Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Submission for OMB Review; Final Comment Request, 71294-71303 [05-23359]

Agencies

• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 227 (Monday, November 28, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71294-71303]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23359]


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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION


Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Submission 
for OMB Review; Final Comment Request

AGENCY: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

ACTION: Final notice of submission for OMB review.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission gives notice that it has 
submitted the information collection described below to the Office of 
Management and Budget.

DATES: Written comments on this notice must be submitted on or before 
December 28, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice must be submitted to Carolyn Lovett, 
Policy Analyst, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503,

[[Page 71295]]

e-mail Carolyn--Lovett@omb.eop.gov. Comments also should be submitted 
to Stephen Llewellyn, Acting Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat, 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 10th Floor, 1801 L Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20507. The Acting Executive Officer will accept 
comments transmitted by facsmile (``FAX'') machine. The telephone 
number for the FAX receiver is (202) 663-4114. (This is not a toll-
free-number). Only comments of six or fewer pages will be accepted via 
FAX transmittal. This limitation is necessary to assure access to the 
equipment. 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) 633-4070 (voice) or (202) 663-4074 
(TDD). (These are not toll-free-telephone numbers.) Copies of comments 
submitted by the public will be available for review at the 
Commission's library, room 6502, 1801 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20507 between the hours of 9:30 a.m. and 5 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joachim Neckere, Director, Program 
Research and Surveys Division, 1801 L Street, NW., Room 922, 
Washington, DC 20507; (202) 663-4958 (voice) or (202) 663-7063 (TDD); 
or Carol Miaskoff, Assistant Legal Counsel, 1801 L Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20507; (202) 663-4637 (voice) or (202) 663-7026 (TDD).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

    With this Notice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC 
or Commission) announces that it is submitting to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB), pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 (PRA), final revisions to the Employer Information Report (EEO-1), 
after consultation with the Department of Labor, Office of Federal 
Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). The EEOC published the initial 
PRA Notice on June 11, 2003. See Agency Information Collection 
Activities: Revision of the Employer Information Report (EEO-1), 68 FR 
34965, June 11, 2003.\1\ In the initial notice, the EEOC proposed 
changes to the ethnic and racial categories on the EEO-1 report, and 
also to the job categories. Thirty-two interested parties submitted 
written comments, including employers, civil rights organizations, 
human resources and information technology professionals, and other 
individuals. Nine witnesses, representing some of the same parties, 
testified at the Commission's public hearing held on October 29, 2003, 
pursuant to section 709(c) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964. The record was completed by several written comments submitted 
subsequent to the hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The proposed EEO-1 Report form and the June 11, 2003 Notice 
can be found at: https://www.eeoc.gov/eeo1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

History and Uses of the EEO-1

    The EEOC and OFCCP, acting as the Joint Reporting committee, 
adopted the EEO-1 report in 1966 to collect annual data from many 
private employers and federal contractors about their minority and 
female workforce. See 42 U.S.C 2000e-8(c).\2\ The agencies planned to 
use these EEO-1 data to analyze patterns of employment discrimination 
and to support civil rights enforcement. See U.S. Equal Employment 
Opportunity commission, ``A History of the EEOC, 1965-1984.'' Both 
agencies have used the data for enforcement.\3\ OFCCP uses EEO-1 data 
to determine which employer facilities to select for compliance 
evaluations. The EEOC also uses EEO-1 data to analyze trends in female 
and minority employment within companies, industries, regions, and 
sectors of the economy. See, e.g., ``Women of Color: Their Employment 
in the Private Sector'' (July 2003) at https://www.eeoc.gov/stats/
reports/womenofcolor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See https://www.eeoc.gov/eeo1survey/whomustfile.html (who 
must file EEO-1).
    \3\ See Testimony of Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference 
on Civil Rights (stating that courts, private parties, and employers 
also have found EEO-1 data useful).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The government's commitment to collecting and analyzing these 
workforce data is a concrete demonstration of its ongoing commitment to 
full enforcement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The 
importance of EEO-1 data in describing the workforce in terms of the 
job placement of minorities and women was a constant factor in the 
consideration of these revisions.
    As explained in its June 11, 2003 Notice, the Commission initiated 
this revision in light of several developments, including the revised 
1997 government-wide standards for reporting race and ethnicity, see 
infra note 5.

Race and Ethnic Categories

    In reaching final decisions on race and ethnic categories for the 
revised EEO-1 report, the EEOC was guided by the need to balance three 
competing interests: Obtaining data that will support the EEOC and 
OFCCP in enforcing Title VII and Executive Order 11246; modernizing the 
EEO-1 to accommodate changing demographics and the government-wide 
Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on 
Race and Ethnicity; \4\ and limiting the burden on employers. The goal 
of the Commission was, of curse, to find the appropriate balance among 
these competing factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal 
Data on Race and Ethnicity, 62 FR 58782, October 30, 1997 
(hereinafter ``Revised Standards'' or ``1997 Revised Standards'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The race and ethnic categories proposed in the EEOC's June 11, 2003 
Notice differ from the current EEO-1 in several respects. The revisions 
proposed in the June 11, 2003 Notice were as follows: (i) Add a new 
racial category titled ``Two or more races''; (ii) separate ``Asians'' 
from ``Pacific Islanders''; (iii) rename ``Black'' as ``Black or 
African American''; (iv) rename ``Hispanic'' as ``Hispanic or Latino''; 
and (v) strongly encourage employers to use self-reporting rather than 
visual identification. The public comments to the June 11, 2003 Notice 
primarily focused on the Commission's strong endorsement of employee 
self-identification; on its adoption of the new racial category, ``Two 
or more races''; and on the guidance for counting and reporting the 
number of Hispanic or Latino employees.

Self-Identification

    The June 11, 2003 Notice proposed that employers gather data needed 
to complete the revised EEO-1 report by asking employees to voluntarily 
report their ethnicity and race. In the past, employers usually 
determined ethnicity and race for the EEO-1 by visual observation. The 
Commission's proposal meant that, for the first time, employers would 
be strongly encouraged to rely on employee self-identification to 
identify their ethnicity and race.
    A few public commenters were concerned about potential employee 
discomfort with racial and ethnic self-identification, and one public 
commenter questioned the legality of self-identification under Title 
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, (Title VII) and 
Executive Order 11246, as amended. See Written Comments of Affirmative 
Action Consulting; Written Comments of Associated Industries of the 
Inland Northwest. On practical grounds, an employer group raised the 
question of whether self-identification would be required if it were 
not ``feasible'' for employers. The Equal Employment Advisory Council 
(EEAC) maintained that employers should be permitted to continue 
determining race and ethnicity by visual observation if an

[[Page 71296]]

employee declined to self-identify or in other undefined situations in 
which it was ``unduly burdensome or otherwise not practical or 
feasible'' to extend an invitation to self-identify. See Written 
Testimony for Hearing of Jeffrey A. Norris of EEAC.
    The Commission reaffirms its position that self-identification is 
the preferred method for gathering ethnic and racial information for 
the EEO-1 Report. Self-identification is key to the government's goal 
of understanding the increasing complexity of race in America. In the 
1990s, OMB recognized that a new Federal system for reporting racial 
and ethnic data would need to reflect the increasing diversity of the 
Nation's population due to growth in immigration and interracial 
marriage. See Standards for the Classification of Federal Data and Race 
and Ethnicity, 59 FR 29831, June 9, 1994. The Revised Standards issued 
by OMB in 1997 called for the enumeration of individuals with a 
multiracial background in federal reports and stated that self-
identification was preferred. See Revised Standards, supra note 5.\5\ 
The Commission agrees that self-identification is necessary when 
Federal reports enumerate the racial and ethnic backgrounds of 
individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See also Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on 
Race and Ethnicity, 59 FR 29831, June 9, 1994 (announcing OMB's 
decision to review the government-wide racial and ethnic categories 
and indicating that one of the general principles guiding this 
review would be respect for individual dignity and the corresponding 
need to facilitate self-identification to the greatest extent 
possible); Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race 
and Ethnicity, 60 FR 44674, 44679 August 28, 1995 (discussing the 
pros and cons of self-identification).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also is convinced that self-identification for the 
EEO-1 report will not undermine civil rights. Self-identification for 
EEO-1 purposes is subject to safeguards, as described below. Legally, 
self-identification does not alter any of the fundamental legal 
standards of Title VII and Executive Order 11246, which prohibit 
unlawful employment discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity, 
among other bases. Employers are prohibited from using race or ethnic 
information to make any employment decisions that would violate Title 
VII and Executive Order 11246.
    Employers may use employment records or visual observation to 
gather race and ethnic data for EEO-1 purposes only when employees 
decline to self-identify.

New Race Category: Two or More Races

    In its June 11, 2003 proposal, the Commission said that the EEO-1 
report would require reporting of data about the number of employees 
who identify with. ``Two or more races,'' but would not require 
reporting of the different races with which these employees identify.
    Some employers conditionally supported the ``Two or more races'' 
category on the EEO-1, while also expressing concern about burden and 
inaccurate data. The Chamber of Commerce conditionally supported the 
``Two or more races'' category based on coordination with OFCCP's 
programs under Executive Order 11246. See Written Comments on the 
Chamber of Commerce. The Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM), 
however, argued that the Commission's proposal would yield misleading 
data, because the numbers for specific races would be reduced due to 
the subtraction of those who identified as ``Two or more races,'' 
whereas the number of Hispanics or Latinos would not be reduced in this 
way. See Testimony of Cornelia Gamlem on behalf of SHRM; Written of 
SHRM. Based on concerns about burden, some employer representatives 
proposed retaining the EEO-1's current format of single race reporting. 
See Written Comments of Bank One; Written Comments of Jackson and 
Associate Consulting; Written Comments of Avista Corporation. Other 
employer groups simply argued against detailed reporting schemes for 
multiple races. See e.g., Testimony of Jeffrey Norris of EEAC; Written 
Comments of EEAC; Testimony of H. Juanita M. Beecher of ORC Worldwide; 
Written Comments on ORC Worldwide. Finally, in light of the potential 
burden, one commenter questioned the utility of the category for ``Two 
or more races,'' noting that only a small number of individuals who are 
currently in the workforce self-identify with multiple races, based on 
200 Census Data. See Testimony of Christopher Northup.
    By contrast, civil rights groups urged the Commission to adopt more 
detailed racial reporting, in the interests of civil rights enforcement 
and full compliance with OMB's Revised Standards. the Rainbow/PUSH 
Coalition, concerned about the advancement of people of color, observed 
that the category of ``Two or more races'' would not be meaningful for 
affirmative action purposes under OFCCP's authority. See Written 
Testimony for Hearing of Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Jr., of the Rainbow/
PUSH Coalition (read into Hearing Record by Mark Long). The Mexican 
American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) emphasized the 
importance for EEO purposes of reporting full racial data about 
Hispanic or Latino employees and stated that the EEOC could use OMB 
guidance to allocate data about individuals with multiracial 
backgrounds into single groups as necessary. See Testimony of Marisa J. 
Demeo of MALDEF; Written Comments of MALDEF.
    The Commission adopts the ``Two or more races'' category for the 
final EEO-1. Detailed reporting in separate racial combinations would, 
at the current time, result only in a marginal enhancement of the 
utility of EEO-1 data for EEOC enforcement purposes. In the 2000 
Census, 2.4% of respondents reported that they were in a category that 
would qualify as ``Two or more races.'' See Testimony of Christopher 
Northup. The 2.4% itself, includes several unique racial combinations; 
separate reporting for each racial combination would result in even 
smaller numbers for each one, depending on region. This marginal 
enhancement of EEO-O1 data does not justify, at the current time, the 
added burden for employers and for the government of detailed data 
collection and reporting. EEO-1 data about employees of ``Two or more 
races'' will be useful to the Commission to analyze national employment 
trends.
    Another central factor in the adoption of ``Two or more races'' is 
that it supports OFCCP's use of EEO-1 data. OFCCP's statistical model 
for selecting contractors for compliance reviews, which is designed to 
target employer facilities with the highest likelihood of systemic 
discrimination, uses aggregated ``minority'' and ``nonminority'' 
categories based on EEO-1 data. OFCCP's targeting system requires that 
EEO-1 data be reported in a format that can be easily folded into this 
analysis. Adoption of the ``Two or more races'' category will allow 
OFCCP to count this new category as ``minority'' and to continue using 
the current methodology with minor adjustments.
    The Commission intends, however, to turn to its own database of 
Title VII charges to identify and study those charges in which 
employment discrimination on the basis of more than one race is 
alleged. For example, the EEOC can determine the number of charges 
filed on the basis of more than one race, and also identify the most 
common racial combinations on which discrimination charges are filed, 
as well as the types of discrimination most often alleged by 
individuals with these multiracial backgrounds. When considered in 
conjunction with the revised EEO-1 data on ``Two or More Races,'' such 
analysis of the EEOC's

[[Page 71297]]

charge database will help the Commission determine whether future 
changes in the EEO-1 are needed.

Reporting Racial Data for Hispanics or Latinos

    The Commission's June 11, 2003 proposal did not require employers 
to report racial data for Hispanic or Latino employees on the revised 
EEO-1. In written comments and in testimony, civil rights groups urged 
the EEOC to change its positions and require employers to report the 
race of Hispanic or Latino employees. MALDEF asserted the importance of 
reporting full racial data about Hispanic or Latino employees. Rainbow/
PUSH agreed, noting that persons of mixed heritage are more likely to 
face discrimination because of their African ancestry than because of 
the other racial or ethnic elements of their heritage. See Written 
Testimony for Hearing of Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Sr., of the Rainbow/
PUSH Coalition (read into Hearing Record by Mark Long). The National 
Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium (NAPALC) expressed concern that 
failing to report the racial breakdown of Hispanics or Latinos might 
artificially inflate data for Latino employees while deflating data for 
the racial groups. See Written Comments of NAPALC.
    An employer group, SHRM, expressed concern that failing to report 
the race of Hispanics or Latinos would result in skewed EEO-1 data. 
SHRM proposed that all employees, including Hispanics or Latinos, be 
asked to report the race or ethnicity with which they primarily 
identify, and also be given the option of choosing the ``Two or more 
races'' category. See Testimony of Cornelia Gamlem on behalf of SHRM; 
Written Comments of SHRM.
    The majority of employers, however, focused on the burden to 
employers of collecting, maintaining, and reporting race data about 
Hispanic or Latino employees (as well as detailed race data about 
employees who selected the ``Two or more races'' category). Several 
companies pointed out that such detailed reporting would require a 
complete and burdensome overhaul of their Human Resources Information 
Systems. See Written Comments of Lozier Corporation; Written Comments 
of ORC Worldwide; Written Comments of TOC (objecting to a ``mind-
boggling'' number of possible combinations of data to report); Written 
Comments of SHRM (expressing concern about the burden of overhauling 
Human Resources Information Systems, in addition to its concerns about 
skewed data). The Chamber of Commerce endorsed the Commission's 
proposal for reporting ethnicity and race as a reasonable balance 
between governmental and private interests, based on its understanding 
that employers would not be required to report and analyze all ethnic 
and racial combinations. See Testimony of Kris Meade on behalf of the 
Chamber of Commerce. The EEAC concurred with this view. See Testimony 
of Jeffrey Norris of EEAC; Written Comments of EEAC.
    The Commission reaffirms its decision not to require employers to 
report the race of employees who identify as Hispanic or Latino. For 
purposes of its own uses of EEO-1 data, the Commission notes that only 
a small percentage of the population 18 years of age and over chose to 
identify as both Hispanic and a racial minority group in Census 
2000.\6\ This suggests that requiring employers to report the race of 
Hispanic or Latino employees would not significantly improve the 
utility of EEO-1 data for enforcement purposes. Moreover, such detailed 
data could not easily be folded into OFCCP's system for targeting 
contractors for compliance review. Finally, some employers have 
testified regarding the burden of collecting data about the race of 
Hispanic or Latino employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Commission also notes that there is uncertainty about 
whether Hispanics or Latinos willingly or accurately self-identify 
using American racial categories, when given the opportunity to do 
so. See Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: Census 2000 Brief, 
March 2001, page 10; see also, Mireya Navarro, Going beyond Black 
and White, Hispanics in Census Pick `Other', The New York Times, 
November 9, 2003, Sec.  1 (New York Region), at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ultimately, on the EEO-1 report itself, ethnic and racial data are 
reported in the same fashion as before the revision; that is, for 
Hispanic or Latino employees, race data are not reported.

The Two-Question Format

    There were many public comments about the Commission's June 11, 
2003 proposal to use the ``two-question format'' to collect ethnic and 
racial data from employees for the EEO-1 report. The ``two-question 
format'' means that employees are first asked to report their Hispanic 
or Latino status and second to report the race or races they consider 
themselves to be.
    There were several objections to the ``two-question format'' as 
proposed. Many commenters objected that the Commission had ``singled 
out'' Hispanics or Latinos for different treatment. Some commenters 
criticized this proposal as an effort to inflate the number of 
Hispanics or Latinos for political purposes. Other commenters, mostly 
representatives of the Human Resources field, expressed concern about 
how to explain the two-question format to employees. Finally, after the 
October 2003 public hearing, employer groups urged the Commission to 
keep a ``combined'' format for the EEO-1, so that employers would only 
need to ask one question of employees: With which race/ethnicity do you 
primarily identify? See Supplemental Submissions of National Industry 
Liaison Group, ORC Worldwide, and EEAC. See also Revised Standards, 62 
FR 58789 (discussing ``combined'' format).
    The Commission retains the two-question format because it has been 
shown to yield more accurate data about Hispanics or Latinos. This 
approach is part of a longstanding Federal effort to obtain accurate 
ethnic data. In 1976, in response to an apparent under-count of 
Americans of Spanish origin or descent in the 1970 Census, Congress 
passed Pub. L. 94-311 calling for the collection, analysis, and 
publication of federal statistics on persons of Spanish origin or 
descent. OMB issued the ``Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal 
Statistics and Administrative Reporting'' shortly thereafter, adding 
Hispanic ethnicity to Federal reports and encouraging separate 
reporting of race and ethnicity.\7\ In a further effort to enhance 
accuracy, OMB's 1997 Revised Standards recommended that Federal forms 
ask two questions: the first about ethnicity; and the second about 
race. This decision stemmed, in part, from research sponsored by the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics showing that significantly more people 
appropriately identified as Hispanic or Latino when they were asked 
separately about Hispanic or Latino origin.\8\ The Commission's 
decision to adopt a two-question format is part of this ongoing effort 
to design federal reports that yield a more accurate count of Hispanics 
or Latinos.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Statistical Policy Directive No. 15, ``Race and Ethnic 
Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting,'' 43 
FR 19269, May 4, 1978.
    \8\ See Recommendations from the Interagency Committee for the 
Review of the Racial and Ethnic Standards to the Office of 
Management and Budget Concerning Changes to the Standards for 
Classifications of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity, 62 FR 36874, 
July 9, 1997 (Recommendations from the Interagency Committee) 
Appendix 2, Chapter 4.7.
    \9\ See Standards for Classification of Federal Data on Race and 
Ethnicity, 60 FR 44674, August 28, 1995, at 44678-44679; see also 
Recommendations from the Interagency Committee, Appendix 2, Chapter 
4 (detailing various effects and data quality concerns stemming from 
the use of combined and/or separate questions on race and Hispanic 
origin).

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

[[Page 71298]]

Data Collection: Suggested Questionnaire

    The EEOC's ``Suggested Employee Questionnaire on Race and 
Ethnicity'' generated extensive public comment. Several employer groups 
observed that the instructions for the questionnaire strongly 
encouraged employees to provide multiple race data in much more detail 
than the proposed EEO-1 required it to be reported. In the opinion of 
these groups, the lack of consistency between the suggested 
questionnaire and the revised EEO-1 race and ethnic categories could 
foster employee mistrust and prove to be administratively burdensome 
for employers. See, e.g., Written Comments of EEAC; Written Comments of 
ORC Worldwide. Specifically, employers focused on language in the 
Suggested Questionnaire that first provided two separate questions for 
workers to self-identify their ethnicity and their race, but then 
informed the employees who marked ``Yes'' to the Hispanic question that 
their race would not be reported to the government. Other commenters, 
however, made the point that employers may need to collect data about 
the race of Hispanic or Latino employees for research or statistical 
purposes or to defend against potential EEO claims. See, e.g., Written 
Comments of Chamber of Commerce (noting that many Chamber members 
commented that race information for Hispanic or Latino individuals 
would be beneficial for purposes of conducting voluntary internal 
analyses of their workforce and/or addressing potential allegations of 
discrimination).
    Employer groups made several other suggestions about language, for 
example, urging the Commission to emphasize the voluntary nature of the 
questionnaire. However, one employer group urged the Commission to make 
the questionnaire a mandatory government form, like the I-9.\10\ See 
Supplemental Submission of ORC Worldwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ U.S. employers are responsible for completion and retention 
of Form I-9, Employment Verification Eligibility Form, for each 
individual they hire for employment in the United State, including 
citizens and noncitizens. On the form, the employer must verify the 
employment eligibility and identity documents presented by the 
employee and record the document information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to these comments, the Commission will not adopt the 
``Suggested Employee Questionnaire on Race and Ethnicity.'' Employers 
must, at a minimum, have the data that are necessary to complete the 
EEO-1 report, which lists employee ethnicity or race in a total of 
seven categories. The Commission notes that some employers may find it 
necessary for research or statistical purposes, or for self-monitoring, 
to collect more detailed data than needed to complete the EEO-1 report. 
We commend such efforts.
    As to the method for collecting data, the basic principles for 
ethnic and racial self-identification for purposes of the EEO-1 report 
are:
    1. Offer employees the opportunity to self-identify;
    2. Provide a statement about the voluntary nature of this inquiry 
for employees. For example, language such as the following may be used 
(employers may adapt this language).

    The employer is subject to certain governmental recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements for the administration of civil rights 
laws and regulations. In order to comply with these laws, the 
employer invites employees to voluntarily self-identify their race 
and ethnicity. Submission of this information is voluntary and 
refusal to provide it will not subject you to any adverse treatment. 
The information will be kept confidential and will only be used in 
accordance with the provisions of applicable laws, executive orders, 
and regulations, including those that require the information to be 
summarized and reported to the federal government for civil rights 
enforcement. When reported, data will not identify any specific 
individual.

Job Categories

    The public comments and testimony about the proposed job categories 
focused on three main issues: Subdividing Officials and Managers into 
hierarchical subcategories; renumbering job categories so that Service 
Workers appeared earlier on the list; and adding minor, new language to 
the definitions of Professionals and Technicians.

Subdividing Officials and Managers

    The Commission's June 11, 2003 proposal divided Officials and 
Managers into three hierarchical subcategories to gather data about the 
progress of women and minorities in management. The proposed 
subcategories, based on responsibility, general lines of reporting, and 
skill, were: Executive/Senior Level Officials and Managers (formulate 
policies and set strategies); Mid Level Officials and Managers (lead 
major business units in implementing Executives' strategies); and First 
Level Officials and Managers (implement policies in daily operations 
and report to the Mid Level Managers).
    Some employer groups opposed the proposal as burdensome and 
unproductive. For example, the Chamber of Commerce wrote that 
organizations with more than three levels of management ``will 
undoubtedly struggle with the appropriate placement for their `mid-
level' management,'' resulting in discrepant placement for managers who 
do the same functions for different companies. Although the Chamber 
favored keeping a single category for Officials and Managers, it urged 
the Commission to consider two levels of management (Senior and Other) 
as an alternative. The EEAC urged retention of the status quo, arguing 
that the new subcategories would yield numbers that would be too small 
to support meaningful statistical analysis for each establishment.
    Other employer groups supported this aspect of the proposal. SHRM 
noted that it would result in data ``permit[ing] both the government 
and employers a better analysis of progress or lack thereof in glass 
ceiling \11\ initiatives.'' See Written Comments of SHRM. The National 
Industry Liaison Group (NILG) wrote that this proposal would enhance 
affirmative action and diversity planning and also allow ``for a more 
precise analysis of EEO-1 trend data.'' See Written Comments of NILG. 
ORC Worldwide testified that ``many ORC members already report their 
officials and managers in this manner so the subdivision [would] not 
[be] seen as an additional burden.'' (Referring to OFCCP's Corporate 
Management Review). See Written Testimony for Hearing of H. Juanita M. 
Beecher of ORC Worldwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``Glass ceiling'' is a term used to describe the 
discriminatory, artificial barriers that hinder the advancement of 
women and minorities to upper level job positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Civil rights groups supported this change. The National Partnership 
for Women & Families and the Women Employed Institute observed that the 
proposed EEO-1 would report basic data reflecting major differences in 
job content, wage rates and opportunities without unfairly burdening 
employers. See Written Comments of National Partnership for Women & 
Families and Women Employed Institute. NAPALC agreed that more detailed 
management data were necessary to remedy employment discrimination 
affecting Asians, especially given studies showing that Asians and 
Pacific Islanders are not enjoying upward mobility in the workforce 
commensurate with their high levels of education. See Written Comments 
of NAPALC. Finally, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, joined 
by MALDEF, commended the proposal as an opportunity to correct the 
overly broad categorization of ``Officials and Managers'' and to obtain 
data about racial and gender stratification

[[Page 71299]]

occurring at or above the ``glass ceiling.'' See Testimony of Wade 
Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; Testimony of 
Marisa J. Demeo of MALDEF.
    The Commission continues to believe that a single category for all 
officials and managers is no longer acceptable. It conflates data about 
jobs of widely discrepant responsibility, compensation and skill, and 
thereby risks obscuring important trends in the employment of women and 
minorities. The proposal to subdivide this category is therefore 
consistent with increased interest in glass ceiling issues in recent 
years. The Commission recognizes, however, that employer groups raised 
legitimate concerns about the likelihood of inconsistent categorization 
of middle level managers who perform the same functions at different 
companies. We therefore adopt two subcategories of Officials and 
Managers: Executive/Senior Level Officials and Managers; and First/Mid 
Level Officials and Managers. The EEO-1 Instruction Booklet includes a 
``Description of Job Categories'' which provides significantly more 
detailed descriptions of the two tiers of officials and managers. These 
descriptions, reproduced below, should be helpful to employers in 
assigning official and manager positions to the appropriate 
subcategory:
    Executive/Senior Level Officials and Managers. Individuals who 
plan, direct and formulate policies, set strategy and provide the 
overall direction of enterprises/organizations for the development and 
delivery of products and services, within the parameters approved by 
boards of directors or other governing bodies. Residing in the highest 
levels of organizations, these executives plan, direct, or coordinate 
activities with the support of subordinate executives and staff 
managers. They include, in larger organizations, those individuals with 
two reporting levels of the CEO, whose responsibilities require 
frequent interaction with the CEO. Examples of these kinds of managers 
are: Chief executive officers, chief operating officers, chief 
financial officers, line of business heads, presidents or executive 
vice presidents of functional areas or operating groups, chief 
information officers, chief human resources officers, chief marketing 
officers, chief legal officers, management directors and managing 
partners.
    First/Mid Level Officials and Managers. Individuals who serve as 
officials and managers, other than those who serve as Executive/Senior 
Level Officials and Managers, including those who oversee and direct 
the delivery of products, services or functions at group, regional or 
divisional levels of organizations. These officials and managers 
receive directions from Executive/Senior Level management and typically 
lead major business units. They implement policies, programs and 
directives of Executive/Senior Level management through subordinate 
managers and within the parameters set by Executive/Senior Level 
management. Examples of these kinds of officials and managers are: Vice 
presidents and directors; group, regional or divisional controllers; 
treasurers; and human resources, information systems, marketing, and 
operations managers. The First/Mid Level Officials and Managers 
subcategory also includes those who report directly to middle managers. 
These individuals serve at functional, line of business segment or 
branch levels and are responsible for directing and executing the day-
to-day operational objectives of enterprises/organizations, conveying 
the directions of higher level officials and managers to subordinate 
personnel and, in some instances, directly supervising the activities 
of exempt and non-exempt personnel. Examples of these kinds of 
officials and managers are: First-line managers; team managers; unit 
managers; operations and production managers; branch managers; 
administrative services managers; purchasing and transportation 
managers; storage and distribution managers; call center or customer 
service managers; technical support managers; and brand or product 
managers.
    As employers begin the process of assigning Official and Manager 
positions to the appropriate subcategories, the EEOC will remain 
available to provide guidance concerning any particular questions that 
arise.

Classifying Jobs as Executive/Senior Level or First/Mid Level Officials 
and Managers

    The Commission also recognizes that commenters have valid 
objections to the use of the Occupational Classification Codes (OCC or 
Census codes) as a basis for subdividing Officials and Managers. See, 
e.g., Testimony of Cornelia B. Gamlem on behalf of SHRM; Testimony of 
H. Juanita M. Beecher of ORC Worldwide; Written Comments of EEAC. After 
revisiting this issue, the Commission agrees that Census codes should 
not be used to subdivide Officials and Managers. The census codes 
emphasize skill and training, regardless of level of responsibility, 
whereas the EEO-1 job categories--especially the management 
subcategories--emphasize differences in responsibility and influence. 
For example, in categorizing a computer and information systems 
manager, the Census codes would place the Chief Technology Officer at a 
headquarters of a large corporation (who has regular interaction with 
the CEO) in the same category as an IT manager at a regional office 
(who has little if any interaction with the CEO).
    Instead of using Census codes, the Commission will categorize 
Officials and Managers based on their level of responsibility and 
influence in the organizational hierarchy, as described above. The 
intention is for each subcategory of Officials and Managers to include 
individuals with equivalent levels of influence and responsibility at 
different organizations, even though their titles may not always be the 
same. Executive/Senior Level Officials and Managers are defined as 
those who plan, direct and formulate policy, set strategy and provide 
the overall direction of enterprises/organizations. They include, in 
larger organizations, those individuals within two reporting levels of 
the CEO, whose responsibilities require frequent interaction with the 
CEO. First/Mid Level Managers are defined as those who direct 
implementation or operations within the specific parameters established 
by Executive/Senior Level management, as well as those who oversee 
implementation of day-to-day goals.
    Moreover, in the past, the Officials and Managers category 
contained non-managerial officials with expertise in business and 
financial occupations. EEAC opposed the placement of these occupations 
within the Officials and Managers category, expressing doubt that their 
inclusion would improve the ability to assess the utilization of 
minorities and women in these activities. See Written Comments of EEAC. 
After further deliberation, EEOC concludes that in the revised ten 
category system, individuals in business and financial occupations 
should be assigned to the Professional category. Including these 
individuals within the Officials and Managers category makes the data 
on management officials less useful to EEOC in analyzing trends in 
mobility of minorities and women within the upper reaches of 
organizations.

Census Occupational Codes for Job Categories Other Than Officials and 
Managers

    Some commenters and witnesses generalized their arguments against

[[Page 71300]]

using Census occupational codes to subdivide Officials and Managers to 
make the broader point that Census codes should not be used to classify 
any jobs for the EEO-1. See, e.g., Testimony of H. Juanita M. Beecher 
of ORC Worldwide; Written Comments of ORC Worldwide; Written Comments 
of Bank One. Employer groups who opposed requiring the us of OCC codes 
to classify jobs, however, noted that this information was ``welcome as 
guidance'' from the Commission. See Written Testimony for Hearing of H. 
Juanita M. Beecher of ORC Worldwide; see also Written Comments of SHRM 
(recommending that the suggested Census occupational classification 
codes be a recommendation, but not a requirement). Consultant 
Christopher Northup, recognizing that the Census occupational codes had 
been provided to guide employers, said that the codes can be ``helpful 
and useful to employers'' to classify jobs in the EEO-1 job categories 
other than Officials and Managers. See Written Testimony for Hearing of 
Christopher Northup.
    The Commission believes that the Census codes may provide useful 
guidance for purposes of classifying jobs for the EEO-1. The Commission 
will offer, as an Internet reference and resource for employers, the 
EEO-1 ``Job Classification Guide,'' providing guidance about the range 
of Census occupational Codes for each broad EEO-1 job category.

Other Job Category Issues

    Commenters uniformly agreed that the proposal to renumber the EEO-1 
job categories, to move Service Workers from the ninth category up to 
the sixth category, would not improve the quality of EEO-1 data and 
would only impose a burden on employers. The Commission finds the 
arguments persuasive and will return to the same order for EEO-1 job 
categories as in the previous EEO-1 reports. Additionally, although 
MALDEF argued in favor of formally subdividing the EEO-1 category for 
Service Workers into sub-groups, the Commission will retain the current 
structure at this time. The four subcategories mentioned in the 
narrative description of the Service Workers in the ``Description of 
Job Categories''--food, cleaning, personal, and protective--were 
introduced to provide clarity and not to alter the reporting category 
itself.
    Some commenters inquired whether the changes to the descriptions 
for the Professionals and Technicians categories, as proposed in the 
initial June 11, 2003 notice, should change the way these jobs are 
reported on the EEO-1. These revisions reflect changing workforce 
dynamics as to the composition and number of occupations being measured 
but do not change reporting. For example, new jobs have been created 
(such as emergency medical technician) and other jobs have changed 
drastically (such as computer programmer). Similarly, many jobs with 
qualifications which, three decades ago, could be obtained through 
experience, now require specific educational attainment, especially 
those with scientific and technical components. Because the Commission 
is cognizant that the qualifications of certain jobs within the 
Professionals and Technicians categories can still be met through 
experience, however, that possibility is maintained in the revised 
descriptions.
    There is one alteration to the operating requirements that affects 
the Processional category. Individuals in business and financial 
occupations, previously reported in the Officials and Managers 
category, are assigned to the Professional category in the revised ten 
category system.

Establishments in the State of Hawaii

    In response to the June 11, 2003 proposal, one commenter requested 
that EEOC clarify EEO-1 reporting requirements for establishments in 
Hawaii. See Written Comments of Automatic Data Processing, Inc (ADP). 
Under the prior EEO-1 report, establishments located in Hawaii were not 
required to report the race/ethnicity of employees, but were instead 
permitted to report employment data by gender alone. This exemption was 
spelled out in Section D of the prior EEO-1 Instruction Booklet. The 
proposed revised EEO-1 Instruction Booklet, issued in conjunction with 
the June 11, 2003 proposal and available on the Commission's website at 
https://www.eeoc.gov/eeo1/newinstructionbooklet.html, removes this 
exemption. The final revised Instruction Booklet, as adopted by the 
Commission, does not exempt establishments located in Hawaii. 
Therefore, employers will need to complete the revised EEO-1, reporting 
the gender, race and ethnicity of employees in each of the new job 
categories, for establishments located in Hawaii.

Effective Date of the Revised Form

    The revised form will become effective with the 2007 EEO-1 
reporting deadline. At the hearing, employer representatives made 
persuasive arguments about the need for lead time in terms of 
budgeting, implementing and training personnel in order to submit the 
revised EEO-1 Report. See Response of Jeffrey Norris of EEAC to 
Question from Commissioner Miller. Additionally, the EEOC is now 
processing EEO-1 data internally and itself needs time to transition to 
the new format.

Resurveying the Workforce

    In an effort to minimize burden for employers during this 
transitional period, the Commission will not mandate that employers 
resurvey their workforce before submitting the first EEO-1 form in the 
new format. Employers should keep in mind, however, that opportunities 
to further resurvey without additional burden should be utilized as 
much and as soon as possible, for example, using routine updates of 
employees' personal information to obtain updated EEO-1 data. Employers 
also should seek self-identification of new employees under the new 
ethnic and racial categories as soon as possible. When covered 
employers start to report race and ethnic information using this new 
format for establishments in Hawaii, they will report ``Asians'' 
separately from ``Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders''.

PRA Burden Discussion

    Burden hours are made up of two components. First is the aggregate 
number of hours required to report the annual EEO-1 data. Second is a 
one-time estimate of total hours required for employers to implement 
the revised EEO-1.
    The Commission received several comments on its original estimate 
of respondent burden. Almost all the comments pertained to the estimate 
of the one-time burden associated with the proposed changes. Commenters 
believed that the Commission's estimates were too low.

Annual Burden Calculation

    The Commission's estimate of the annual reporting hours for the 
proposed form used as a baseline the long-established burden hours for 
the current EEO-1 report, or 402,700 hours. See infra. The revised 
estimate of burden for the new EEO-1 form was calculated based on the 
increase in the size of the new form over the old one. In terms of 
matrix cells, the revised form has 1.5 times as many cells as the old 
one. Thus, as a first step in the calculation, the new annual burden 
was estimated to be about 50% higher than the current burden, or 
599,000 hours.
    The EEOC introduced on-line filing with the 2003 EEO-1 submission. 
Preliminary reporting statistics show

[[Page 71301]]

that more than 80% of reporting employers are filing on-line. An EEO-1 
form filed on-line is estimated to take no more than one hour to 
complete, as compared to five hours for a paper form. Taking the 
proportion of on-line filers into account, it could be argued that the 
annual burden of the revised form is actually less than the estimated 
599,000 hours.

One-Time Implementation Burden

    The EEOC estimated that this on-time implementation nationwide 
would collectively take 572,000 hours. The Commission is estimating 3.4 
hours per EEO-1 report, based on historical EEO-1 processing statistics 
and the Commission's own in-house estimate of the time needed to 
implement these revisions. The Commission recognizes that larger 
employers would have a larger time investment. For instance, the 
largest employer in the EEO-1 file has almost 4,000 establishments, and 
thus files the equivalent of over 4,000 EEO-1 forms. At 3.4 hours per 
form, the estimate for this employer to implement the new EEO-1 is over 
13,000 staff hours. By contrast, for the over 14,000 employers who file 
one EEO-1 form each year, it would only take 3.4 hours each to 
implement the changes.

Overview of This Information Collection

    Collection Title: Employer Information Report (EEO-1).
    OMB Number: OMB Number 3046-0007.
    Frequency of Report: Annual.
    Type of Respondent: Private industry employers with 100 or more 
employees and certain federal government contractors and first-tier 
subcontractors with 50 or more employees.
    Description of Affected Public: Private industry employers with 100 
or more employees and certain federal government contractors and first 
tier subcontractors with 50 or more employees. The burden hours are 
translated into cost by multiplying the burden hours by the estimated 
average salary of a human resources, training, or labor relations 
specialist, the type of person who would most likely complete the 
annual EEO-1 form.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Current         Revised
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Reporting Hours..................         402,700         599,000
Annual Respondent Cost..................        \1\ $7.7       \1\ $11.4
Federal Cost............................        \1\ $1.3        \1\ $2.1
Number of Forms.........................               1               1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Million.

    Abstract: Section 709(c) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000e-8(c)), requires employers to make and 
keep records relevant to a determination of whether unlawful employment 
practices have been or are being committed and to make reports 
therefrom as required by the EEOC. Accordingly, the EEOC has issued 
regulations set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, 
Chapter XIV, subpart B, Sec.  1602.7 Employers in the private sector 
with 100 or more employees and some federal contractors with 50 or more 
employees have been required to submit EEO-1 reports annually since 
1966. The individual reports are confidential. The EEO-1 data are used 
by the EEOC to investigate charges of employment discrimination against 
employers in private industry and to provide information about the 
employment status of minorities and women. The data are shared with the 
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), Department of 
Labor, and several other federal agencies. Pursuant to section 709(d) 
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, EEO-1 data 
are also shared with eight-six State and loyal Fair Employment 
Practices Agencies (FEPAs).
    Burden Statement: The estimated number of respondents included in 
the annual EEO-1 report survey is 45,000 private employers. The 
estimated average number of establishment-based responses per reporting 
company is between 3 and 4 EEO-1 reports annually. The annual number of 
responses is approximately 170,000. The revised form is estimated to 
impose 599,000 burden hours annually. It is also estimated that the 
total implementation burden for the revision for all reporters will be 
about 572,000 hours or about $10.9 million.\12\ In order to help reduce 
survey burden, respondents are encouraged to report data electronically 
whenever possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ This estimate already factors in the cost to covered 
employers of completing the entire revised EEO-1 for establishments 
located in Hawaii, which, as noted above, includes for the first 
time reporting the race and ethnicity of employees. Because this 
additional cost is relatively minor, it was not excluded from burden 
estimates for previous EEO-1 reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EEO-1 Data on Race and Ethnicity

Revised Race and Ethnic Category Definitions

    Table 1 below compares the current EEO-1 race/ethnic categories in 
the first column, as they have appeared on the EEO-1 since 1977, with 
the revised EEO-1 categories in the second column. Definitions of the 
revised EEO-1 ethnicity and race categories are in accordance with the 
1997 revised standards and are as follows:

Ethnicity

    Hispanic or Latino--A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South 
or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of 
race.

Race

    White--A person having origins in any of the original peoples of 
Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.
    Black or African American--A person having origins in any of the 
Black racial groups of Africa.
    Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander--A person having origins 
in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific 
Islands.
    Asian--a person having origins in any of the original peoples of 
the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for 
example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the 
Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
    American Indian or Alaska Native--A person having origins in any of 
the original peoples of North and South America (including Central 
America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.
    Two or More Races--All persons who identify with more than one of 
the above five races.

[[Page 71302]]



        Table 1.--Current and Revised Race and Ethnic Categories
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Current EEO-1--(Answer for both male   Revised EEO-1--(Answer for both
              and female)                        male and female)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hispanic...............................  Hispanic or Latino--(This
                                          category includes all
                                          employees who answer--YES--to
                                          the question--are you Hispanic
                                          or Latino?
                                         Report in the appropriate
                                          categories below all employees
                                          who answer--NO--to the
                                          question--are you Hispanic or
                                          Latino?
White--(Not of Hispanic origin)........  White--(Not Hispanic or
                                          Latino).
Black--(Not of Hispanic origin)........  Black or African American--(Not
                                          Hispanic or Latino).
Asian or Pacific Islander..............  Native Hawaiian or Other
                                          Pacific Islander--(Not
                                          Hispanic or Latino).
                                         Asian--(Not Hispanic or
                                          Latino).
American Indian or Alaskan Native......  American Indian or Alaska
                                          Native--(Not Hispanic or
                                          Latino).
                                         Two or More Races--(Not
                                          Hispanic or Latino).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Race and Ethnicity Reporting Instructions on the Revised EEO-1

Race and Ethnic Identification

    Self-identification is the preferred method of identifying the race 
and ethnic information necessary for the EEO-1 report. Employers are 
strongly encouraged to use self-identification to complete the EEO-1 
report. If an employee declines to self-identify, employment records or 
observer identification may be used.
    As to the method for collecting data, the basic principles for 
ethnic and racial self-identification for purposes of the EEO-1 report 
are:
    1. Offer employees the opportunity to self-identify;
    2. Provide a statement about the voluntary nature of this inquiry 
for employees. For example, language such as the following may be used 
(employers may adapt this language):

    The employer is subject to certain governmental recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements for the administration of civil rights 
laws and regulations. In order to comply with these laws, the 
employer invites employees to voluntarily self-identify their race 
and ethnicity. Submission of this information is voluntary and 
refusal to provide it will not subject you to any adverse treatment. 
The information will be kept confidential and will only be used in 
accordance with the provisions of applicable laws, executive orders, 
and regulations, including those that require the information to be 
summarized and reported to the federal government for civil rights 
enforcement. When reported, data will not identify any specific 
individual.

EEO-1 Job Category Data

    Table 2 compares the current and the revised EEO-1 job categories:

           Table 2.--Current and Revised EEO-1 Job Categories
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Current EEO-1                        Revised EEO-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Officials and Managers.................  1.1 Executive/Senior Level
                                             Officials and Managers.
                                            1.2 First/Mid Level
                                             Officials and Managers.
2. Professionals..........................  2. Professionals.
3. Technicians............................  3. Technicians.
4. Sales Workers..........................  4. Sales Workers.
5. Office and Clerical....................  5. Administrative Support
                                             Workers.
6. Craft Workers (Skilled)................  6. Craft Workers.
7. Operatives (Semi-skilled)..............  7. Operatives.
8. Laborers (Unskilled)...................  8. Laborers and Helpers.
9. Service Workers........................  9. Service Workers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of Revised EEO-1 Job Categories

    The revised EEO-1 job categories are listed below, including a 
brief description of the skills and training required for occupations 
in that category and examples of the jobs that fit each category. These 
job categories are primarily based on average skill levels, knowledge, 
and responsibility involved in each occupation within the job category. 
They are not industry based. The examples presented below are 
illustrative and not intended to be exhaustive of all job titles in a 
job category.
    The Officials and Managers category as a whole is to be divided 
into the following two subcategories: Executive/Senior Level Officials 
and Managers and Fist/Mid Level Officials and Managers. These 
subcategories are intended to mirror the employer's own well-
established hierarchy of management positions. The subcategories will 
allow assessment of the extent to which minorities and women have 
access to power and decision making jobs in the employer's workforce. 
Small employers who may not have two well-defined hierarchical steps of 
management should report their management employees in the appropriate 
category.
    Executive/Senior Level Officials and Managers. Individuals who 
plan, direct and formulate policies, set strategy and provide the 
overall direction of enterprises/organizations for the development and 
delivery of products and services, within the parameters approved by 
boards of directors of other governing bodies. Residing in the highest 
levels of organizations, these executive plan, direct, or coordinate 
activities with the support of subordinate executives and staff 
managers. They include, in larger organizations, those individuals 
within two reporting levels of the CEO, whose responsibilities require 
frequent interaction with the CEO. Examples of these kinds of managers 
are: Chief executive officers, chief operating officers, chief 
financial officers, line of business heads, presidents or executive 
vice presidents of functional areas or operating groups, chief 
information officers, chief human resources officers, chief marketing 
officers, chief legal officers, management directors and managing 
partners.
    First/Mid Level Officials and Managers. Individuals who serve as 
managers, other than those who serve as Executive/Senior Level 
Officials and Managers, including those who oversee and direct the 
delivery of products, services or functions at group, regional or 
divisional levels of organizations. These managers receive directions 
from Executive/Senior Level management and typically lead major 
business units. They implement policies, programs and directives of 
Executive/Senior Level management through subordinate managers and 
within the parameters set by Executives/Senior Level management. 
Examples of these kinds of managers are: Vice presidents and directors; 
group, regional or divisional controllers; treasurers; and human 
resources, information systems, marketing, and operations managers. The 
First/Mid Level Officials and

[[Page 71303]]

Managers subcategory also includes those who report directly to middle 
managers. These individuals serve at functional, line of business 
segment or branch levels and are responsible for directing and 
executing the day-to-day operational objectives of enterprises/
organizations, conveying the directions of higher level officials and 
managers to subordinate personnel and, in some instances, directly 
supervising the activities of exempt and non-exempt personnel. Examples 
of these kinds of managers are: First-line managers; team managers; 
unit managers; operations and production managers; branch managers; 
administrative services managers; purchasing and transportation 
managers; storage and distribution managers; call center or customer 
service managers; technical support managers; and brand or product 
managers.
    Professionals. Most jobs in this category require bachelor and 
graduate degrees, and/or professional certification. In some instances, 
comparable experience may establish a person's qualifications. Examples 
of these kinds of positions include: Accountants and auditors; airplane 
pilots and flight engineers; architects; artists; chemists; computer 
programmers; designers; dieticians; editors; engineers; lawyers; 
librarians; mathematical scientists; natural scientists; registered 
nurses; physical scientists; physicians and surgeons; social 
scientists; teachers; and surveyors.
    Technicians. Jobs in this category include activities that require 
applied scientific skills, usually obtained by post-secondary education 
of varying lengths, depending on the particular occupation, recognizing 
that in some instances additional training, certification, or 
comparable experience is required. Examples of these types of positions 
include: Drafters; emergency medical technicians; chemical technicians; 
and broadcast and sound engineering technicians.
    Sales Workers. These jobs include non-managerial activities that 
wholly and primarily involve direct sales. Examples of these types of 
positions include: Advertising sales agents; insurance sales agents; 
real estate brokers and sales agents; wholesale sales representatives; 
securities, commodities, and financial services sales agents; 
telemarketers; demonstrators; retail salespersons; counter and rental 
clerks; and cashiers.
    Administrative Support Workers (formerly Office and Clerical). 
These jobs involve non-managerial tasks providing administrative and 
support assistance, primarily in office settings. Examples of these 
types of positions include: Office and administrative support workers; 
bookkeeping, accounting and auditing clerks; cargo and freight agents; 
dispatchers; couriers; data entry keyers; computer operators; shipping, 
receiving and traffic clerks; word processors and typists; 
proofreaders; desktop publishers; and general office clerks.
    Craft Workers (formerly Craft Workers (Skilled)). Most lobes in 
this category include higher skilled occupations in construction 
(building trades craft workers and their formal apprentices) and 
natural resource extraction workers. Examples of these types of 
positions include: Boilermakers; brick and stone masons; carpenter