[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10998-11002]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4831]




[[Page 10997]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Office of Management and Budget





_______________________________________________________________________



Standard Occupational Classification Revision Policy Committee; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / 
Notices   
[[Page 10998]] 

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 
Ross____L:[email protected].

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, State-level 
interests, professional associations, academia, and relevant Federal 
agencies. [[Page 10999]] 
    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.

    \1\Copies 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 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 
[[Page 11000]] 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\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(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

    \5\The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

    \6\The NOC can be obtained by contacting Canada Communication 
Group--Publishing, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9 or by calling 819-956-
4802.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Skill Level A
--University degree (bachelor's, master's, or other post-graduate)
[[Page 11001]]

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 
on-the-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 
on-the-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.

    \7\Cain, Glen, W. Lee Hansen, and Burton A. Weisbrod, 
``Occupational Classification: An Economic Approach.'' Monthly Labor 
Review, February 1967, pp. 48-52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 demand-based 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

    \8\Welch, Finis, ``Linear Synthesis of Skill Distribution,'' 
Journal of Human Resources, Volume 4, 1969, pp. 311-327.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

    \9\For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

    \10\Rosen, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both the demand-based and supply-based 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 [[Page 11002]] on either the skills-based or economic-based 
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 Ross____L:[email protected].

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