# Proposed Collection; Comment Request > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A97-14816 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Notice - **Published:** June 6, 1997 - **Citation:** 62 FR 31157 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Bureau of Labor Statistics Proposed Collection; Comment Request ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested [[Page 31158]] data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed new ``Research on the Feasibility of Collecting Occupational Wage Data by Union Status.'' A copy of the proposed information collection request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the addressee section of this notice. DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addressee section below on or before August 5, 1997. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is particularly interested in comments which: Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the BLS, including whether the information will have practical utility; Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses. ADDRESSEE: Send comments to Karin G. Kurz, BLS Clearance Officer, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Room 3255, 2 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Washington D.C. 20212. Ms. Kurz can be reached on 202-606-7628 (this is not a toll free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Employment Standards Administration (ESA) has determined that research should be conducted into alternative ways of collecting information for Davis-Bacon Act purposes. As a result, ESA's Wage and Hour Division (WHD) wishes to evaluate the usefulness of BLS data in the Davis-Bacon wage determination process. The Davis-Bacon Act The Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276a) requires that workers employed on Federal construction contracts valued in excess of $2,000 be paid wages and fringe benefits that, at a minimum, have been determined by the Secretary of Labor to be prevailing for corresponding classes of workers employed on projects similar in character to the contract work in the area where the construction takes place. The prevailing wage is defined by Department of Labor regulations as the wage paid to more than 50 percent of the workers in the job classification on similar projects in the area during the period in question. If the majority of those employed in the classification are not paid the same wage, the prevailing wage is determined by calculating the average of the wages paid. In cases where the majority of workers in a classification are represented by a union and are paid the same rate, the union rate is the prevailing rate. Summary Current Actions BLS plans to determine the feasibility of using the Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) survey to gather the union/nonunion status of employees in construction industries by detail occupation; the results will be evaluated by ESA to assess their usefulness for Davis- Bacon Act prevailing wage determinations. Specifically the goal is to determine whether, in a mail survey where occupational employment and wage level information is being collected on every employee in an establishment, the respondent also has information on employees' union/ nonunion status and would be willing to provide it. The process would consist of three components: a telephone ``case study''; a survey form test; and a follow-up Response Analysis Survey (RAS). The case study would be implemented in early Fiscal Year (FY) 1998 as part of the routine follow-up efforts after the most recent OES data collection cycle. After the initial mail-out of survey forms, OES staff in four states would contact firms by telephone in the construction industries (Standard Industrial Classifications 15, 16, and 17) that did not respond by mail to collect the OES data. After collecting the OES data, the questioner would ask if any of the workers in the establishment belonged to a union. If the response was ``yes,'' the OES staff would proceed through the list of occupations reported by the employer to determine for each occupation whether workers belonged to a union. The intent of this case study would be to gauge the operational feasibility of soliciting information from respondents on the union/ nonunion status of their employees by occupation as part of the regular OES wage survey. This would allow BLS to ascertain whether employers can or will readily provide the union status data, what the relative proportion of respondents that have union workers might be, how soliciting this information would affect employer burden, and how disruptive this collection effort would be to the current OES collection process. This case study would not result in the production of estimates regarding the union/nonunion question. The survey form test following the case study would take place in FY 1999 and would involve mailing questionnaires similar to the current OES survey form (instead of the regular form) to establishments in the construction industry. BLS would test alternative forms to determine which is able to gather the most accurate information while causing the least additional burden to respondents and having the least negative impact on response rates. The purpose of the survey form test would be to determine, first, whether respondents would be willing to provide information on union/nonunion status by occupation through a mail survey. The test also would determine, through the use of different formats, the one format that obtains the most accurate information with least added burden to respondents. Finally, the test would show what impact, if any, requesting this information on the OES survey form would have on OES response rates. Depending upon response levels in the survey form test, it is possible that estimates of varying occupational detail could be produced. The follow-up Response Analysis Survey (RAS) would consist of questions asked over the telephone of 2500 respondents, drawn from construction and non-construction industries. The questioner would ask respondents about the data they reported, what records were used to report the data, how long it took them to complete the survey, etc. One purpose of the RAS would be to gather, from respondents, an idea of the difference in burden placed on respondents between completing the regular OES wage survey form and the survey form containing the union/ nonunion questions. The expected time needed to complete each RAS is 30 minutes. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) will use the information provided for [[Page 31159]] statistical purposes only. To the full extent permitted by law, BLS will hold the information in confidence and will not disclose it without the written consent of respondents. Type of Review: New Collection. Agency: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Title: Research on the Feasibility of Collecting Occupational Wage Data by Union Status. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Total Est. total Activity form(s) number of Affected public Frequency annual Average time per burden respondents response response hours -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case Study.......................... 2,500 Business and other for Once FY98............... 1,725 10 minutes.............. 288 profit. Survey Form Test BLS-2877 715-EZ; 9,000 Business and other for Once FY99............... 7,000 1 hour.................. 7,000 BLS-2877 715 Test1; BLS-2877 715 profit. Test2. RAS BLS-2877 715-RAS................ 2,500 Business and other for Once FY98/FY99.......... 2,250 30 minutes.............. 1,125 profit; Not for profit inst. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Totals........................ 14,000 ....................... ........................ 10,975 ........................ 8,413 Two year average.................... 7,000 ....................... ........................ 5,488 ........................ 4,207 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): $0. Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): $0. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the ICR; they also will become a matter of public record. Signed at Washington, DC, this 3rd day of June, 1997. W. Stuart Rust, Jr., Acting Chief, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics. [FR Doc. 97-14816 Filed 6-5-97; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-24-M --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A97-14816. Public record. Not legal advice.