[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 110 (Thursday, June 9, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-14079]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: June 9, 1994]


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


OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
 

Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and 
Ethnicity

AGENCY: Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Review and Possible Revision of 
OMB's Statistical Policy Directive No. 15, Race and Ethnic Standards 
for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting; and Announcement 
of Public Hearings on Directive No. 15.

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

SUMMARY: During the past few years, OMB's Statistical Policy Directive 
No. 15, Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and 
Administrative Reporting, has come under increasing criticism. These 
standards are used governmentwide for recordkeeping, collection, and 
presentation of data on race and ethnicity in Federal statistical 
activities and program administrative reporting. Since the standards 
were first issued 17 years ago, citizens who report information about 
themselves and users of the information collected by Federal agencies 
have indicated that the categories set forth in Directive No. 15 are 
becoming less useful in reflecting the diversity of our Nation's 
population. Accordingly, OMB currently is undertaking a review of the 
racial and ethnic categories in the Directive. (See Appendix for the 
text of Directive No. 15.)

ISSUES FOR COMMENT: OMB is interested in receiving comments from the 
public on (1) the adequacy of the current categories, (2) principles 
that should govern any proposed revisions to the standards, and (3) 
specific suggestions for changes that have been offered by various 
individuals and organizations.

ADDRESS: Written comments on these issues may be addressed to Katherine 
K. Wallman, Chief, Statistical Policy, Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, 
NW., Washington, DC. 20503.

DATE: To ensure consideration, written comments must be provided to OMB 
on or before September 1, 1994.

PUBLIC HEARINGS: To provide additional opportunities to hear views from 
the public on Directive No. 15, OMB has scheduled a series of hearings, 
as follows: 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Date/Time                             Location                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 7, 1994    Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Federal Building Auditorium      
10:00 a.m.      10 Causeway Street                                      
                Boston, Massachusetts                                   
                (Local arrangements contact: Harold Wood, Bureau of the 
                 Census Regional Office, (617) 424-0500)                
                                                                        
July 11, 1994   State Capitol Building                                  
10:00 a.m.      Old Supreme Court Chambers                              
                200 East Colfax Street                                  
                Denver, Colorado                                        
                (Local arrangements contact: Jerry O'Donnell, Bureau of 
                 the Census Regional Office, (303) 969-7750)            
                                                                        
July 14, 1994   Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco                   
10:00 a.m.      Interpretive Center                                     
                101 Market Street                                       
                San Francisco, California                               
                (Local arrangements contact: Vicki Cooper-Murphy, Bureau
                 of Labor Statistics Regional Office, (415) 744-7166)   
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    If you wish to present an oral statement at any of these hearings, 
please contact the Statistical Policy Office (at the address below) by 
telephone or fax (do no use electronic mail) by July 1, 1994, and 
provide the following information: your name, address, telephone and 
fax numbers, and the name of the organization which you represent. 
After July 1, please call the appropriate local arrangements contact 
identified above to be placed on the hearing schedule. Persons 
testifying are asked to bring three (3) copies of their statement to 
the hearing. Written statements will also be accepted at the hearings. 
Depending on the number of persons who request to present their views, 
the hearings in each location may be extended to the following day.

ADDRESS: Requests to be placed on the hearing schedule should be 
directed to the Statistical Policy Office, Office of Management and 
Budget, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503. Telephone: (202) 
395-3093. Fax number: (202) 395-7245.

ELECTRONIC AVAILABILITY AND COMMENTS: This document is available on the 
Internet via anonymous File Transfer Protocol (ftp) from ftp.census.gov 
as
/pub/docs/ombdir15.txt in ASCII format (do not use any capital letters 
in the file name). For those who do not have ftp capability, the 
document can also be obtained through the gopher (gopher 
gopher.census.gov) and HTTP servers (accessible by mosaic, cello, lynx, 
etc.), or by sending an electronic mail message to [email protected] 
with the following lines in the message area:

    open
    get/pub/docs/ombdir15.txt
    quit

    Comments may be sent via electronic mail to an OMB x.400 mail 
address, which is /s=ombdir15/c=us/admd=telemail/prmd=gov+eop. The 
Internet address is [email protected]. Comments sent to this 
address will be included as part of the official record. Do not use 
this electronic mail address to have your name included in the hearing 
schedule.
    For assistance using electronic mail, ftp, gopher, or HTTP, please 
contact your system administrator. You may also want to send an 
electronic message to [email protected] with a subject of HELP and 
nothing in the message area. You will receive by return electronic mail 
``FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions)'' and more information on how to 
access the services on census.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Suzann Evinger, Statistical Policy 
Office, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget, Telephone: (202) 395-3093.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Development of Directive No. 15.--Developmental work on the 
categories in OMB's Directive No. 15 originated in the activities of 
the Federal Interagency Committee on Education (FICE), which was 
created by Executive Order in 1964. More than 30 Federal agencies were 
members or regular participants in FICE's work to improve coordination 
of educational activities at the Federal level. The FICE Subcommittee 
on Minority Education completed a report in April 1973 on higher 
education for Chicanos, Puerto Ricans, and American Indians and sent it 
to then Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) Caspar 
Weinberger for comment. He showed particular interest in the portion of 
the report that deplored the lack of useful data on racial and ethnic 
groups. Further, he encouraged the implementation of the report's 
second recommendation which called for the coordinated development of 
common definitions for racial and ethnic groups, and the Federal 
collection of racial and ethnic enrollment and other educational data 
on a compatible and nonduplicative basis.
    In June 1974, FICE created an Ad Hoc Committee on Racial and Ethnic 
Definitions whose 25 members came from Federal agencies with major 
responsibilities for the collection or use of racial and ethnic data. 
This Ad Hoc Committee was charged with developing terms and definitions 
for the collection of a broad range of racial and ethnic data by 
Federal agencies on a compatible and nonduplicative basis. It took on 
the task of determining and describing the major groups to be 
identified by Federal agencies when collecting and reporting racial and 
ethnic data. While the Ad Hoc Committee recognized that there is 
frequently a relationship between language and ethnicity, it made no 
attempt to develop a means of identifying persons on the basis of their 
primary language. The Ad Hoc Committee wanted to ensure that whatever 
categories the various agencies used could be aggregated, 
disaggregated, or otherwise combined so that the data developed by one 
agency could be used in conjunction with the data developed by another 
agency. In addition, the Ad Hoc Committee thought that the basic 
categories could be subdivided into more detailed ethnic subgroups to 
meet users' needs, but that to maintain comparability, data from one 
major category should never be combined with data from any other major 
category.
    In the spring of 1975, FICE completed its work on a draft set of 
categories, and an agreement was reached among OMB, the General 
Accounting Office (GAO), the HEW's Office for Civil Rights, and the 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to adopt these 
categories for a trial period of at least one year. This trial was 
undertaken to test the new categories and definitions and to determine 
what problems, if any, would be encountered in their implementation.
    At the end of the test period, OMB and GAO convened an Ad Hoc 
Committee on Racial/Ethnic Categories to review the experience of the 
agencies that had implemented the standard categories and definitions 
and to discuss any potential problems that might be encountered in 
extending the use of the categories to all Federal agencies. The 
Committee met in August 1976 and included representatives of OMB; GAO; 
the Departments of Justice, Labor, HEW, and Housing and Urban 
Development; the Bureau of the Census; and the EEOC. Based upon the 
discussion in that meeting, OMB prepared minor revisions to the FICE 
definitions and circulated the proposed final draft for agency comment. 
These revised categories and definitions became effective in September 
1976 for all compliance recordkeeping and reporting required by the 
Federal agencies represented on the Ad Hoc Committee.
    Based upon this interagency agreement, OMB drafted for agency 
comment a proposed revision of the race and ethnic categories contained 
in its circular on standards and guidelines for Federal statistics. 
Some agencies published the draft revision for public comment. 
Following the receipt of comments and incorporation of suggested 
modifications, OMB on May 12, 1977, promulgated for use by all Federal 
agencies the racial and ethnic categories now contained in Directive 
No. 15, the text of which appears in the Appendix. This meant that for 
the first time, standard categories and definitions would be used at 
the Federal level in reporting and presentation of data on racial and 
ethnic groups. While OMB requires the agencies to use these racial and 
ethnic categories, it should be emphasized that the Directive permits 
collection of additional detail if the more detailed categories can be 
aggregated into the basic racial and ethnic classifications set forth 
in the Directive.
    As demonstrated by this brief history, the present categories were 
developed through a deliberate cooperative process; participation of 
the agencies that use the categories was an essential element in that 
process.
    1988 Proposed Revision.--The standards promulgated in 1977 have not 
been revised since that time. OMB did, however, publish in the January 
20, 1988, Federal Register a draft Statistical Policy Circular 
soliciting public comment on a comprehensive revision of existing 
Statistical Policy Directives. Among the proposed changes was a 
revision of Directive No. 15 that would have added an ``Other'' racial 
category and required classification by self-identification. While this 
proposal was supported by many multi-racial and multi-ethnic groups and 
some educational institutions, it drew strong opposition from Federal 
agencies such as the Civil Rights Division of the Department of 
Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services, the EEOC, and the 
Office of Personnel Management, and from large corporations.
    Respondents who opposed the change asserted that the present system 
provided adequate data, that any changes would disrupt historical 
continuity, and that the proposed change would be expensive and 
potentially divisive. Some members of minority communities interpreted 
the proposal as an attempt to provoke internal dissension within their 
communities and to reduce the official counts of minority populations. 
Because it was evident from all of these comments that this proposal 
would not be widely accepted, no changes were made at the time to 
Directive No. 15.
    1993 Hearings.--During 1993, Congressman Thomas C. Sawyer, Chairman 
of the House Subcommittee on Census, Statistics, and Postal Personnel, 
held a series of four hearings (April 14, June 30, July 29, and 
November 3) on the measurement of race and ethnicity in the decennial 
census. OMB testified at the hearing on July 29. Information on these 
hearings may be obtained by contacting the Subcommittee at (202) 226-
7523.
    Workshop.--As a first step in undertaking its review of the racial 
and ethnic categories, OMB asked the Committee on National Statistics 
(CNSTAT) of the National Academy of Sciences to convene a workshop to 
provide an informed discussion of the issues surrounding a review of 
the categories. Convened on February 17-18, 1994, the workshop included 
representatives of Federal agencies, academia, social science research, 
interest groups, private industry, and local school districts. A report 
on the workshop will be forthcoming from CNSTAT.
    Interagency Committee. OMB has established an Interagency Committee 
for the Review of the Racial and Ethnic Standards, whose members 
represent the many and diverse Federal needs for racial and ethnic 
data, including statutory requirements for such data. The Committee 
will be an integral part of this review process, by assisting OMB in 
the evaluation and assessment of proposed changes, for example, on the 
quality of resulting data and costs of implementation.

Suggested Changes and Criticisms

    Your comments are invited on any aspect of Directive No. 15; if you 
are satisfied with the existing racial and ethnic categories, it would 
be useful for OMB to know that also. You may also wish to comment on 
the following suggestions and criticisms about the Directive that OMB 
received during the recent hearings and the CNSTAT workshop:

    --adding a ``multi-racial'' category to the list of racial 
designations so that respondents would not be forced to deny part of 
their heritage by having to choose a single category;

    --adding an ``other'' category for individuals of multi-racial 
backgrounds and those who want the option of specifically stating a 
unique identification;

    --providing an open-ended question to solicit information on race 
and ethnicity, or combining concepts of race, ethnicity, and ancestry;

    --changing the name of the ``Black'' category to ``African 
American'';

    --changing the name of the ``American Indian or Alaskan Native'' 
category to ``Native American'';

    --including Native Hawaiians as a separate category or as part of a 
``Native American'' category (which would also include American 
Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos), rather than as part of the ``Asian or 
Pacific Islander'' category;

    --including Hispanic as a racial designation, rather than as a 
separate ethnic category; and

    --adding a ``Middle Easterner'' category to the list of ethnic 
designations.

    The critiques of the current standard and the proposals for change 
include as well a number of other concerns. For example:

    --The categories and their definitions have been criticized for 
failing to be comprehensive and scientific. As cases in point, using 
the present definitions there are no proper categories for the original 
Indian population of South America or for Australian aborigines.

    --Some have suggested that the geographic orientation of the 
definitions for the various racial and ethnic categories is not 
sufficiently definitive. They believe that there is no readily apparent 
organizing principle for making such distinctions and that definitions 
for the categories should be eliminated. Others disagree, stating that 
the current definitions of the racial and ethnic categories have served 
their uses well and thus should be maintained.

    --The identification of an individual's racial and ethnic 
``category'' often is a subjective determination, rather than one that 
is objective and factual, no matter what the process for arriving at 
the categories. Consequently, it has been suggested that it may no 
longer be appropriate to consider the categories as a ``statistical 
standard.''

    --The issue of self-identification of race and ethnicity versus 
third party identification also has been raised. This issue will merit 
increased attention if multi-racial and/or multi-ethnic categories or 
identification procedures are adopted.

    --Some have proposed eliminating the five-category combined racial 
and ethnic classification in favor of separate, mutually exclusive, 
racial and ethnic categories. The combined format now permitted by the 
Directive is particularly suitable for observer identification, and is 
used by the Department of Health and Human Service's Office for Civil 
Rights, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Office of 
Federal Contract Compliance because it facilitates aggregating data on 
the minority groups with which these agencies are concerned. The use of 
the Hispanic category in the combined format does not, however, provide 
information on the race of those selecting it. As a result, the 
combined format makes it impossible to distribute persons of Hispanic 
ethnicity by race and, therefore, reduces the utility of the four 
racial categories by excluding from them persons who would otherwise be 
included. Thus, the two formats currently permitted by Directive No. 15 
for collecting racial and ethnic data do not provide comparable data.

    --The perceived importance of historical comparability of racial 
and ethnic data has been questioned by some. Since the names of the 
categories have changed in the decennial censuses, and agencies use 
different methods even internally to collect the data, there is less 
continuity in racial and ethnic data than many believed. As a result, 
it has been suggested that this review of Directive No. 15 should have 
a more forward-looking approach, rather than being bound by past 
history.

    --Some have suggested that consideration be given to collecting 
racial and ethnic data using ``categories for response'' that can be 
decoupled from ``categories for reporting data.'' For example, the 
response categories could permit responses reflecting multiple origins; 
later these data would be aggregated into reporting categories 
following a set of standards and guidelines to make the reported data 
more useful for various program, administrative, and statistical 
purposes.

    --There have also been suggestions that the classification of 
persons by race and ethnicity be eliminated entirely. Proponents of 
this view assert that the categories merely serve to perpetuate an 
over-emphasis on race in America and contribute to the fragmentation of 
our society.

Federal Uses of Racial and Ethnic Data

    Given the broad range of suggestions and criticisms, OMB believes 
that a comprehensive review of all the categories is warranted. It is 
important to stress comprehensive, because these categories are not 
used simply for statistical purposes. Thus, while the use of the racial 
and ethnic categories in the collection of decennial census data is 
most widely known--and has most often been cited in the 1993 hearings 
and in the correspondence OMB receives--the categories are also used by 
Federal agencies for civil rights enforcement and for program 
administrative reporting. Some important examples of the Federal 
Government's uses of racial and ethnic data are:
     enforcing the requirements of the Voting Rights Act;
     reviewing State redistricting plans;
     collecting and presenting population and population 
characteristics data, labor force data, education data, and vital and 
health statistics;
     establishing and evaluating Federal affirmative action 
plans and evaluating affirmative action and discrimination in 
employment in the private sector;
     monitoring the access of minorities to home mortgage loans 
under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act;
     enforcing the Equal Credit Opportunity Act;
     monitoring and enforcing desegregation plans in the public 
schools;
     assisting minority businesses under the minority business 
development programs; and
     monitoring and enforcing the Fair Housing Act.
    These examples of statutory requirements are mentioned to foster 
public awareness and understanding of the Federal Government's many 
different needs for racial and ethnic data. Appreciation of the 
intended uses of the data helps determine what categories make sense. 
Further, these uses need to be taken into account when changes to the 
categories are suggested. In any event, OMB believes that it is 
essential for the Federal agencies to study the possible effects of any 
proposed changes to the categories on the quality and utility of the 
resulting data for a multiplicity of purposes.

General Principles for the Review of the Racial and Ethnic 
Categories

    The critiques and suggestions for changing Directive No. 15 have 
underscored the importance of having a set of general principles to 
govern the current review process. The following principles were 
drafted in cooperation with Federal agencies serving on the Interagency 
Committee. Comments on these principles are welcomed.
    1. The racial and ethnic categories set forth in the standard 
should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in 
nature.
    2. Respect for individual dignity should guide the processes and 
methods for collecting data on race and ethnicity; respondent self-
identification should be facilitated to the greatest extent possible.
    3. To the extent practicable, the concepts and terminology should 
reflect clear and generally understood definitions that can achieve 
broad public acceptance.
    4. The racial and ethnic categories should be comprehensive in 
coverage and produce compatible, nonduplicated, exchangeable data 
across Federal agencies.
    5. Foremost consideration should be given to data aggregations by 
race and ethnicity that are useful for statistical analysis, program 
administration and assessment, and enforcement of existing laws and 
judicial decisions, bearing in mind that the standards are not intended 
to be used to establish eligibility for participation in any Federal 
program.
    6. While Federal data needs for racial and ethnic data are of 
primary importance, consideration should also be given to needs at the 
State and local government levels, including American Indian tribal and 
Alaska Native village governments, as well as to general societal needs 
for these data.
    7. The categories should set forth a minimum standard; additional 
categories should be permitted provided they can be aggregated to the 
standard categories. The number of standard categories should be kept 
to a manageable size, as determined by statistical concerns and data 
needs.
    8. A revised set of categories should be operationally feasible in 
terms of burden placed upon respondents and the cost to agencies and 
respondents to implement the revisions.
    9. Any changes in the categories should be based on sound 
methodological research and should include evaluations of the impact of 
any changes not only on the usefulness of the resulting data but also 
on the comparability of any new categories with the existing ones.
    10. Any revision to the categories should provide for a crosswalk 
at the time of adoption between the old and the new categories so that 
historical data series can be statistically adjusted and comparisons 
can be made.
    11. Because of the many and varied needs and strong interdependence 
of Federal agencies for racial and ethnic data, any changes to the 
existing categories should be the product of an interagency 
collaborative effort.
    The agencies recognize that these principles may in some cases 
represent competing goals for the standard. Through the review process, 
it will be necessary to balance statistical issues, needs for data, and 
social concerns. The application of these principles to guide the 
review and possible revision of the standard ultimately should result 
in consistent, publicly accepted data on race and ethnicity that will 
meet the needs of the government and the public while recognizing the 
diversity of the population and respecting the individual's dignity.
Sally Katzen,
Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
APPENDIX

DIRECTIVE NO. 15

Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative 
Reporting (as adopted on May 12, 1977)

    This Directive provides standard classifications for recordkeeping, 
collection, and presentation of data on race and ethnicity in Federal 
program administrative reporting and statistical activities. These 
classifications should not be interpreted as being scientific or 
anthropological in nature, nor should they be viewed as determinants of 
eligibility for participation in any Federal program. They have been 
developed in response to needs expressed by both the executive branch 
and the Congress to provide for the collection and use of compatible, 
nonduplicated, exchangeable racial and ethnic data by Federal agencies.
    1. Definitions
    The basic racial and ethnic categories for Federal statistics and 
program administrative reporting are defined as follows:
    a. American Indian or Alaskan Native. A person having origins in 
any of the original peoples of North America, and who maintains 
cultural identification through tribal affiliations or community 
recognition.
    b. Asian or Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the 
original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian 
subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands. This area includes, for example, 
China, India, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, and Samoa.
    c. Black. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups 
of Africa.
    d. Hispanic. A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or 
South American or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.
    e. White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of 
Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.
    2. Utilization for Recordkeeping and Reporting
    To provide flexibility, it is preferable to collect data on race 
and ethnicity separately. If separate race and ethnic categories are 
used, the minimum designations are:
    a. Race:
    --American Indian or Alaskan Native
    --Asian or Pacific Islander
    --Black
    --White
    b. Ethnicity:
    --Hispanic origin
    --Not of Hispanic origin
    When race and ethnicity are collected separately, the number of 
White and Black persons who are Hispanic must be identifiable, and 
capable of being reported in that category.
    If a combined format is used to collect racial and ethnic data, the 
minimum acceptable categories are:
    --American Indian or Alaskan Native
    --Asian or Pacific Islander
    --Black, not of Hispanic origin
    --Hispanic
    --White, not of Hispanic origin.
    The category which most closely reflects the individual's 
recognition in his community should be used for purposes of reporting 
on persons who are of mixed racial and/or ethnic origins.
    In no case should the provisions of this Directive be construed to 
limit the collection of data to the categories described above. 
However, any reporting required which uses more detail shall be 
organized in such a way that the additional categories can be 
aggregated into these basic racial/ethnic categories.
    The minimum standard collection categories shall be utilized for 
reporting as follows:
    a. Civil rights compliance reporting. The categories specified 
above will be used by all agencies in either the separate or combined 
format for civil rights compliance reporting and equal employment 
reporting for both the public and private sectors and for all levels of 
government. Any variation requiring less detailed data or data which 
cannot be aggregated into the basic categories will have to be 
specifically approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 
executive agencies. More detailed reporting which can be aggregated to 
the basic categories may be used at the agencies' discretion.
    b. General program administrative and grant reporting. Whenever an 
agency subject to this Directive issues new or revised administrative 
reporting or recordkeeping requirements which include racial or ethnic 
data, the agency will use the race/ethnic categories described above. A 
variance can be specifically requested from OMB, but such a variance 
will be granted only if the agency can demonstrate that it is not 
reasonable for the primary reporter to determine the racial or ethnic 
background in terms of the specified categories, and that such 
determination is not critical to the administration of the program in 
question, or if the specific program is directed to only one or a 
limited number of race/ethnic groups, e.g., Indian tribal activities.
    c. Statistical reporting. The categories described in this 
Directive will be used at a minimum for federally sponsored statistical 
data collection where race and/or ethnicity is required, except when: 
the collection involves a sample of such size that the data on the 
smaller categories would be unreliable, or when the collection effort 
focuses on a specific racial or ethnic group. A repetitive survey shall 
be deemed to have an adequate sample size if the racial and ethnic data 
can be reliably aggregated on a biennial basis. Any other variation 
will have to be specifically authorized by OMB through the reports 
clearance process. In those cases where the data collection is not 
subject to the reports clearance process, a direct request for a 
variance should be made to OMB.
    3. Effective Date
    The provisions of this Directive are effective immediately for all 
new and revised recordkeeping or reporting requirements containing 
racial and/or ethnic information. All existing recordkeeping or 
reporting requirements shall be made consistent with this Directive at 
the time they are submitted for extension, or not later than January 1, 
1980.
    4. Presentation of Race/Ethnic Data
    Displays of racial and ethnic compliance and statistical data will 
use the category designations listed above. The designation 
``nonwhite'' is not acceptable for use in the presentation of Federal 
Government data. It is not to be used in any publication of compliance 
or statistical data or in the text of any compliance or statistical 
report.
    In cases where the above designations are considered inappropriate 
for presentation of statistical data on particular programs or for 
particular regional areas, the sponsoring agency may use:
    (1) The designations ``Black and Other Races'' or ``All Other 
Races,'' as collective descriptions of minority races when the most 
summary distinction between the majority and minority races is 
appropriate;
    (2) The designations ``White,'' ``Black,'' and ``All Other Races'' 
when the distinction among the majority race, the principal minority 
race and other races is appropriate; or
    (3) The designation of a particular minority race or races, and the 
inclusion of ``Whites'' with ``All Other Races,'' if such a collective 
description is appropriate.
    In displaying detailed information which represents a combination 
of race and ethnicity, the description of the data being displayed must 
clearly indicate that both bases of classification are being used.
    When the primary focus of a statistical report is on two or more 
specific identifiable groups in the population, one or more of which is 
racial or ethnic, it is acceptable to display data for each of the 
particular groups separately and to describe data relating to the 
remainder of the population by an appropriate collective description.
[FR Doc. 94-14079 Filed 6-8-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-01-F