices.
B. Public Comments
Employers opposing the proposal
expressed concern that the EEOC would
make unfounded inferences of
discrimination based on its statistical
analysis of the EEO–1 Component 2 pay
data which, in turn, would result in
the Past 12 Months by Sex and Detailed
Occupation: 2014, http://www.census.gov/people/
io/publications/table_packages.html.

E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM

14JYN1

45490

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Notices

unwarranted and burdensome EEOC
investigations. Some interested parties
criticized the particular statistical
analyses that the EEOC described in the
60-Day Notice, arguing that these tests
would not yield meaningful results
when applied to data reported in pay
bands and broad EEO–1 job categories.
These commenters also raised concerns
about the dangers of Type I or Type II
errors in analyzing Component 2 data:
In statistics, ‘‘Type I’’ errors are referred
to as ‘‘false positives’’ and ‘‘Type II’’
errors are ‘‘false negatives.’’ 84
Finally, employers expressed
skepticism that the EEOC’s reports
based on aggregated EEO–1 pay data
would be useful for evaluating their
own pay practices and promoting
voluntary compliance. Several
employers explained that they do not
use W–2 data to analyze their own
compensation practices, but rather rely
on more complete compensation data
that they have at their disposal.
C. 30-Day Notice
This 30-Day Notice expands on the
discussion in the 60-Day Notice and
explains in more detail how the data
collected with this information
collection will support enforcement of,
and compliance with, Title VII, the EPA,
and E.O. 11246.

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

1. Early Assessment of Charges of
Discrimination
Currently, the EEOC enforcement staff
can retrieve a respondent’s EEO–1
report using existing EEO–1 analytics
software to assess the distribution of
different demographics (sex, race, and
ethnicity) in an employer’s job groups.
When W–2 income and hours-worked
data is added to the EEO–1 report, the
EEOC’s EEO–1 analytic software tool
will be expanded to allow for the
examination of pay disparities based on
job category, pay bands, and gender,
ethnicity, or race. For example, if a
charging party alleges that she was paid
less than her male colleagues in a
similar job, the EEOC’s enforcement
staff might use the expanded EEO–1
analytics tool to generate a report
comparing the distribution of the pay of
women to that of men in the same EEO–
84 Type I errors represent the possibility of
rejecting a null hypothesis when it is correct. For
example, a null hypothesis might be that the
earnings of African Americans and whites are the
same and a Type I error would be rejecting it as
false when it is true. Type II errors represent the
opposite: The possibility of accepting the null
hypothesis (for example, that the earnings of
African Americans and whites are the same) as true
when in fact it is false. Type I errors in this context
could suggest a need for an investigation where it
may not be needed; Type II errors in this context
could result in victims of pay discrimination not
receiving relief for discrimination.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:33 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

1 job category.85 They also might use
statistical tools to determine generally
whether there are significant disparities
in reported pay in job groups based on
race, gender, or ethnicity.
EEOC enforcement staff could then
examine how the employer compares to
similar employers in its labor market 86
by using a statistical test to compare the
distribution of women’s pay in the
respondent’s EEO–1 report to the
distribution of women’s pay among the
respondent’s competitors in the same
labor market. With the proposed
addition of hours-worked data to the
EEO–1, statistical tests could be used to
determine whether pay disparities
remain among relevant groups such as
men and women, controlling for hours
worked. More specifically, statistical
tests could determine whether factors
such as race, ethnicity, gender, and
hours worked impact the distribution of
individuals in pay bands. The EEOC
envisions that any statistical test would
be accompanied by an indication of the
practical significance of pay differences.
After considering the results of
several statistical analyses in
conjunction with allegations in the
charge, and sometimes also assessing
how the EEO–1 pay data compares to
statistics for comparable workers using
Census data, EEOC enforcement staff
would decide how to focus the
investigation and what information to
request from the employer. When EEOC
enforcement staff requests information
from an employer, the employer has the
opportunity to explain its practices,
provide additional data, and explain the
non-discriminatory reasons for its pay
practices and decisions. Only after
considering all of this information, and
possibly additional information, would
the EEOC reach a conclusion about
whether discrimination was the likely
cause of the pay disparities.
The EEOC has tested whether
statistical tests, and the EEO–1 pay data,
would be useful tools in the
85 Enforcement staff could choose to compare
men and women in one particular EEO–1 job
category, for multiple job categories, or even all job
categories.
86 EEO–1 reports are identified by location and by
each establishment’s 5-dight NAICS industry codes.
The U.S. Census Bureau maintains only one NAICS
code for each establishment based on its primary
business activity. The Census Bureau states:
‘‘[i]deally, the primary business activity of an
establishment is determined by relative share of
production costs and/or capital investment. In
practice, other variables, such as revenue, value of
shipments, or employment, are used as proxies. The
Census Bureau generally uses revenue or value of
shipments to determine an establishment’s primary
business activity.’’ U.S. Census Bureau, ‘‘North
American Industry Classification System—
Frequently Asked Questions,’’ https://
www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/faqs/faqs.html.

PO 00000

Frm 00042

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

investigation of charges of
discrimination and has found them to
be effective.87 The EEOC used two
databases to test the utility of the
planned analyses. The first was the
EEO–4 database that the EEOC currently
uses to collect and analyze pay data
from state and local governments. Since
the EEO–4 has fewer and different pay
bands than the EEOC proposes for the
EEO–1 pay data collection, the EEOC
also used a synthetic database. The term
‘‘synthetic’’ does not mean that the data
was not real. Rather, the EEOC created
a large confidential database from HRIS
data obtained in actual EEOC
investigations that contained certain
variables of interest, in particular pay
rate history and job titles for all
employees, and the statistical tests
referenced above were run. Other
important variables such as ‘‘race,’’
‘‘gender,’’ and ‘‘EEO–1’’ job codes were
randomly generated for databases that
lacked this information. The results
supported the EEOC’s conclusion that
these statistical tests provide insights
that are useful in developing a request
for information or deciding whether an
investigation of a charge should have a
more limited scope.88
As noted above, some critics disputed
the EEOC’s choice of statistical tests,
arguing that they would not be useful
for data reported in broad pay bands
and job categories. The EEOC’s Pilot
Study reported on a 2007 study finding
that, even if collecting income data in
bands results in a loss of information,
that loss would likely be small and of
little concern to many researchers, and
would be balanced by reduced cost and
burden.89 Other researchers have
identified the value of banded pay data
even to the point of being useful in
estimating mean incomes within an
accuracy of 1–3 percent.90 This research
suggests that critics who argue that one
cannot detect mean differences that are
smaller than the pay bands, or bins, are
incorrect.91
In addition, the EEOC is confident
that the risk of Type I (false positive) or
Type II (false negative) errors will not
undermine its statistical analyses of
Component 2 data. The chances of
incurring Type I errors (false positives)
are related to the probability level used
87 Sage

Computing, supra notes 3, 52, and 56.

88 Id.
89 Id. citing Micklewright, John and Schnepf,
Sylke V., How Reliable are Income Data Collected
with a Single Question? (Nov., 2007), http://
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_
id=1047981.
90 Paul T. von Hippel, Samuel V. Scarpino and
Igor Holas, Robust estimation of inequality from
binned incomes, Sociological Methodology (Jun. 6,
2016), http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4061.
91 Id.

E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM

14JYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Notices
in the statistical significance test. The
EEOC follows judicially recognized
statistical standards for identifying
meaningful discrepancies,92 and
therefore is confident that the
probability level it uses is effective at
minimizing the risk of Type I (false
positive) errors. By contrast, the risk of
Type II (false negative) error is inversely
related to the sample size: The smaller
the sample size, the more likely a Type
II error. If a sample size is so small that
the EEOC enforcement staff is
concerned about Type II errors, it will
consider analyzing a differently
configured, larger sample. Even if it
forgoes such analysis due to an elevated
risk of Type II errors, enforcement staff
will study the EEO–1 for other relevant
information and analyze additional data
from other sources. In fact, EEOC
enforcement staff expects to analyze
data from other sources regardless of the
risk of error.

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

2. EEOC Publications Analyzing
Aggregate EEO–1 Data
Using aggregated EEO–1 data, Census
data, and potentially other data sources,
the EEOC expects to periodically
publish reports on pay disparities by
race, sex, industry, occupational
groupings, and Metropolitan Statistical
Area (MSA). Particularly after a few
years of data collection, these reports
will provide useful comparative data.
For smaller employers and others that
do not hire consultants to analyze their
compensation structures, these reports
will be especially informative in light of
the business case for equal pay and the
need to comply with state equal pay
laws.
The EEOC’s publication of aggregated
pay data, in conjunction with the
employer’s preparation of the EEO–1
report itself, may be useful tools for
employers to engage in voluntary selfassessment of pay practices. For
contractors, such self-assessment is
encouraged by the OFCCP Rule on
Discrimination on the Basis of Sex.93
OFCCP states that ‘‘[e]ach contractor
may continue to choose the assessment
method that best fits with its workforce
92 Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. United States, 433 U.S.
299, 311 n.17 (1977) (explaining that ‘‘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]’’); Wright v. Stern, 450 F.Supp.2d 335, 363
(S.D.N.Y. 2006) (denying motion for summary
judgment in case alleging discrimination against
African-American and Hispanic employees in
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.’’).
93 41 CFR 60–20. See also 81 FR 39109 (June 15,
2016).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:33 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

and compensation practices.’’ 94
Although the OFCCP rule does not
create new obligations with respect to a
covered contractor’s self-assessment of
its compensation practices, it does
provide additional guidance about the
kinds of compensation practices the
contractors should evaluate to ensure
their compliance with E.O. 11246.
3. EEOC Training on the Pay Data
Collection
The EEOC will ensure its internal
capacity to use the EEO–1 pay data
effectively by supplementing existing
training for EEOC statisticians,
investigators, and attorneys about how
EEO–1 pay data and the updated EEO–
1 analytics tool can be used to improve
the agency’s enforcement work. EEOC
enforcement staff will receive periodic
training on how to use the expanded
EEO–1 analytics software tool to
examine pay data and identify any
disparities. EEOC personnel who
conduct intake also would receive
periodic training to help them ‘‘issue
spot’’ potential pay discrimination and
ask appropriate questions to collect
relevant anecdotal evidence of possible
discrimination and information about
employer policies and practices.
Further, the agency would provide
specialized training to its lead systemic
investigators. Finally, as discussed more
fully below, the EEOC would continue
to ensure that staff is trained with regard
to confidentiality obligations with
respect to pay data.
The EEOC also would provide
enhanced technical assistance and
support to employers with seminars or
webinars, training, and outreach and
education materials. Such materials may
include best practice guides and selfassessment tools to promote voluntary
compliance and assist employers in
identifying and correcting
discriminatory pay policies and
practices. They may also identify
practices that could lead to pay
discrimination, such as subjective pay
decision-making practices, establishing
salary by relying heavily on prior salary,
and setting salary based in large part on
negotiations.
Finally, the EEOC would conduct
outreach to other stakeholders,
including employees and their
advocates, and academic researchers.
Outreach to employees and their
advocates would focus on ‘‘know your
rights’’ trainings with respect to equal
pay for equal work and also include
training about how to use the EEOC’s
planned aggregated pay data reports for
research and informational purposes.

PO 00000

94 Id.

Frm 00043

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

45491

X. Confidentiality of EEO–1 Data
This 30-Day Notice expands on the
discussion in the 60-Day Notice
regarding the privacy and
confidentiality protections for
Component 2 data. The EEOC has
successfully protected the
confidentiality of EEO–1 data for over
50 years, since this data was first
collected. Recognizing that employers
are concerned both about the
confidentiality of their business data
and the privacy of employees’ pay
information, the EEOC and OFCCP have
committed to vigorously guarding its
privacy and confidentiality, as
explained below.
A. 60-Day Notice
The 60-Day Notice emphasized that
Title VII subjects the EEOC to strict
confidentiality requirements, subject to
criminal penalties; that OFCCP defers to
the EEOC on disclosure of all noncontractor data; and that the OFCCP
ensures the confidentiality of contractor
data to the maximum extent permissible
by law. In the 60-Day Notice, the EEOC
explained that EEO–1 Component 2 data
would not include any employee
personally identifiable information and,
since EEO–1 pay and hours-worked data
would be anonymous and aggregated,
personally identifying information
would not be readily apparent.
B. Public Comments
Employers expressed concern that the
addition of sensitive pay data to the
EEO–1 would make it more valuable to
their competitors and that any breach in
confidentiality would be significantly
more costly than with the current EEO–
1. They also expressed concern about
the privacy of the data, because an
individual’s pay could be disclosed if,
for example, the employee was one of
only a few employees matching a
particular race/ethnicity background
and gender in a cell on the EEO–1 and
the EEO–1 report were disclosed. Some
employers expressed concern that
federal and state agencies may not be
bound by Title VII’s confidentiality
requirements, and some employers
urged the EEOC to prevail on Congress
to amend Title VII to expressly extend
the statute’s confidentiality provisions
to other federal and state agencies that
might get EEO–1 data.
C. 30-Day Notice
1. Legal Confidentiality
a. EEOC
As recognized by employers and
explained in the 60-Day Notice, Title VII
forbids the EEOC or any EEOC officer or
employee from making public any

E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM

14JYN1

45492

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Notices

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

information, including EEO–1 data,
before a Title VII proceeding is
instituted that involves that
information.95 EEOC staff who violate
this prohibition are guilty of a criminal
misdemeanor and can be imprisoned.
The EEOC directly imposes this Title
VII confidentiality requirement on all of
its contractors, including contract
workers and contractor companies, as a
condition of their contracts. With
respect to other federal agencies with a
legitimate law enforcement purpose, the
EEOC gives access to information
collected under Title VII only if the
agencies agree, by letter or
memorandum of understanding, to
comply with the confidentiality
provisions of Title VII.
Finally, the text of Title VII itself
states that the EEOC may only give state
and local fair employment practices
agencies (FEPAs) information (including
EEO–1 data) about employers in their
jurisdiction on the condition that they
not make it public.96
For the EEOC, its agents and
contractors, and the FEPAs, Title VII
only permits disclosure of information
after suit is filed on the issues that were
investigated at the administrative level.
b. OFCCP
Even though OFCCP obtains EEO–1
reports for federal contractors and
subcontractors (contractors) through the
Joint Reporting Committee with the
EEOC, OFCCP obtains this information
pursuant to its own legal authority
under E.O. 11246 and its implementing
regulations.97
OFCCP will notify contractors of any
FOIA request for their EEO–1 pay and
hours-worked data. If a contractor
objects to disclosure, OFCCP will not
disclose the data if OFCCP determines
that the contractor’s objection is valid.
FOIA Exemptions 3 and 4 recognize the
value of this data and provide, in
combination with the Trade Secrets Act,
the necessary tools to appropriately
protect it from public disclosure.
OFCCP will protect the confidentiality
of EEO–1 pay and hours-worked data to
the maximum extent possible consistent
with FOIA.
With respect to companies that are
not federal contractors or subcontractors
under OFCCP’s jurisdiction, the
confidentiality provision of Section
709(e) applies. OFCCP will refer all
such FOIA requests for EEO–1 data to
the EEOC for a response. The EEOC, in
95 42

U.S.C. 2000e–8(e).
U.S.C. 2000e–8(d). See also EEOC, EEO–1
Survey System Privacy Impact Assessment, https://
www.eeoc.gov/employers/eeo1survey/
privacyimpact.cfm.
97 41 CFR 60–1.7(a)(1).
96 42

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:33 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

turn, is subject to Title VII
confidentiality and cannot disclose any
of its EEO–1 data to the public, except
in an aggregated format that protects the
confidentiality of each employer’s
information. Any FOIA request by a
member of the public for such
disaggregated EEO–1 data will be
denied by the EEOC under Exemption 3
of the FOIA.
2. Data Protection and Security
The EEOC takes extensive measures to
protect the confidentiality and integrity
of EEO–1 data in its possession. First,
all EEOC and FEPA staff 98 receive
annual training in data protection and
security. The EEOC maintains a robust
cyber security and privacy program, in
compliance with the Federal
Information Security Modernization Act
of 2014.99
The EEOC also complies with a
comprehensive set of security and
privacy controls to protect
organizational operations and
information system assets against a
diverse set of threats, including hostile
cyber-attacks, natural disasters,
structural failures, and human errors.
The EEOC’s systems are monitored on
an ongoing basis to assure compliance
with an extensive set of security and
privacy requirements derived from
legislation, Executive Orders, policies,
directives, and standards.100 Agency
information technology systems are
subjected to weekly security scans by
the Department of Homeland Security,
annual internal audits performed by the
EEOC’s Office of Inspector General, and
expert third-party audits for best
practices and compliance with cybersecurity standards. Current protections
include regular internal and external
vulnerability scanning and penetration
testing, comprehensive real-time antivirus scanning and protection on all
desktops and servers, Internet and email
filtering for malware and spam, strong
firewall protections and intrusion
98 As noted in text above, all FEPAs sign a
contractual agreement with the EEOC that requires
them to follow the confidentiality provisions set
forth in Title VII.
99 44 U.S.C. 3551; see also relevant provision 44
U.S.C. 3554 discussing federal agency
responsibilities for protecting federal information
and information systems.
100 40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq., Information
Technology Management Reform Act, identifying
standards and guidelines developed by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for
federal computing systems. NIST, NIST Special
Publication 800–53, Rev 4, Security and Privacy
Controls for Federal Information Systems and
Organizations (April 2013), http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/
nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-53r4.pdf
(explaining specific security controls required by
the Federal Information Security Management Act
of 2002 and thereafter the Federal Information
Security Modernization Act of 2014).

PO 00000

Frm 00044

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

detection systems, compliance with
security benchmark configuration
settings, deep discovery advanced
network security analysis and
monitoring, secure domain name server
configurations, automatic server/
firewall monitoring and logging,
security awareness training, and
comprehensive disaster recovery
planning and testing.
The online EEO–1 portal of the Joint
Reporting Committee allows firms that
currently upload EEO–1 data files to
encrypt their data or even create a file
transfer site for EEOC to download the
data. After collecting and reconciling
EEO–1 data through a process that may
involve input from the employer or
contractor, the Joint Reporting
Committee at the EEOC provides the
database to OFCCP on an encrypted
storage device.
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act Burden
Estimates
A. Background
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, through
which employers report data on
employees’ ethnicity, race, and sex by
job category. The second component
(Component 2) will collect data on
employees’ W–2 (Box 1) income and
hours worked. Because of the
complexity of this PRA burden
calculation, the EEOC is providing the
following background information to
explain the rationale behind its
methodologies for calculating the
annual and one-time burden of filing
EEO–1 reports.
The OMB’s PRA guidance prescribes
the factors for agencies to consider in
calculating annual reporting and onetime implementation costs. The
prescribed PRA calculation is focused
on the time it takes filers to complete
the tasks required for the proposed
information collection and the hourly
rates of the employees who spend that
time. For this reason, the following
discussion of the costs of transitioning
and annually filing Components 1 and
2 of the EEO–1 must be formulated
through the PRA analysis of hours spent
and hourly rates.
OMB’s PRA regulations also require
consideration of how to reduce the
burden of a data collection through the
use of technology and automation.101
101 Agencies must ‘‘evaluat[e] . . . whether (and
if so, to what extent) the burden on respondents can
be reduced by use of automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information

E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM

14JYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Notices

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

This consideration is particularly
relevant to EEO–1 reporting. In the years
since the EEOC first estimated the PRA
burden of the EEO–1 based only on the
time to fill in the cells on a paper EEO–
1 report, there have been major
advances in technology both for
employers and the Joint Reporting
Committee. Many employers now rely
on HRIS and automated payroll
systems.102 The Joint Reporting
Committee now utilizes an online EEO–
1 portal for the confidential filing of
EEO–1 reports, either by digital upload
or by data entry onto a passwordprotected, partially pre-populated
digital EEO–1.
Throughout the Joint Reporting
Committee’s transition to this new
system, the EEOC continued to calculate
the PRA burden based on its original
method of counting all the cells on a
paper report and calculating the time
needed to enter data into each of them.
However, with the 60-Day Notice, the
EEOC concluded that both digital
recordkeeping and digital filing were
sufficiently well-established to
transition to a new PRA methodology
more suited to the new technology and
the time-savings it generated.103 The
EEOC’s new PRA methodology—
necessarily expressed in the PRA’s
terms of hours and hourly labor rates—
focuses on the time needed by the
employer’s staff to complete tasks such
as reading the EEO–1 instructions,
collecting, verifying, validating,
certifying, and submitting the report.
Therefore, in the 60-Day Notice, the
EEOC considered for the first time the
time savings generated by this taskbased approach stemming from
technology.104 This is the reason that
the burden of filing the EEO–1 actually
declined with the PRA calculations in
60-Day Notice, relative to the paperbased calculation method previously
used.
In the 60-Day Notice, the EEOC
concluded that most employers would
be filing the EEO–1 with a digital file
upload by the time they file their EEO–
1 reports for 2017 and 2018. Therefore,
in the 60-Day Notice, the EEOC
reasoned that ‘‘each additional report
filed [would have] just a marginal
additional cost.’’ 105 Accordingly, the
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission
of responses.’’ 5 CFR 1320.8(a)(5).
102 International Public Management Association
for Human Resources, Public Personnel
Management, Volume 39, No. 3, Fall 2010, http://
ipma-hr.org/files/pdf/ppm/ppmfall2010.pdf
(reporting that 90% of human resources
departments used some form of HRIS).
103 81 FR 5113, 5120 (Feb. 1, 2016).
104 Id.
105 Id.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:33 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

burden calculation in the 60-Day Notice
was based on the number of firms filing
one or more EEO–1 reports, not on the
number of reports submitted or the
number of separate establishments
submitting reports. The EEOC’s PRA
burden calculations also assumed that
all employees working on the EEO–1
would be administrative staff paid an
hourly rate of $24.23 per hour.
The EEOC’s intent in calculating
respondent burden for the 60-Day
Notice was to recognize the cost and
time savings associated with the
accelerating trend toward greater
automation. However, employers’
public comments indicated that the
EEOC’s estimates reflected a level of
automation that was unlikely to be
attained imminently. Some of these
comments included estimates about the
annual time and costs of completing the
EEO–1. While some firms stated that
they spent less time each year on the
EEO–1 than the EEOC estimated in the
60-Day Notice, many firms reported that
they spent more time and used more
varied professional staff. These same
commenters observed that they used
data uploads less frequently than the
EEOC had projected.
The EEOC carefully considered
employers’ input, yet, their comments
as a whole reflected widely discrepant
estimates of the time needed, jobs
involved, and HRIS and software costs
associated with digital EEO–1 reporting.
Although the EEOC recognizes that the
EEO–1 may involve more time than it
estimated in the 60-Day Notice, the
EEOC also concludes that the amount of
time a filer spends each year completing
this report varies, because each
employer is different in terms of number
of establishments, number of employees
involved in producing the report, time
spent by those employees and their rates
of pay, and sophistication of HRIS. Due
to the wide range of estimates provided
about annual reporting costs, the EEOC
also relied on its own experience
collecting the EEO–1 reports and
working with EEO–1 stakeholders over
the years.
In conclusion, the EEOC adjusted its
methodology for calculating PRA annual
burden in this 30-Day Notice. First, the
EEOC took into account the time and
pay rates for a range of employees at
both the firm- and establishment- levels
who are responsible for preparing and
filing the EEO–1. The EEOC now
accounts for time to be spent annually
on EEO–1 reporting by everyone from
the executive who certifies it, to the
lawyer who reviews it and the human
resource professionals who prepare it
with the support of information
technology professionals and clericals.

PO 00000

Frm 00045

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

45493

Second, the EEOC no longer assumes
that all the EEO–1 reports for 2017 and
2018 will be submitted by one data
upload filed by the firm on behalf of all
the establishments. While still reflecting
that the bulk of the tasks performed in
completing the EEO–1 report will be
completed at the firm level due to the
centrality of automation, the EEOC’s 30Day Notice recognizes that there are
certain tasks that will be performed at
the establishment level for employers
who enter their EEO–1 data directly
onto the Joint Reporting Committee’s
secure portal. Therefore, the 30-Day
Notice burden calculations are based on
the number of hours needed to complete
the tasks at the firm level and also at the
establishment level for the proportion of
EEO–1 filers who do not now use
centralized, secure data uploads. To
make these calculations, the EEOC
distinguished the time spent at the firm
and establishment levels on the
different types of EEO–1 reports, such as
single-establishment Type 1 reports,
Type 2 consolidated reports for
employers with multiple
establishments, and Type 6 or 8 reports
for small establishments (under 50
employees).
For those employers who have staff
enter EEO–1 data online, which is
closest digital equivalent to completing
a paper form by hand, the Joint
Reporting Committee’s passwordprotected, individualized portal
prompts the employer with prepopulated EEO–1 forms that already
include identifying information and the
prior year totals. Moreover, the Joint
Reporting Committee’s online portal
does not compel these employers to
enter ‘‘zeros’’ in the cells for which they
do not submit data. No EEO–1 filers
enter data in every cell, so basing the
annual PRA burden on the total number
of cells on the EEO–1 form would be
inaccurate.
Therefore, as explained in detail
below, the total estimated annual
burden hour cost in 2017 and 2018 for
those contractors that will complete and
submit only Component 1 (contractors
with 50–99 employees) will be
$1,872,792.41. The total estimated
annual burden hour cost in 2017 and
2018 for employers and contractors that
will complete both Components 1 and 2
will be $53,546,359.08.
The EEOC estimates that for these
filers submitting both Component 1 and
2 data in 2017 and 2018, the addition
of pay data will increase the estimated
annual burden hour costs by a total of
$25,364,064.80 or an average of $416.58
per EEO–1 filer each year, using the 30Day PRA analysis. This is an average

E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM

14JYN1

45494

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Notices

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

estimate per filer, and actual costs will
vary, as explained in this Notice.
B. 60-Day Notice
In the 60-Day Notice, the EEOC
estimated burden based on centralized
electronic, rather than paper, filing of
the EEO–1. Costs were calculated
assuming that all tasks were performed
at the firm level.
Burden Statement—2016: For
reporting year 2016, when all filers will
continue to submit only Component 1
demographic data, the EEOC estimated
the total annual burden hours required
to complete the EEO–1 as 228,296.4
hours, with an associated total annual
burden hour cost of $5,531,621.77.
Burden Statement—Component 1
Only: The 60-Day Notice stated that
starting in 2017, the estimated number
of annual respondents (contractor filers)
who will submit Component 1 only
would be 6,260.106 The 60-Day Notice
estimated the burden in 2017 on
contractor filers with 50 to 99
employees as follows:
• Annual Burden Calculation: The
total annual burden hours required to
complete Component 1 of the EEO–1
data collection in 2017 and 2018 was
estimated to be 21,284 hours each year,
with an associated total annual burden
hour cost of $515,711.32. This figure
used an average wage rate of $24.23 for
employees working on the EEO–1, based
on the conclusion that administrative
support staff would perform the work in
completing an EEO–1 report.
Burden Statement—Components 1
and 2: The 60-Day Notice estimated the
number of annual respondents that
would submit both Components 1 and
2 starting with the 2017 reporting cycle
at 60,886 private industry and
contractor filers. Filers required to
complete both Components 1 and 2
were estimated to incur 401,847.6
burden hours annually or 6.6 hours per
filer.
• Annual Burden Calculation: The
estimated total annual burden hours
needed for filers to report demographic
and W–2 income and hours-worked data
via Components 1 and 2 of the revised
EEO–1 was estimated at 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.107
106 81 FR 5113 (Feb. 1, 2016). Of the 67,146 firms
that filed EEO–1 reports in 2014, 6,260 were federal
contractor filers with fewer than 100 employees.
107 81 FR 5113 (Feb. 1, 2016). This estimate was
calculated as follows: 6.6 hours per respondent ×
60,886 respondents = 401,847.6 hours × $24.23 per
hour = $9,736,767.35. See also U.S. Dept. of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:33 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

• 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 was estimated
as $23,000,295.108 This calculation was
based on the one-time cost for
developing queries related to
Component 2 in an existing human
resources information system, which
was estimated to take 8 hours per filer
at a wage rate of $47.22 per hour.
The 60-Day Notice also estimated that
the addition of W–2 income data to the
EEO–1 would result in the EEOC
incurring $318,000 in one-time costs
and would raise the EEOC’s recurring
internal staffing cost by $290,478 due to
the increased staff time needed to
process the additional data.
C. 30-Day Notice
In response to concerns raised in the
public comments to the 60-Day Notice,
this 30-Day Notice reflects an increased
burden estimate by: (1) Reflecting
varying labor costs for the different
types of staff involved with preparing
the EEO–1, (2) adding labor costs for
report-level functions, and (3)
increasing the total number of burden
hours a firm would need to read the
EEO–1 instructions and to collect,
verify, and enter EEO–1 data on the
EEO–1 online portal. This methodology
increases the total number of hours
spent annually, even though the 30-Day
Notice reduced overall burden by no
longer requiring employers to make
special W–2 income calculations for the
EEO–1. This reflects employers’
feedback about the annual EEO–1
reporting burden.
1. Annual Burden Hours
The 30-Day Notice revises the annual
burden hour estimates to add the
estimated time spent on firm-level
functions by several different types of
employees. These estimates are
informed by the comments on the 60Day Notice, based on the EEOC’s
experiences in providing technical
assistance to employers, and within the
range of time suggested by public
comments.
To submit a report containing EEO–1
Component 1 data, the EEOC now
Employee Compensation—December 2013 (March
2014), http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/
ecec_03122014.htm (listing total compensation for
administrative support as $24.23 per hour).
108 81 FR 5113 (Feb. 1, 2016). This estimate was
calculated as follows: 8 hours per respondent ×
60,886 employers = 487,088 × $47.22 per hour =
$23,000,295. See also U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau
of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation—December 2013, supra note 108
(listing total compensation for a professional as
$47.22 per hour).

PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

assumes that, at the firm level, computer
specialists would need to spend 4
hours, senior human resource managers,
corporate legal counsel, and chief
executive officers would each spend 1
hour, and data entry clerks and clerical
staff would each spend 0.5 hours, for a
total of 8 hours to complete firm-level
functions.
Based on information received during
the comment period, the addition of
Component 2 data would increase the
total time spent by each of these
employees by a factor of 1.9. Therefore,
the EEOC estimates that beginning with
the 2017 EEO–1, each firm reporting
both Component 1 and Component 2
data would require 7.6 hours by
computer specialists, 1.9 hours each by
senior human resource managers,
corporate legal counsel, and chief
executive officers, and 0.95 hours each
by data entry clerks and clerical staff,
for a total of 15.2 hours per firm for
firm-level functions.
In order to analyze annual reporting
burden as accurately as possible, the
EEOC now also considers the time and
effort associated with completing the
different types of EEO–1 reports. There
are six types of EEO–1 reports, as
detailed in the footnote.109 All reports
except the Type 6 report include the
requested EEO–1 workforce data; the
Type 6 report includes only the
employer’s name, address, and the
number of employees in each
establishment with fewer than 50
employees. An employer having
establishments with fewer than 50
employees chooses between filing one
Type 6 report or multiple Type 8 reports
(a full EEO–1 report for the
establishment). If it chooses to file
separate Type 8 reports for each
establishment with fewer than 50
employees, the Joint Reporting
Committee does not require it to
complete a consolidated EEO–1 for the
entire firm; rather, the Joint Reporting
Committee’s software generates a Type
2 report for the employer. However, if
the employer chooses to submit a Type
6 report, it must also complete a full
consolidated report. Accordingly, firms
that have establishments with fewer
than 50 employees either submit Type
8 reports (one for each establishment) or
a Type 6 report (a list covering all
establishments) plus a Type 2 report.
Finally, based on the EEOC’s
experience, most firms complete all the
109 Type 1 (single establishment firm); Type 2
(consolidated report for headquarters and multiestablishment firm); Type 3 (headquarters report);
Type 4 (report for establishments with over 50
employees); Type 6 (list of establishments with
under 50 employees); and Type 8 (detailed report
for establishments with under 50 employees).

E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM

14JYN1

45495

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Notices
tasks associated with filing EEO–1 Type
1, 2, and 6 reports at the firm level. By
contrast, for Type 3, 4 and 8 reports,
some of the tasks are performed at the
firm level, but others are performed at
the establishment level. The EEOC’s 30Day Notice annual burden estimates
therefore reflect time spent on
establishment-level tasks associated
with Type 3, 4, and 8 reports, while
time spent on tasks associated with
Type 1, 2, and 6 reports (and the firmlevel functions associated with Types 3,
4, and 8) are included in the firm-level
estimates.110
The EEOC assumes that human
resource specialists and data entry
clerks will perform all establishmentlevel functions. For firms filing only
Component 1 of the EEO–1, the EEOC
estimates that for each establishment
report submitted, a human resource
specialist and a data entry clerk would

each spend 0.5 hours on establishmentlevel functions, for a total of 1 hour per
report. Beginning in 2017, firms filing
both Component 1 and Component 2 of
the EEO–1 would require 0.95 hours
each from the human resource specialist
and the data entry clerk on
establishment-level functions, for a total
of 1.9 hours per report.
In 2014, 1,449 firms submitted their
EEO–1 reports via data upload, but they
submitted 329,944 Type 3, 4, and 8
reports.111 The EEOC estimates that
firms using data upload will need to
spend less time at the establishment
level than firms submitting their reports
by data entry. For firms using data
upload, the EEOC estimates that data
entry clerks will not need to perform
any establishment-level tasks.

2. Hourly Wage Rates
Using figures reflecting median pay
obtained from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics,112 the EEOC’s 30-Day Notice
uses hourly wage rates as follows:
Computer specialist $24.75, senior
human resource manager $50.21,
corporate legal counsel $55.69, chief
executive officer $49.37, data entry clerk
$13.69, clerical staff $15.41, and human
resource specialist $28.06. See Table 3
for an illustration of the jobs, hours, and
wage rates described in this Notice.
Based on the EEOC’s experience, the
bulk of the work is now performed by
computer specialists and senior human
resource managers. At the establishment
level, the EEOC concluded that EEO–1
reporting work is more likely to be
performed by data entry clerks and
human resource specialists, resulting in
a lower average wage rate for
establishment-level functions.

TABLE 3—EEO–1 JOBS, HOURS, AND WAGES
Hours spent
on EEO–1
Component 1
only

Job title

Hours spent
on EEO–1
Components
1&2

Hourly wage
rates

Firm-Level Functions
Computer Specialist .....................................................................................................................
Senior Human Resource Manager ..............................................................................................
Corporate Legal Counsel .............................................................................................................
Chief Executive Officer ................................................................................................................
Data Entry Clerk ..........................................................................................................................
Clerical Staff ................................................................................................................................

4
1
1
1
0.5
0.5

7.6
1.9
1.9
1.9
0.95
0.95

$24.75
50.21
55.69
49.37
13.69
15.41

0.5
0.5

0.95
0.95

28.06
13.69

Report-Level Functions
Human Resource Specialist ........................................................................................................
Data Entry Clerk ..........................................................................................................................

A. Overview of Information Collection
The EEOC has submitted 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://10.5.0.211/employers/eeo1survey/
2016_new_survey.cfm.
For the 2016 reporting cycle, there
will be no change to the EEO–1
reporting requirement. All EEO–1 filers
will continue to submit the data on race,
ethnicity, sex, and job category that is
currently collected by the EEO–1 report.
The EEOC refers to this demographic
and job category data as Component 1
data. Beginning with the 2017 reporting
cycle, the EEOC proposes to require
EEO–1 filers with 100 or more
employees to submit data on pay and
hours worked (Component 2 data) in
addition to Component 1 data. However,
federal contractor filers with 50 to 99
employees will only submit Component
1 data.

1. 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 firms
filing 683,275 establishment reports.
Reporting Hours: 1,055,471.
Respondent Burden Hour Cost:
$30,055,086.62.
Federal Cost: $1,330,821.
Number of Forms: 1.
Form Number: EEOC Form 100.

110 Because of this, the EEOC’s burden estimates
for firm-level tasks are inflated for those firms
electing to file Type 8 reports, because the firmlevel estimates include time spent completing a
Type 2 and a Type 6 report, even though firms that

opt to complete Type 8 reports do not also submit
a Type 2 or Type 6 report.
111 In 2014, contractor filers with 50–99
employees submitted 86 Type 3, 4, and 8 reports
via data upload.

112 U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Occupational Outlook Handbook, http://
www.bls.gov/ooh/.

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

XII. Formal Paperwork Reduction Act
Statement

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:33 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM

14JYN1

45496

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Notices

2. 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 $1,621,300 113 for recurring
staffing costs.
a. 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 firms
filing 9,129 establishment reports.
Reporting Hours: 59,166.
Respondent Burden Hour Cost:
$1,872,792.41.
b. Components 1 and 2 (Demographic
and Job Category Data Plus W–2 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 demographic and job
category data under Component 1.
Number of Respondents: 60,886 firms
filing 674,146 establishment reports.
Reporting Hours: 1,892,979.5.
Respondent Burden Hour Cost:
$53,546,359.08.
B. 30-Day Notice PRA Burden Statement

hours in 2016 or 8 hours per filer for
firm-level functions plus an additional
one hour per report for establishmentlevel functions.115 The associated
burden hour cost for the 2016 reporting
cycle is $30,055,086.62.116 This estimate
assumes electronic filing through the
EEO–1 online portal either by data entry
or data upload, and accounts for time
and cost savings now associated with
submission of the EEO–1 via data
upload.
2017 and 2018: Components 1 and 2
With respect to the EEO–1 reporting
cycles for 2017 and 2018, this Notice
will discuss the burden estimates
associated with two distinct groups of
filers. The first group consists of
contractor filers with 50 to 99
employees. This group of filers will
continue to submit only the Component
1 data, just as they have done in
previous years. The second group of
filers includes all EEO–1 filers with 100
or more employees, whether private
industry or contractor filers. This larger
group will continue to submit
Component 1 data as they have always
done, but will also submit the newlyadded W–2 and hours-worked data of
Component 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 6,260.117 Again, this
calculation assumes 8 hours per filer for
firm-level functions plus an additional
one hour per individual report for
report-level functions. The burden on

2016: Component 1

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Burden Statement: In 2016, all EEO–
1 filers will submit Component 1, which
only includes the data collected by the
currently approved EEO–1. No filer will
be required to submit the Component 2
data during the 2016 reporting cycle.
The estimated number of respondents
required to submit the annual EEO–1
report is 67,146.114 This data collection
is estimated to impose 1,055,471 burden
113 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.
114 In 2014, 67,146 firms filed EEO–1 reports.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:33 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

115 This estimate calculates total time spent by
firms assuming no data upload, then subtracts the
estimated time saved by firms using data upload,
as follows: 8 hours per firm for firm-level functions
× 67,146 firms = 537,168 hours; 1 hour per report
for establishment-level functions × 683,275 reports
= 683,275 hours; 537,168 + 683,275 = 1,220,443
total hours; 0.5 hours per report of data entry clerk
time saved by data upload × 329,944 reports filed
by data upload = 164,972; 1,220,443¥164,972 =
1,055,471.
116 To reach this estimate, the EEOC multiplied
the hourly wage rates for each job by the estimated
hours spent by each job in completing the EEO–1
to arrive at a per-firm cost for firm-level functions
of $268.82 and a per-report cost for establishmentlevel functions of approximately $20.88 (rounded).
The total burden hour cost for firm-level functions
is $18,050,187.7 and the total burden hour cost for
establishment-level functions is $14,263,365.6.
Firms using data upload are estimated to save
$2,258,466.68 (data entry clerk hourly wage rate of
$13.69 × 0.5 hours × 329,944 reports filed by data
upload). Total firm-level burden hour cost of
$18,050,187.7 + total establishment-level burden
hour cost of $14,263,365.6¥cost savings from data
upload of $2,258,466.68 = a total annual burden
hour cost of $30,055,086.62.
117 Of the 67,146 firms that filed EEO–1 reports
in 2014, 6,260 were federal contractor filers with
fewer than 100 employees.

PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

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 59,166,118 with an associated
total annual burden hour cost of
$1,872,792.41.119
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
annually to incur a total of 15.2 hours
per filer for firm-level functions plus an
additional 1.9 hours per individual
report for establishment-level functions.
The estimated burden is based on
electronic filing.
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
Component 1 and 2 data is estimated as
follows:
• Annual Burden Calculation: The
estimated total annual burden hours
needed for all filers required to report
Components 1 and 2 data is 1,892,979.5
hours,120 with an associated total
annual burden hour cost of
$53,546,359.08.121 The EEOC estimates
118 This estimate calculates total time spent by
firms assuming no data upload, then subtracts the
estimated time saved by firms using data upload,
as follows: 8 hours per firm for firm-level functions
× 6,260 firms = 50,080 hours; 1 hour per report for
establishment-level functions × 9,129 reports =
9,129 hours; 50,080 + 9,129 = 59,209 total hours;
0.5 hours per report of data entry clerk time saved
by data upload × 86 reports filed by data upload =
43; 59,209¥43 = 59,166.
119 To reach this estimate, the EEOC multiplied
the adjusted hourly rates for each job by the
estimated hours spent by each job in completing the
report to arrive at a per-firm cost for firm-level
functions of $268.82 and a per-report cost for
establishment-level functions of approximately
$20.88 (rounded). The burden hour cost for firmlevel functions is $1,682,813.2 and the burden hour
cost for establishment-level functions is
$190,567.875. Firms using data upload are
estimated to save $588.67 (data entry clerk hourly
wage rate of $13.69 × 0.5 hours × 86 reports filed
by data upload). Total firm-level burden hour cost
of $1,682,813.2 + total establishment-level burden
hour cost of $190,567.875¥cost savings from data
upload of $588.67 = a total annual burden hour cost
of $1,872,792.41.
120 This estimate calculates total time spent by
firms assuming no data upload, then subtracts the
estimated time saved by firms using data upload,
as follows: 15.2 hours per firm for firm-level
functions × 60,886 firms = 925,467.2 hours; 1.9
hours per report for establishment-level functions ×
674,146 reports = 1,280,877.4 hours; 925,467.2 +
1,280,877.4 = 2,206,344.6 total hours; 0.95 hours
per report of data entry clerk time saved by data
upload × 329,858 reports filed by data upload =
313,365.1; 2,206,344.6¥313,365.1 = 1,892,979.5.
121 To reach this estimate, the EEOC multiplied
the adjusted hourly rates for each job by the

E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM

14JYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Notices

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

that for these filers submitting both
Component 1 and 2 data in 2017 and
2018, the addition of pay data will
increase the estimated annual burden
hour costs by a total of $25,364,064.80
or an average of $416.58 per EEO–1 filer
each year. This burden estimate
includes reading instructions and
collecting, merging, validating, and
reporting the data electronically.
• One-Time Implementation Burden:
The 60-Day Notice estimated the onetime implementation burden hour cost
associated with submitting the
information required by Component 2 of
the revised EEO–1 Report to be
$23,000,295. This was based on the onetime cost for developing queries related
to Component 2 in an existing HRIS,
which was estimated to take 8 hours per
filer at a wage rate of $47.22 per hour.
Employers filing public comments
stated that bridging pay and HRIS

systems, or purchasing software updates
from vendors, would be extremely
expensive. Some of these employers
estimated the one-time implementation
cost of bridging HRIS and payroll
records to report Component 2 data
estimated costs could range from $5,000
per firm to $20,000, $30,000, or $40,000
per firm. Although the estimates did not
provide details explaining how they
were calculated, the EEOC has
considered this feedback and increased
the one-time implementation burden. It
has done so by reflecting that
specialized computer software experts
with a higher wage rate will be required
to do the work necessary to implement
the one-time changes required for this
proposal.
Using an hourly wage rate for a
computer programmer of $55.81, the
EEOC now estimates one-time burden
hour cost of $27,184,381.28.122

45497

Dated: July 11, 2016.
For the Commission.
Jenny R. Yang,
Chair.
[FR Doc. 2016–16692 Filed 7–13–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Open Commission Meeting, Thursday,
July 14, 2016
July 7, 2016.

The Federal Communications
Commission will hold an Open Meeting
on the subjects listed below on
Thursday, July 14, 2016 which is
scheduled to commence at 10:30 a.m. in
Room TW–C305, at 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC.

Item No.

Bureau

Subject

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

Wireless
Tele-Commucations,
International And Office Of Engineering &
Technology.

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

Wireline Competition ................................

Title: Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz For Mobile Radio Services (GN
Docket No. 14–177); Establishing a More Flexible Framework to Facilitate Satellite Operations in the 27.5–28.35 GHz and 37.5–40 GHz Bands (IB Docket No.
15–256); Petition document of the Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition to
Create Service Rules for the 42–43.5 GHz Band (RM–11664); Amendment of
Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 To Establish Uniform License Renewal, Discontinuance of Operation, and Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum
Disaggregation Rules and Policies for Certain Wireless Radio Services (WT
Docket No. 10–112); Allocation and Designation of Spectrum for Fixed-Satellite
Services in the 37.5–38.5 GHz, 40.5–41.5 GHz and 48.2–50.2 GHz Frequency
Bands; Allocation of Spectrum to Upgrade Fixed and Mobile Allocations in the
40.5–42.5 GHz Frequency Band; Allocation of Spectrum in the 46.9–47.0 GHz
Frequency Band for Wireless Services; and Allocation of Spectrum in the 37.0–
38.0 GHz and 40.0–40.5 GHz for Government Operations (IB Docket No. 97–
95).
Summary: The Commission will consider a document that would make spectrum in
bands above 24 GHz available for flexible use wireless services, including for
next-generation, or 5G, networks and technologies.
Title: Technology Transitions (GN Docket No. 13–5); USTelecom Petition for Declaratory Ruling that Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers Are Non-Dominant in
the Provision of Switched Access Services (WC Docket No. 13–3); Policies and
Rules Governing Retirement of Copper Loops by Incumbent Local Exchange
Carriers (RM–11358).
Summary: The Commission will consider a document that adopts a framework to
guide transitions to next-generation communications technologies while protecting the interests of consumers and competition.

estimated hours spent by each job in completing the
report to arrive at a per-firm cost for firm-level
functions of approximately $510.76 and a per-report
cost for establishment-level functions of
approximately $39.66 (these figures are rounded).
The burden hour cost for firm-level functions is
$31,098,011.6 and the burden hour cost for
establishment-level functions is $26,738,315.7.
Firms using data upload are estimated to save
$4,289,968.22 (data entry clerk hourly wage rate of
$13.69 × 0.95 hours × 329,858 reports filed by data
upload). Total firm-level burden hour cost of

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:33 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

$31,098,011.6 + total establishment-level burden
hour cost of $26,738,315.7¥cost savings from data
upload of $4,289,968.22 = a total annual burden
hour cost of $53,546,359.08.
122 This estimate is calculated as follows: 8 hours
per respondent × 60,886 employers = 487,088 ×
$55.81 per hour = $27,184,381.28. The higher onetime implementation burden estimate in this Notice
as compared to the one-time implementation
burden estimate in the 60-Day Notice is due to the
higher wage rate for the computer programmer,
multiplied by 1.46, which is the employer

PO 00000

Frm 00049

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

contribution for ‘‘management, professional,
related.’’ U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook:
Computer Programmers, http://www.bls.gov/ooh/
computer-and-information-technology/computerprogrammers.htm; see also U.S. Dept. of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation—Dec. 2015 (Mar. 2016),
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_
03102016.htm (computing the rate of employer
contribution by dividing total compensation by
total salary).

E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM

14JYN1