10998 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Notices

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET

Standard Occupational Classification

Revision Policy Committee Proposal

To Revise the SOC

AGENCY: Office of Management and

Budget, Executive Office of the

President.

ACTION: Notice of solicitation of

comments.

SUMMARY: Under title 44 U.S.C. 3504,

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) is announcing its process for

revising the Standard Occupational

Classification (SOC), and is soliciting

public comment on its proposal to

develop a new occupational

classification system based on a unified

concept. OMB plans future public

comment periods after completion of

major milestones in the revision process

including: (1) The Standard

Occupational Classification Revision

Policy Committee’s (SOCRPC)

recommendations to OMB on the

principles and unified conceptual

framework to use to guide the revision

(fall 1995) and (2) the SOCRPC’s

recommendations for changes to the

existing SOC at the 4-digit level based

on the agreed upon principles and

unified conceptual framework (fall

1996). The SOC revision is tentatively

scheduled for implementation

beginning in July, 1997. All Federal

agencies that collect occupational data

are expected to utilize the new system.

REQUESTS FOR COMMENTS: The Standard

Occupational Classification Revision

Policy Committee welcomes comments

with respect to any topic related to

occupational classification, including:

1. The uses of occupational data,

2. The purpose and scope of

occupational classification,

3. The principles underlying the

current SOC,

4. Conceptual options for the new

SOC, and

5. The SOC Revision Policy

Committee process.

DATES: To ensure consideration in the

development of the principles and

unified conceptual framework to guide

the revision of the SOC, all comments

must be in writing and received on or

before March 31, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Please send comments to

Thomas J. Plewes, Chairman, Standard

Occupational Classification Revision

Policy Committee, U.S. Bureau of Labor

Statistics, Suite 4945, 2 Massachusetts

Avenue, NE., Washington, DC 20212.

Interested parties may also send

comments via E-mail, to

RossllL:PSB@Cmail.bls.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laura Ross, U.S. Bureau of Labor

Statistics, telephone number 202–606–

6505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

following sections of this notice provide

a brief history of the SOC and further

elaboration of topics on which

comments are explicitly sought.

History

The development of a Standard

Occupational Classification (SOC) began

in December 1966 on the

recommendation of the Interagency

Committee on Occupational

Classification. The Committee’s

recommendation was based on the

results of an inquiry on occupational

information circulated to Government

agencies in August 1965 by the then

Bureau of the Budget. This inquiry

asked 28 agencies for their views on the

desirability of establishing a Standard

Occupational Classification, similar to

the Standard Industrial Classification,

for general use in classifying

occupational data. Most of the agencies

favored establishing such a system.

The desirability of establishing a

Standard Occupational Classification

actually had been recognized many

years earlier. At the time of the 1940

Census of Population, a publication,

Convertibility List of Occupations with

Conversion Tables and Industrial

Classification for Reports from

Individuals, was developed by a joint

committee of the Bureau of the Budget

and the American Statistical

Association. The main purpose of the

publication was to develop a bridge

between the occupational classification

system used in the 1940 Census and that

used by the U.S. Employment Service to

classify its operating statistics.

Subsequent modifications in the Census

classification system and publication of

the third edition of the Dictionary of

Occupational Titles (DOT) rendered the

earlier convertibility list obsolete.

The situation when the SOC project

began in the mid-1960’s was, therefore,

essentially the same as it had been in

the early 1940’s. The two principal

systems of occupational classification,

those of the Bureau of the Census and

of the U.S. Employment Service, needed

reconciliation. However, the issue was

of even greater concern than in the

earlier period because a number of

Government agencies had created their

own occupational classification systems

for specific purposes, thereby

compounding the initial problem. In

addition, requirements in Federal

legislation resulted in increased

demands for occupational data on a

more comparable basis.

After an initial attempt to produce a

Government-wide occupational

classification standard in 1977, the 1980

Standard Occupational Classification

(SOC) Manual was prepared through the

collaborative efforts of numerous

Federal agencies concerned with

occupational information. It served as

the foundation for the 1980 Census of

Population Classified Index of

Industries and Occupations as well as

for a revised system for the Bureau of

Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational

Employment Statistics (OES) program,

although neither system fully adopted

the SOC. The 1980 SOC Manual

includes descriptions of the content of

each occupation together with a list of

corresponding occupations from the

1977 Dictionary of Occupational Titles

(DOT). This list of corresponding DOT

occupations formed the basis of the

current occupational crosswalks used to

link various Federal occupational

classification systems. When the revised

OES system was implemented in 1983,

a crosswalk was prepared linking it to

the 1980 SOC, the 1977 DOT, and the

1980 Census of Population systems. As

each system has added occupations, the

original crosswalk has been updated to

indicate the equivalent occupations in

the other systems.

In the past few years, the BLS and the

Employment and Training

Administration (ETA) have been

working together to organize activities

aimed at developing information and

new concepts related to classification

principles for a new SOC. These

activities have included commissioning

papers on major occupational

classification issues.

In 1993, the Advisory Panel for the

Dictionary of Occupational Titles

(APDOT) issued a report entitled The

New DOT: A Database of Occupational

Titles for the Twenty-First Century. ′In

this report, the APDOT recommended

creating a new database system that

would identify and describe the skills,

knowledge, and competencies needed in

the changing work place.

BLS sponsored an International

Occupational Classification Conference,

held in June 1993, at which both

specially commissioned and numerous

other papers were presented. The

Conference provided a forum for the

discussion of new ideas and alternative

approaches to occupational

classification issues and served to

introduce revision activities for the U.S.

SOC. The approximately 100

participants represented statistical

agencies from several countries, Statelevel interests, professional associations,

academia, and relevant Federal

agencies.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Notices 10999

1Copies of the International Occupational

Classification Conference proceedings may be

obtained by writing to the Occupational

Employment Statistics Program, Suite 4840, 2

Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Washington, DC 20212,

or calling 202–606–6569.

The conference was organized around

five modules: (1) Perspectives of current

occupational systems; (2) new

challenges and alternative approaches to

occupational classification; (3) user

needs and experiences with different

occupational classification systems; (4)

possibilities for a unifying classification

system; and (5) international

perspectives on occupational

classification. The proceedings from the

conference were published in

September 1993.1 At the conclusion of

the conference, there was agreement

that work should begin on developing a

new SOC.

The changing world of work requires

a new approach to statistical

classification, such as developing a

single system to meet multiple needs or

using a single database to develop

multiple classifications. Therefore, a

revision of the SOC is being undertaken.

The Office of Management and Budget

has formed the Standard Occupational

Classification Revision Policy

Committee to coordinate activities

leading to a new SOC. The charter for

that committee is included near the end

of this notice.

Uses of Occupational Data

When devising a data classification

system, it is crucial to begin with a clear

vision of how the data to be classified

will be used in order to structure the

classification to maximize the

usefulness of the data. The uses of

occupational data vary widely. Uses

include investigating the supply and

demand of labor, planning education

and training programs, fostering career

choices and facilitating placement,

studying labor mobility, analyzing the

return on alternative investments in

human capital, establishing comparable

pay schedules, surveying labor

productivity, and assessing employment

benefits, stability, and working

conditions. Not all of such uses will be

equally well-served by any given

classification.

Moreover, existing occupational

information systems typically have data

and information from various sources

such as the Census of Population and

Housing, the OES surveys, and the DOT.

Currently, crosswalks provide bridges

from one system to another. In the

National Occupational Information

Coordinating Committee’s Occupational

Information System, data from these

different sources are presented together

through the use of these crosswalks.

Unfortunately, linkages from

occupations in one system to another

are not always exact. In these cases, the

crosswalk uses a ‘‘best fit’’ approach to

link the systems. If Federal agencies all

used one classification system, an SOC,

the need for a crosswalk would be

obviated or at least minimized.

Request for Comments

The Committee invites comments

from members of the public on their

uses of occupational data and the

applicability of existing and potential

classification systems to those uses.

Descriptions of specific strengths and

shortcomings users have experienced

with data based on the existing

occupational classification systems,

including experiences related to the

need to employ crosswalks, are most

welcome.

Purpose and Scope of the SOC

The Standard Occupational

Classification provides a mechanism for

cross-referencing and aggregating

occupation-related data collected by

social and economic statistical reporting

programs. The system is designed to

maximize the analytical utility of

statistics on labor force, employment,

income, and other occupational data

collected for a variety of purposes by

various agencies of the United States

Government, State agencies,

professional associations, labor unions

and private research organizations.

The classification covers all

occupations in which work is performed

for pay or profit, including work

performed in family-operated

enterprises where direct remuneration

may or may not be made to family

members. The SOC may also be used to

classify volunteers, but occupations

unique to volunteer settings were not

included in the 1980 SOC.

The SOC provides a coding system

and nomenclature for identifying and

classifying occupations within a

framework suitable for use in and out of

government. However, because of the

vast amount of occupational detail that

was considered in developing such a

system, and the wide variety of uses of

occupational data, it was not possible to

construct a system that would meet the

specific needs of all organizations. The

level of detail, for example, may not be

sufficient for specialized analytical

purposes or for internal organizational

management requirements. In such

cases, however, approaches generally

can be taken that will not conflict with

the overall scheme of the system.

Request for Comments

The Committee invites comments on

the purpose and scope of the SOC.

Principles Underlying the Current SOC

The principles adopted in the new

SOC should be relevant to the existing

world of work. The twelve classification

principles used in the 1980 SOC are

listed below. Following some of the

principles are questions designed to

facilitate public comment.

1. The classification should

realistically reflect the current

occupational structure of the United

States.

Should the new system attempt to

reflect what analysts see as the future

occupational structure?

2. An occupation should be classified

on the basis of work performed. Skill

level, training, education, licensing and

credential requirements usually

associated with job performance should

be considered only when an inaccurate

picture of the occupational structure

would be presented without such

consideration.

Should work performed continue to

be the underlying principle of

classification in the new SOC, or should

skills or something else provide a new

basis for classification?

3. Place of work (industry) should be

considered in classifying an occupation

only when the work setting alters the

nature of the work sufficiently to

warrant separate classification. For

example, cooks in private households

and commercial settings were classified

in different unit groups because work is

significantly dissimilar in their

respective work settings.

4. The occupations should be

classified in homogeneous groups that

can be defined so that the content of

each group is well delineated.

What factor(s) should be used to

determine what is an occupational

group?

5. An occupation that combines two

distinct activities should be classified in

one group on the basis of the primary

activity—the one that accounts for the

major portion of the worker’s time.

However, in cases where one activity

requires special skills that are crucial in

carrying out the duties of the occupation

(although not required for as much time

as other activities), that activity should

determine the classification of the

occupation.

Approximately what percentage of

time should a worker in an occupation

perform the highest skilled activity in

order for the occupation to be classified

based on that skill?

6. Each occupation should be

assigned to only one group at the most
11000 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Notices

2 Information on the Census classification system

can be obtained by contacting the Bureau of the

Census, HHES, Iverson Mall, Room 416, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20233–

3300, or calling 301–763–8574.

3 Information on the OES classification system

can be obtained by writing the Bureau of Labor

Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics

Program, Suite 4840, 2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE.,

Washington, DC 20212, or calling 202–606–6569.

4 Information on the DOT can be obtained by

writing the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment

and Training Administration, Room N4470, 200

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20210 or

by calling 202–219–7161. Copies can be obtained by

contacting the U.S. Government Printing Office, 732

North Capitol St., NW., Washington, DC 20401 or

calling 202–512–1800.

5The ISCO can be obtained by contacting the

International Labour Organisation (ILO),

International Labour Office, CH–1211 Geneva 22,

Switzerland or ILO Publications, 49 Sheridan

Avenue, Albany, NY 12210 or by calling 518–436–

9686, ext. 123.

6The NOC can be obtained by contacting Canada

Communication Group—Publishing, Ottawa,

Canada K1A 0S9 or by calling 819–956–4802.

detailed level of the classification

system (unit group).

7. Large size should not by itself be

considered sufficient reason for separate

identification of a group.

8. Small size should not by itself be

considered sufficient reason for

excluding a group from separate

identification, although size must be

considered, or the system could become

too large to be useful.

9. Supervisors should be identified

separately from the workers they

supervise wherever possible in keeping

with the real structure of the world of

work.

The 1980 SOC did not separately

identify those who supervise

professional or technical workers.

Should any distinction be made

between supervisors and workers in the

case of professional or technical

workers?

10. Apprentices and trainees should

be classified with the occupations for

which training is being taken.

11. Helpers should be identified

separately when their work is such that

they are not in training for the

occupation for which they are providing

help, or if their work is truly different.

Is there a need to distinguish among

these workers according to the type of

worker that they assist?

12. The need for comparability to the

International Standard Classification of

Occupations (ISCO) should be

considered in developing the new

structure, but it should not be an

overriding factor.

Should the ISCO be the anchor for the

U.S. system? (Please refer to the

description of ISCO 88 below.)

Request for Comments

The Committee invites comments on

the principles used in the current SOC.

Suggestions for alternative principles

are particularly welcomed.

Conceptual Options for the New SOC

The Policy Committee has identified

four broad conceptual foundations of

occupational classification systems: (1)

The type of work performed, for

example, the 1980 SOC, the U.S. Bureau

of the Census system, the Dictionary of

Occupational Titles (DOT) of the

Employment and Training

Administration, and the Occupational

Employment Statistics (OES) system of

the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; (2)

the International Standard Classification

of Occupations (ISCO); (3) a skills-based

system, for example, the National

Occupational Classification (NOC) of

Canada; and (4) an economic-based

system.

(1) Type of Work Performed

The two major sources of

occupational employment data in the

U.S., the Census of Population and the

OES survey, are based on the 1980 SOC.

Both use classification systems based

primarily upon work performed. The

Census system, used to collect

occupational data from households,

consists of 501 occupations; 2 the OES

system, used to collect data from

establishments, consists of 760

occupations.3 The DOT, used by the

U.S. Employment Service, consists of

more than 12,000 titles that also are

based primarily on work performed.4

(2) The International Standard

Classification of Occupations (ISCO–88)

ISCO–88 has a dual framework: The

concept of the kind of work performed,

or job; and the concept of skill. Job is

defined as a set of tasks and duties

executed by one person. It is the

statistical unit classified by ISCO–88. A

set of jobs whose main tasks and duties

are characterized by a high degree of

similarity constitutes an occupation.

Persons are classified by occupation

through their relationship to a past,

present or future job.

Skill is defined as the ability to carry

out the tasks and duties of a given job.

It has two dimensions—skill level,

which is a function of the complexity

and range of the tasks and duties

involved, and skill specialization,

which is defined by the field of

knowledge required, the tools and

machinery used, the materials worked

on or with, as well as the kinds of goods

and services produced.

These were the basis for the

delineation and further aggregation of

the occupational groups in ISCO–88. In

part due to the international properties

of the classification, only four broad

skill levels were defined, each according

to the categories that appear in the

International Standard Classification of

Education (ISCED). Although there is a

direct linkage with educational

attainment, it does not follow that the

skills necessary to perform the tasks and

duties of a given job can be acquired

only through formal education. Skills

often are acquired through informal

training and experience.5

There are some obstacles that may

limit the desirability of completely

adopting ISCO–88 for the U.S. SOC. A

major focus of a new SOC would be to

meet user needs that center on job

placement, career guidance, and

program planning; less demand exists

for internationally-comparable

occupational data. Only four skill levels

are identified in ISCO–88, based upon

formal education or vocational training,

which are the basis for identifying major

occupational groups. This leads to major

groups that are somewhat divergent,

resulting in a classification system that

is not markedly different from existing

‘‘work content based’’ occupational

classifications.

(3) Skills-Based Systems

Discussions about skills-based

occupational classification concepts

often are difficult, because the term

‘‘skills’’ means different things to

different people. A number of other

countries have dealt with this issue in

revising their national classification

systems, and it is useful to look to their

experiences.

The National Occupational

Classification of Canada merits study

since Canada and the United States have

a great deal in common in terms of

occupational structure. The two major

attributes that were used as

classification criteria in developing the

NOC were skill level and skill type.

Other factors, such as industry and

occupational mobility, also were taken

into consideration. Skill level is defined

as the amount and type of education

and training required to enter and

perform the duties of an occupation. In

determining skill level, the experience

required for entry and the complexity of

the responsibilities typical of an

occupation were also considered. Four

skill levels are identified in the NOC: 6

Skill Level A

—University degree (bachelor’s,

master’s, or other post-graduate)
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Notices 11001

7Cain, Glen, W. Lee Hansen, and Burton A.

Weisbrod, ‘‘Occupational Classification: An

Economic Approach.’’ Monthly Labor Review,

February 1967, pp. 48–52.

8Welch, Finis, ‘‘Linear Synthesis of Skill

Distribution,’’ Journal of Human Resources, Volume

4, 1969, pp. 311–327.

9For more information, see the Federal Register,

Vol. 58, No. 60, March 31, 1993, pp. 16990–17004

and Vol. 59, No. 142, July 26, 1993, pp. 38092–96.

10Rosen, Sherwin, ‘‘The Theory of Equalizing

Differences,’’ in Orley Ashenfelter and Richard

Layard, eds., Handbook of Labor Economics,

Volume I, New York: North Holland, 1986, pp. 641–

692.

Skill Level B

—Two to three years of post-secondary

education at community college or

institute of technology, or

—Two to four years of apprenticeship

training, or

—Three to four years of secondary

school and more than two years of onthe-job training, training courses, or

specific work experience

—Occupations with supervisory

responsibilities

—Occupations with significant health

and safety responsibilities

Skill Level C

—One to four years of secondary school

education

—Up to two years of on-the-job training,

training courses, or specific work

experience

Skill Level D

—Up to two years of secondary school

and short work demonstration or onthe-job training

Skill type is defined generally as the

type of work performed, although other

factors related to skill type are also

reflected in the NOC. One of these

factors is similarity with respect to the

education field of study required for

entry into an occupation. Another factor

is the industry of employment, where

experience within an internal job ladder

or within an industry is usually a

prerequisite for entry. The ten broad

occupational categories, based on skill

type, identified in the NOC are:

O. Management Occupations

1. Business, Finance, and

Administration

2. Natural and Applied Sciences and

Related Occupations

3. Health Occupations

4. Occupations in Social Science,

Education, Government Service, and

Religion

5. Occupations in Art, Culture,

Recreation, and Sport

6. Sales and Service

7. Trades, Transport and Equipment

Operators, and Related Occupations

8. Occupations Unique to Primary

Industry

9. Occupations Unique to Processing,

Manufacturing, and Utilities

While the NOC changes the way in

which occupations are grouped, it does

not change the basic definition of what

constitutes an individual occupation.

Some advocates of skills-based systems

suggest that occupations should be

distinguished by their unique

combinations of skills. There is no

system currently that uses this type of

combined skills base to classify

individual occupations.

(4) Economic-Based Systems

As has been recognized explicitly in

ongoing work by the Economic

Classification Policy Committee (ECPC)

(1993), classification systems should be

designed to facilitate the uses of the

information they provide. For example,

data on employment and wages

classified by occupation are used by

researchers and policy makers to

analyze a variety of labor market issues.

As initially pointed out by Cain,

Hansen, and Weisbrod (1967),7 to be

useful for economic analysis,

occupational groupings should be

relatively homogeneous in the sense

that a high degree of substitutability

should exist within each group

compared to between groups. Two

alternative approaches, each based on a

consistent economic concept, have been

suggested. A demand-based approach

would group jobs or workers based on

how employers choose to utilize

different types of labor. A supply-based

approach would group workers based

on how individuals choose how much

labor to supply and what jobs to enter.

A demand-based approach would

build on the technological relationship

between outputs and inputs that

economists term a ‘‘production

function.’’ Given a production function,

together with product prices, wages of

different types of labor, and prices of

other inputs, firms will choose labor

and other inputs so as to maximize

profits or minimize costs. A demandbased classification approach would

view an occupation essentially as a

bundle of worker characteristics or

skills that are needed to produce the

product (for example, see Welch

(1969).8

Such a system would be invaluable

for analyzing a variety of issues

pertaining to labor demand. For

example, it would be helpful in

studying how the economy’s demands

for low and high skilled labor are

changing over time due to changing

technology and increasing globalization.

A demand-based system would be of

interest to researchers and policy

makers, students deciding what types of

courses to take, and unemployed

workers searching for work. Another

attractive feature of a demand-based

occupational classification system is

that it would be logically consistent

with the production-based industrial

classification system being developed

by the Economic Classification Policy

Committee.9

A supply-based conceptual approach

would group occupations on the basis of

considerations workers care about such

as their incomes and the consumption

aspects of their jobs (see Rosen, 1986).10

Measurable attributes that are important

to workers include the cost of obtaining

the requisite skills, the risk of layoff and

subsequent unemployment, onerous

working conditions, such as risks to life

and health and exposure to pollution,

and special work-time scheduling and

related requirements, including shift

work and inflexible work schedules. A

supply-based approach would group

occupations according to these

attributes. The resulting classification

system would yield data of interest to

both researchers and policy makers.

Both the demand-based and supplybased approaches motivate attention to

some measure of skills in a

classification system. Seemingly very

different functions could require

virtually identical skills. For example, a

manufacturing firm may have a number

of jobs in which workers perform

different functions, but which require

very little specific training and similar

computer skills, motor coordination,

interpersonal skills, and amounts of

education. Because the workers in these

positions will have similar skills and be

nearly interchangeable, a demand-based

argument would justify their being

grouped together. If the positions do not

differ in terms of working conditions,

scheduling, and so forth, a supply-based

argument would also indicate that they

should be grouped together. From the

research economist’s point of view, it is

difficult to justify a system that makes

detailed distinctions between

occupations that require very similar

skills and have very similar job

attributes. Economic theory also

suggests that more detail is required

across high skill occupations than

across low skill occupations because

demand- and supply-based substitution

is much more difficult and costly across

high skill jobs than across low skill jobs.

Request for Comments

The Committee invites comments on

any aspect of the alternative

classification concepts. Specificity is

encouraged particularly in commenting
11002 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Notices

on either the skills-based or economicbased concepts. This will help ensure

that the Committee will interpret the

comments properly.

Standard Occupational Classification

Revision Policy Committee Charter

Background

Concerns with the quality of the U.S.

work force, skill formation and training

issues, and changes in occupational

structures due to new technology,

competitive economic pressures, and

shifts to forms of ‘‘high performance’’

work organization, have focused

attention on the quality of occupational

information and statistics. Current

occupational data and their underlying

classification structures have come

under criticism for being fragmented,

incompatible, outdated, and lacking in

skills information. Many users and

producers of occupational data feel that

it is time to revise the U.S. Standard

Occupational Classification (SOC)

system to develop a unified

classification structure that meets the

occupational statistics and information

needs of the twenty-first century.

The 1993 International Occupational

Classification Conference provided a

forum for the discussion of new ideas

and alternative approaches to

occupational classification issues. The

Conference included many individuals

and agencies directly involved with the

occupational classification user

community, as well as international

occupational experts from numerous

countries. The papers, discussions, and

ideas generated at the conference will

serve to inform revision activities for the

SOC.

Establishment of the SOC Revision

Policy Committee

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) is hereby establishing a Standard

Occupational Classification Revision

Policy Committee, chaired by the

Bureau of Labor Statistics, with

representatives from the Bureau of the

Census, the Employment and Training

Administration, the Office of Personnel

Management, the Defense Manpower

Data Center, and, ex officio, the National

Science Foundation and the Office of

Management and Budget.

Charge to the Committee

The Policy Committee is charged with

an examination of the Federal

Government’s various occupational

classification systems for statistical and

administrative uses, and with providing

recommendations to OMB on the

structure and implementation of a new

SOC. This is a large undertaking with

implications for the accuracy and utility

of all occupation-related statistical data.

The charge to the Committee includes:

(1) Identifying the major statistical uses

of occupational classifications; (2)

identifying and developing new

concepts, structures, and methodologies

to determine what constitutes an

occupation; (3) developing and

empirically testing a standard

classification system based on these

concepts; (4) planning the

implementation of the new

classification system; and (5) ensuring

that there is ample opportunity for

widespread public participation in the

revision process.

Classification Structure Criteria

The principal use of a revised SOC

would be statistical, but it also would

serve as a framework for administrative

purposes and other occupational

classifications. The Policy Committee

should evaluate the utility of alternative

classification structures in consideration

of the following: (1) Ensuring

compatibility between the descriptive

material of the new Dictionary of

Occupational Titles (DOT) and the

revised SOC; (2) current public interest

in a skills-based classification system;

(3) users’ needs for historical

comparability of data; (4) ability to

measure the concept in the context of its

uses; (5) the expertise of other countries

in revising national classification

systems; (6) desirability, but not

necessity, of compatibility with

international occupational classification

systems; and (7) the need for all Federal

Government occupational classification

systems to be part of the SOC

framework.

Committee Process

The Policy Committee should adopt

processes that ensure ample opportunity

for public participation. These processes

should involve all stakeholders,

including the range of occupational data

users, both government and private, as

well as data collectors and data

providers. The Policy Committee should

consider forming a Consultation Group,

composed of Federal agencies not

represented on the Policy Committee.

Such a group would meet on a flow

basis, as necessary, to provide input to

the work of the Policy Committee.

Notice of the Policy Committee’s work

should be widespread and should be

published in the Federal Register for all

interested public and private parties.

Interested parties will be given the

opportunity to be included on a mailing

list.

The conceptual framework for the

new SOC should be completed prior to

July 1995 to allow for testing related to

the 2000 Census. The completed

occupational classification structure

should be available by July 1997 to

coincide with development of the 2000

Census.

Request for Comments

The Committee invites comments on

the SOC Revision Policy Committee

process. Suggestions related to the

classification structure criteria

particularly are encouraged, as well as

suggestions as to other major questions

the Committee should be considering

besides those mentioned in the charter.

Comment Procedure

Interested parties are invited to

comment in writing to the Standard

Occupational Classification Revision

Policy Committee. Comments may be in

reference to any topic related to

occupational classification including

the uses of the occupational data, the

purpose and scope of an occupational

classification system, the principles

underlying the current SOC, and

conceptual options for the new SOC.

The Committee particularly solicits

comments on present and future uses of

data that are produced using

occupational classification systems,

with emphasis on the strengths and

weaknesses of the present systems in

meeting user needs. Interested parties

may also send comments via E-mail, to

RossllL:PSB@Cmail.bls.gov.

Availability of Comment Materials

All written comments and materials

received in response to this notice will

be available throughout 1995 during

normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45

p.m., in Suite 4840, 2 Massachusetts

Avenue NE., Washington, DC 20212.

Individuals wishing to inspect these

materials must call 202–606–6505 to

obtain an appointment to enter the

suite.

Sally Katzen,

Administrator, Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs.

[FR Doc. 95–4831 Filed 2–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3110–01–P