[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 109 (Friday, June 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31157-31159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-14816]


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

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