71294 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 227 / Monday, November 28, 2005 / Notices 

reports of VAIP members is used by 

EPA to assess the success of the program 

in achieving its goals. The information 

contained in the annual reports may be 

considered confidential business 

information and is maintained as such. 

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, 

and a person is not required to respond 

to, a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. The OMB control numbers for 

EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed 

in 40 CFR part 9. 

Burden Statement: The annual public 

reporting and recordkeeping burden for 

this collection of information is 

estimated to average 98 hours per 

response. Burden means the total time, 

effort, or financial resources expended 

by persons to generate, maintain, retain, 

or disclose or provide information to or 

for a Federal agency. This includes the 

time needed to review instructions; 

develop, acquire, install, and utilize 

technology and systems for the purposes 

of collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

Respondents/Affected Entities: 

Primary Production of Aluminum. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 7. 

Frequency of Response: Annually. 

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 

689. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost: 

$51,478, which includes $0 annualized 

capital/startup costs, $0 annual O&M 

costs, and $51,478 annual labor costs. 

Changes in the Estimates: There is an 

increase of 105 hours in the total 

estimated burden currently identified in 

the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR 

Burdens. This increase is due to 

additional incremental effort to collect 

and report annual direct carbon dioxide 

(CO2) emissions data in addition to 

perfluorocarbon (PFC) data. Direct CO2

emissions result from the consumption 

of the carbon anode during the 

production of primary aluminum. 

Dated: November 16, 2005. 

Oscar Morales, 

Director, Collection Strategies Division. 

[FR Doc. E5–6601 Filed 11–25–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–8003–2] 

Science Advisory Board Staff Office; 

Notification of a Science Advisory 

Board Workshop: Science for 

Valuation of EPA’s Ecological 

Protection Decisions and Programs 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The EPA Science Advisory 

Board (SAB) is conducting a workshop 

on Science for Valuation of EPA’s 

Ecological Protection Decisions and 

Programs. The Workshop is open to 

public observers, however, seating for 

the public is limited and available on a 

first-come basis to those who preregister (see Workshop Registration 

Instructions, below). 

DATES: The SAB Workshop will be held 

on Tuesday, December 13, 2005, from 9 

a.m. until 6 p.m., and from 8:30 a.m. 

until 12 p.m. on Wednesday, December 

14, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: The SAB Workshop will be 

held at the Ronald Reagan Building, 

1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20004. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any 

member of the public wishing further 

information concerning this workshop 

should contact Ms. Marie Gernes, EPA 

Science Advisory Board Staff Office 

(1400F), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

(202) 343–9975; Fax (202) 233–0643; or 

via e-mail at gernes.marie@epa.gov. 

General information about the EPA 

Science Advisory Board may be found 

on the SAB Web site (http:// 

www.epa.gov/sab). 

Workshop Registration Instructions: 

Members of the public wishing to 

observe the Workshop must pre-register 

no later than 12 noon Eastern Time on 

Monday, December 5, 2005. Please preregister via e-mail or fax to Ms. Marie 

Gernes (see above information), 

providing your name, title, organization, 

mailing address, phone and e-mail. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SAB 

was established by 42 U.S.C. 4365 to 

provide independent scientific and 

technical advice, consultation, and 

recommendations to the EPA 

Administrator on the technical basis for 

Agency positions and regulations. The 

SAB Committee on Valuing the 

Protection of Ecological Systems and 

Services (C–VPESS) is undertaking a 

study to assess the current state of 

science in this area. The SAB is 

convening this workshop to learn about 

recent developments in ecological 

valuation methods and better 

understand the potential applications 

and implications of these methods for 

valuation programs at EPA. The 

Workshop participants will include 

advisory members of the SAB, the Clean 

Air Scientific Advisory Committee 

(CASAC), the Advisory Council on 

Clean Air Compliance Analysis 

(Council), their committees, and invited 

EPA and outside experts in valuation of 

ecological services. 

A draft Workshop agenda is posted on 

the SAB Web site under ‘‘Recent 

Additions’’ (http://www.epa.gov/sab/ 

whatsnew.htm). An updated agenda will 

be posted prior to the Workshop. 

Workshop Proceedings will be made 

available at a date to be announced on 

the SAB Web site. 

Accessibility: For information on 

access or services for individuals with 

disabilities, please contact Ms. Marie 

Gernes at 202–343–9975 or 

gernes.marie@epa.gov. To request 

accommodation of a disability, please 

contact Ms. Gernes, preferably at least 

ten days prior to the workshop, to give 

EPA as much time as possible to process 

your request. 

Dated: November 18, 2005. 

Vanessa Vu, 

Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff 

Office. 

[FR Doc. E5–6582 Filed 11–25–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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, 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 227 / Monday, November 28, 2005 / Notices 71295 

1The proposed EEO–1 Report form and the June 

11, 2003 Notice can be found at: http:// 

www.eeoc.gov/eeo1. 

2See http://www.eeoc.gov/eeo1survey/ 

whomustfile.html (who must file EEO–1). 

3See 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). 

4Revisions 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’’). 

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. Thirtytwo 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. 

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 http:// 

www.eeoc.gov/stats/reports/ 

womenofcolor. 

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. 

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 selfreporting rather than visual 

identification. The public comments to 

the June 11, 2003 Notice primarily 

focused on the Commission’s strong 

endorsement of employee selfidentification; 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 selfidentification, 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 

71296 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 227 / Monday, November 28, 2005 / Notices 

5See 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 selfidentification). 

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. Selfidentification 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 selfidentification was preferred. See 

Revised Standards, supra note 5.5 The 

Commission agrees that selfidentification is necessary when Federal 

reports enumerate the racial and ethnic 

backgrounds of individuals. 

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 selfidentify. 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 227 / Monday, November 28, 2005 / Notices 71297 

6The 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, § 1 (New York Region), 

at 1. 

7Statistical Policy Directive No. 15, ‘‘Race and 

Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and 

Administrative Reporting,’’ 43 FR 19269, May 4, 

1978. 

8See 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. 

9See 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). 

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. 

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 twoquestion 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 twoquestion format is part of this ongoing 

effort to design federal reports that yield 

a more accurate count of Hispanics or 

Latinos.9

71298 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 227 / Monday, November 28, 2005 / Notices 

10U.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. 

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. 

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 selfidentify 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. 

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 selfmonitoring, 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 ‘midlevel’ 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. 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 227 / Monday, November 28, 2005 / Notices 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 nonmanagerial 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 

71300 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 227 / Monday, November 28, 2005 / Notices 

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 subgroups, 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 http:// 

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 selfidentification 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 onetime 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 longestablished 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 227 / Monday, November 28, 2005 / Notices 71301 

12This 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. 

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, § 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. 

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. 

71302 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 227 / Monday, November 28, 2005 / Notices 

TABLE 1.—CURRENT AND REVISED RACE AND ETHNIC CATEGORIES

Current EEO–1—(Answer for both male and female) Revised EEO–1—(Answer for both 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 (Semiskilled).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 wellestablished 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 227 / Monday, November 28, 2005 / Notices 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; carpenters; electricians; 

painters (both construction and 

maintenance); glaziers; pipelayers, 

plumbers, pipefitters and steamfitters; 

plasterers; roofers; elevator installers; 

earth drillers; derrick operations; oil and 

gas rotary drill operators; and blasters 

and explosive workers. This category 

includes occupations related to the 

installation, maintenance and part 

replacement of equipment, machines 

and tools, such as: Automotive 

mechanics; aircraft mechanics; and 

electric and electronic equipment 

repairers. This category also includes 

some production occupations that are 

distinguished by the high degree of skill 

and precision required to perform them, 

based on clearly defined task 

specifications, such as: millwrights; 

etchers and engravers; tool and die 

makers; and pattern makers. 

Operatives (formerly Operatives 

(Semi-skilled)). Most jobs in this 

category include intermediate skilled 

occupations and include workers who 

operate machines or factor-related 

processing equipment. Most of these 

occupations do not usually require more 

than several months of training. 

Examples include: Textile machine 

operators; laundry and dry cleaning 

workers; photographic process workers; 

weaving machine operators; electrical 

and electronic equipment assemblers; 

semiconductor processors; testers, 

graders and sorters; bakers; and butchers 

and other meat, poultry and fish 

processing workers. This category also 

includes occupations of generally 

intermediate skill levels that are 

concerned with operating and 

controlling equipment to facilitate the 

movement of people or materials, such 

as: Bridge and lock tenders; truck, bus 

or taxi drivers; industrial truck and 

tractor (forklift) operators; parking lot 

attendants; sailors; conveyor operations; 

and hand packers and packagers. 

Laborers and Helpers (formerly 

Laborers (Unskilled)). Jobs in this 

category include workers with more 

limited skills who require only brief 

training to perform tasks that require 

little or no independent judgment. 

Examples include: Production and 

construction worker helpers; vehicle 

and equipment cleaners; laborers; 

freight, stock and material movers; 

service station attendants; construction 

laborers; refuse and recyclable materials 

collectors; septic tank servicers; and 

sewer pipe cleaners. 

Service Workers. Jobs in this category 

include food service, cleaning service, 

personal service, and protective service 

activities. Skill may be acquired through 

formal training, job-related training or 

direct experience. Examples of food 

service positions include: Cooks; 

bartenders; and other food service 

workers. Examples of personal service 

positions include: Medical assistants 

and other healthcare support 

occupations; hairdressers; ushers; and 

transportation attendants. Examples of 

cleaning service positions include: 

cleaners; janitors; and porters. Examples 

of protective service positions include: 

Transit and railroad police and fire 

fighters; guards; private detectives and 

investigators. 

As employers begin the process of 

assigning their employees to the revised 

ten category system, the EEOC will 

remain available to provide guidance 

concerning questions that arise. 

For the Commission. 

Cari M. Dominguez, 

Chair. 

[FR Doc. 05–23359 Filed 11–25–05; 8:45am] 

BILLING CODE 6570–01–M 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Notices 

* * * * * 

DATE AND TIME: Thursday, December 1, 

2005, at 10 a.m. 

PLACE: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, 

DC (ninth floor). 

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the 

public. 

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED: 

Correction and approval of minutes. 

Final rules and explanation and 

justification for state party committees 

paying salaries of employees who spend 

under 25% of their compensated time 

on federal elections. 

Routine administrative matters.