[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 62 (Friday, March 29, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22182-22196]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-06469]


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

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET


Revisions to OMB's Statistical Policy Directive No. 15: Standards 
for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and 
Ethnicity

AGENCY: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President.

ACTION: Notice of decision.

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

SUMMARY: By this Notice, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is 
announcing revisions to Statistical Policy Directive No. 15: Standards 
for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and 
Ethnicity (SPD 15). The revised SPD 15 is presented at the end of this 
Notice; it replaces and supersedes OMB's 1997 Revisions to the 
Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity. 
OMB is taking this action to meet its responsibilities to develop and 
oversee the implementation of Government-wide principles, policies, 
standards, and guidelines concerning the development, presentation, and 
dissemination of statistical information. These revisions to SPD 15 are 
intended to result in more accurate and useful race and ethnicity data 
across the Federal government.

DATES: The provisions of these standards are effective March 28, 2024 
for all new record keeping or reporting requirements that include 
racial or ethnic information. All existing record keeping or reporting 
requirements should be made consistent with these standards through a 
non-substantive change request to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), or at any time a collection of information 
is submitted to OIRA for approval of either a revision or extension 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), as soon as possible, 
but not later than March 28, 2029.

ADDRESSES: Please send correspondence about OMB's decisions to: Dr. 
Karin Orvis, U.S. Chief Statistician, Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th St. NW, 
Washington, DC 20506, email address: 
[email protected].
    Electronic Availability: This Federal Register Notice can be found 
along with supplemental materials, including the final report of the 
Working Group and its six annexes, on the Federal Register: https://www.federalregister.gov/, by searching for ``OMB-2023-0001''. 
Additional background materials, including previous OMB standards and 
guidance related to the collection of race and ethnicity can be found 
at https://www.statspolicy.gov under ``Policies'' and on the Working 
Group's website: https://www.spd15revision.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Sivinski, Statistical and Science 
Policy, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget, 725 17th St. NW, Washington, DC 20506; email 
address: [email protected], phone number (202) 395-
1205.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    Overview of this Notice. Based on the recommendations of the 
Federal Interagency Technical Working Group on Race and Ethnicity 
Standards (Working Group), SPD 15 is revised to: collect data using a 
single combined race and ethnicity question, allowing multiple 
responses; add Middle Eastern or North African (MENA) as a minimum 
reporting category, separate and distinct from the White category; 
require the collection of more detail beyond the minimum race and 
ethnicity reporting categories, unless an agency requests and receives 
an exemption from OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
because the potential benefit of the detailed data would not justify 
the additional burden to the agency and the public or the additional 
risk to privacy or confidentiality; update terminology in SPD 15; and 
require agency Action Plans on Race and Ethnicity Data and timely 
compliance with this revision to SPD 15.

[[Page 22183]]

    The Supplementary Information in this Notice provides background 
information on SPD 15 (Section A); a summary of the review process that 
began in the summer of 2022 (Section B); a synopsis of the major 
revisions to SPD 15, including discussion of the initial proposals of 
the Working Group, public input on the standards including responses to 
a January 2023 Federal Register Notice (FRN) \1\ that presented the 
initial proposals, the final recommendations from the Working Group to 
OMB, and OMB's decisions on revisions to SPD 15 (Section C); and areas 
for future research (Section D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 88 FR 5375 (Jan. 27, 2023), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/01/27/2023-01635/initial-proposals-for-updating-ombs-race-and-ethnicity-statistical-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB's Statistical Policy Directives. To operate efficiently and 
effectively, the Nation relies on the flow of objective, credible 
statistics to support the decisions of individuals, households, 
governments, businesses, and other organizations. As part of its role 
as coordinator of the Federal statistical system under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, OMB, through the Chief Statistician of the 
United States, must ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the 
system as well as the integrity, objectivity, impartiality, utility, 
and confidentiality of information collected for statistical 
purposes.\2\ This includes developing and overseeing the implementation 
of Government-wide principles, policies, standards, and guidelines 
concerning the development, presentation, and dissemination of 
statistical information.\3\ OMB maintains a set of statistical policy 
directives to implement these requirements, and periodically reviews 
these directives to ensure they continue to meet their intended 
purpose. These reviews are based on input from subject matter experts 
and relevant program staff across government, evidence generated by 
research and testing, and input from the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 44 U.S.C. 3504(e)(1).
    \3\ 44 U.S.C. 3504(e)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    History of SPD 15. OMB initially developed SPD 15 in 1977 in 
cooperation with other Federal agencies to provide consistent data on 
race and ethnicity throughout the Federal Government, including the 
decennial census, household surveys, and Federal administrative 
forms.\4\ Initial development of these data standards stemmed in large 
part from new Federal responsibilities to enforce civil rights laws.\5\ 
Since 1977, SPD 15 has been revised one time, resulting in an update in 
1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ U.S. Dep't of Com., Statistical Policy Handbook 37-38 (May 
1978), available at https://www2.census.gov/about/ombraceethnicityitwg/1978-statistical-policy-handbook.pdf.
    \5\ 62 FR 58782 (Oct. 20, 1997), available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1997-10-30/pdf/97-28653.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Goals of SPD 15. The goals of SPD 15 remain unchanged: to 
ensure the comparability of race and ethnicity across Federal datasets 
and to maximize the quality of these data by ensuring the format, 
language, and procedures for collecting the data are consistent.\6\ To 
achieve these goals, SPD 15 provides a minimum set of categories that 
all Federal agencies must use when collecting information on race and 
ethnicity, regardless of the collection mechanism, as well as 
additional guidance on the collection, compilation, and dissemination 
of these data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., id.; U.S. Dep't of Com., Statistical Policy 
Handbook 37-38 (May 1978), available at https://www2.census.gov/about/ombraceethnicityitwg/1978-statistical-policy-handbook.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Defining race and ethnicity. For purposes of SPD 15, the race and 
ethnicity categories set forth are sociopolitical constructs and are 
not an attempt to define race and ethnicity biologically or 
genetically.
    Rescissions. Finally, this Notice rescinds the following OMB 
guidance: OMB Bulletin No. 00-02--Guidance on Aggregation and 
Allocation of Data on Race for Use in Civil Rights Monitoring and 
Enforcement (2000); \7\ Provisional Guidance on the Implementation of 
the 1997 Standards for Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity (2000); \8\ 
and Flexibilities and Best Practices for Implementing the Office of 
Managements and Budget's 1997 Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, 
and Presenting Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity (2022).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ OMB, Exec. Office of the President, OMB Bulletin No. 00-02--
Guidance on Aggregation and Allocation of Data on Race for Use in 
Civil Rights Monitoring and Enforcement (Mar. 9, 2000), available at 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/bulletins_b00-02.pdf.
    \8\ OMB, Exec. Office of the President, Provisional Guidance on 
the Implementation of the 1997 Standards for Data on Race and 
Ethnicity (Dec. 15, 2000), available at https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/info_collect/files_public/Race%20%20Ethnicity%20Guidance.pdf?ver=2018-11-01-094407-913.
    \9\ Flexibilities and Best Practices for Implementing the Office 
of Management and Budget's 1997 Standards for Maintaining, 
Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity 
(Statistical Policy Directive No. 15) (Jul. 2022), available at 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Flexibilities-and-Best-Practices-Under-SPD-15.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Comprehensive Review Process for SPD 15

    Since the 1997 revision to SPD 15, there have been large societal, 
political, economic, and demographic shifts in the United States, 
including increasing racial and ethnic diversity, a growing number of 
people who identify as more than one race or ethnicity, and changing 
immigration and migration patterns. Recognizing the critical need for 
revisions to SPD 15, OMB announced a formal review in June 2022 with 
the goal of updating SPD 15 to better reflect the diversity of the 
Nation.\10\ The process to review and revise SPD 15 included four major 
phases: (1) OMB established the Working Group; (2) the Working Group 
developed initial proposals and sought public input; (3) the Working 
Group developed final recommendations for revising SPD 15; and (4) OMB 
deliberated and developed the revisions presented in this Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Karin Orvis, Reviewing and Revising Standards for 
Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and 
Ethnicity, The White House (June 15, 2022), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/briefing-room/2022/06/15/reviewing-and-revising-standards-for-maintaining-collecting-and-presenting-federal-data-on-race-and-ethnicity/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Establishing the Federal Interagency Technical Working Group on 
Race and Ethnicity Standards. Consistent with OMB's established 
processes, the Working Group was composed of Federal staff with subject 
matter expertise in the collection and use of Federal race and 
ethnicity data. The 13 OMB-recognized principal statistical 
agencies,\11\ the 24 agencies enumerated by the Chief Financial 
Officers Act (CFO Act),\12\ and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission (EEOC) were invited to nominate representatives to the 
Working Group through their Federal Statistical Officials.\13\ Of the 
invitees, 12 principal statistical agencies, 22 Chief Financial 
Officers Act agencies, and the EEOC all provided staff to participate 
in the Working Group. The Working Group was chaired and co-chaired by 
career staff members from OMB and the U.S. Census Bureau, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A list of the 13 principal statistical agencies is 
available at https://statspolicy.gov.
    \12\ A list of the 24 Chief Financial Officers Act Agencies is 
available at https://www.cfo.gov/about-the-council/.
    \13\ 5 U.S.C. 314.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB tasked the Working Group with developing a set of 
recommendations for improving the quality and usefulness of Federal 
race and ethnicity data with a focus on developing recommendations on 
topics including, but not limited to:
     whether the minimum reporting categories should be changed 
and how to best address detailed race and ethnicity groups in SPD 15;
     whether updates should be made to the question format, 
terminology, and wording of the questions, as well as the

[[Page 22184]]

instructions for respondents and associated guidance; and
     whether guidance for the collection and reporting of these 
data can be improved, including in instances when self-identification 
is not possible.
    The Working Group adopted a set of principles to govern their work 
(e.g., category changes should be based on sound research; all racial 
and ethnic categories should adhere to public law; operational 
feasibility should also be considered) consistent with processes used 
by the working groups for the original 1977 SPD 15 and the 1997 
revision.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Refer to the Working Group's final report on for additional 
details, available on the Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/, by searching for ``OMB-2023-0001''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Developing Initial Proposals. The Working Group developed initial 
proposals for revising SPD 15 by examining existing evidence and 
building on the work of a previous interagency working group that 
reviewed SPD 15 from 2014 to 2018. The existing evidence included 
several large-scale, rigorous studies conducted by the Census Bureau.
    The initial set of proposals developed by the Working Group 
included collecting race and ethnicity together with a single question; 
adding a MENA response category, separate from the White category; 
requiring the collection of more detailed data beyond the minimum 
categories as a default; and updating SPD 15's terminology, 
definitions, and question wording. The Working Group also developed a 
set of questions regarding various aspects of the proposals, 
implementation issues, and additional topics for public feedback. OMB 
published these preliminary proposals and questions in a January 2023 
FRN \15\ that provided the public an opportunity to submit comments 
from January 27 to April 27, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 88 FR 5375.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Developing Final Recommendations. To meet the goal of producing 
accurate and useful race and ethnicity data across the Federal 
Government, it is important to base SPD 15 on a solid portfolio of 
evidence that includes rigorous testing, input from the public on how 
individuals prefer to identify, and input from data providers and 
users.
    In developing their initial and final recommendations, the Working 
Group relied heavily on research conducted by Federal agencies over the 
last decade, especially the U.S. Census Bureau's 2015 National Content 
Test (NCT).\16\ The NCT specifically tested the impact and 
effectiveness of using a combined question, adding a MENA category, and 
making various revisions to question wording and terminology. The NCT 
included a nationally representative sample of 1.2 million housing 
units across the United States, including Puerto Rico. Importantly, it 
also included a re-interview of approximately 75,000 cases, designed to 
generate better understanding of how respondents interpret the 
questions and prefer to identify. In addition to pre-existing research 
conducted over the last decade, several agencies represented on the 
Working Group collaborated to conduct supplementary qualitative and 
quantitative research. This additional research helped inform and 
improve the Working Group's final recommendations to OMB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Kelly Mathews et al., U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 National 
Content Test Race and Ethnicity Analysis Report: A New Design for 
the 21st Century (Feb. 28, 2017), available at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/decade/2020/planning-management/plan/final-analysis/2015nct-race-ethnicity-analysis.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In recognition of the importance of public participation in the 
revision of SPD 15, obtaining input and feedback from the public played 
a key role in the development of the final recommendations. The Working 
Group and OMB used a variety of approaches to raise awareness and 
encourage input. Outreach efforts included White House blog posts and 
social media posts, the creation of a dedicated website for the review 
process (https://www.spd15revision.gov), interviews with news outlets, 
participation in professional conferences and workshops, and direct 
outreach to stakeholders using contact lists maintained by the agencies 
participating on the Working Group. In September 2022, the Working 
Group began conducting bi-monthly listening sessions with members of 
the public, which allowed organizations, advocacy groups, academics, 
and the general public to share their perspectives and recommendations 
regarding SPD 15.\17\ In March 2023, the Chief Statistician of the 
United States, joined by the chair and co-chair of the Working Group, 
hosted a series of three virtual public town hall meetings. OMB also 
held a Tribal consultation with Tribal leaders and members to discuss 
the proposed revisions. As a result of these efforts, members of the 
public submitted over 20,000 comments to the FRN,\18\ the Working Group 
scheduled 94 separate 30-minute listening sessions, and about 3,350 
people joined the virtual town halls where over 200 people spoke to 
share their perspectives on SPD 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Karin Orvis, OMB Launches New Public Listening Sessions on 
Federal Race and Ethnicity Standards Revision, The White House (Aug. 
30, 2022), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/briefing-room/2022/08/30/omb-launches-new-public-listening-sessions-on-federal-race-and-ethnicity-standards-revision/.
    \18\ Initial Proposals for Updating OMB's Race and Ethnicity 
Data Standards Docket, Regulations.gov, available at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/OMB-2023-0001/comments (last visited Feb. 
15, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The input from the experts on the Working Group, the strong 
existing research base, and the robust participation of the public, all 
helped shape the activities of the Working Group, their final 
recommendations to OMB, and OMB's final decisions.

C. Revisions to SPD 15

    The revised standards presented in the Notice adopt several 
revisions intended to improve the quality and usefulness of Federal 
race and ethnicity data. This section explains the revisions by: 
describing the initial proposals of the Working Group, summarizing 
public input, describing the final recommendations of the Working Group 
(and how they differed, if at all, from the initial proposals), and 
presenting and explaining OMB's decisions.

1. Collect Race and Ethnicity Information Using One Combined Question

    Working Group's Initial Proposals. The Working Group initially 
proposed that SPD 15 move from two separate questions to a single 
combined race and ethnicity question as the required design for self-
reported race and ethnicity information collections. Refer to Section 
C, Part 1 of the January 2023 FRN \19\ for additional information about 
this initial proposal from the Working Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 88 FR 5379.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Summary of Public Input. Many comments stated the current two 
questions structure is confusing to respondents, especially respondents 
who identify as Hispanic or Latino and do not identify with the 1997 
SPD 15 race categories. Some commenters expressed that the current 
format with two separate questions creates an impediment to the 
collection of accurate race data on the Hispanic or Latino population. 
A common theme was the proposed change would improve the collection of 
race data for the Hispanic or Latino population by reducing the number 
of responses that leave the race question blank or are classified as 
``Some Other Race'' when that option is available.\20\ Some commenters, 
while

[[Page 22185]]

generally in support of a combined question, suggested removing the 
words ``race'' and ``ethnicity'' from the question stem and emphasizing 
that respondents should select all categories that apply to them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Under the 1997 standards, data collections by Federal 
agencies may not include a Some Other Race (SOR) response category 
unless required by statute. Since 2005, the decennial census and 
American Community Survey (ACS) are required by law to include a SOR 
category, thereby adding a sixth minimum race category for these 
collections. The decennial census and ACS are the only information 
collections with a statutory requirement for the use of a SOR 
category. See Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006, Public Law 109-108, tit. II, 119 
Stat. 2290, 2308-09 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some comments were opposed to, and expressed concerns about, this 
initial proposal. A notable concern was that the new format would lead 
to the potential loss of data about Afro-Latino respondents. Some 
commenters viewed a combined race and ethnicity question as conflating 
two distinct concepts and implying that Hispanic or Latino is a 
``race.'' Commenters viewed that a combined question would result in a 
large percentage of Afro-Latinos only identifying as Hispanic or 
Latino, thereby contributing to an undercount of the Afro-Latino 
population. Overall, the majority of comments on the subject expressed 
support for using a single combined question and allowing multiple 
responses.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ A comprehensive review of public input on this initial 
proposal can be found in the Working Group's Annex 4, available on 
the Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/, by searching 
for ``OMB-2023-0001''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Working Group's Final Recommendations. The final recommendation to 
OMB, consistent with the initial proposal, was to combine the current 
separate questions on Hispanic or Latino ethnicity and race into a 
single combined race and ethnicity question that allows respondents to 
select one or multiple categories, and require the use of this single-
question format for both self-response and proxy response (for example, 
when one member of a household responds on behalf of other members). 
The final recommendation further specifies that a single selection 
would be considered a complete response (e.g., Hispanic or Latino 
respondents are not required to select an additional category), 
although respondents will be encouraged to provide multiple responses 
when appropriate.
    The Working Group's final report states that ``[s]ince 1980, 
responses to the decennial census in each subsequent decade have shown 
increasing non-response to the race question, confusion, and concern 
from the public about separate questions on ethnicity and race. . . . 
Results from the 2020 Census showed that 43.5 percent of those who 
self-identified as Hispanic or Latino either did not report a race or 
were classified as `Some Other Race' (SOR) alone (over 23 million 
people).'' This increasing non-response and reporting of SOR was one of 
the primary indicators to OMB that SPD 15 was no longer providing 
options that align with how respondents prefer to identify. The NCT 
described in Section B, along with other Census Bureau research 
conducted in preparation for the 2020 Census,\22\ found that a combined 
question reduced confusion and improved data quality, including 
drastically reducing the selection of SOR by Hispanic or Latino 
respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Elizabeth Compton et al., U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census 
Race and Hispanic Origin Alternative Questionnaire Experiment (Feb. 
28, 2013), available at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/decade/2010/program-management/cpex/2010-cpex-211.html; Jacquelyn Harth, U.S. Census Bureau, 2016 American 
Community Survey Content Test: Race and Hispanic Origin (Sept. 19, 
2017), available at https://www.census.gov/library/working-papers/2017/acs/2017_Harth_01.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to concerns from the Afro-Latino community about the 
potential impact of a combined question on population estimates, the 
Working Group evaluated several sources of evidence to inform their 
recommendations. The NCT compared Afro-Latino population estimates when 
using a combined question versus a separate questions format and did 
not find a significant difference between the approaches. In fact, 
Afro-Latino population estimates were slightly higher when using a 
combined question with detailed checkboxes and write-in fields. 
Additionally, the Working Group conducted cognitive interviews with 
Afro-Latino participants to explore how they identify and how they 
interpret questions about race and ethnicity. About half of interview 
participants selected only the Hispanic or Latino response category 
when shown a combined question, despite selecting both Hispanic or 
Latino and Black or African American response categories during 
recruitment. These cognitive interviews contributed to the Working 
Group's recommendation for future research on collecting data for Afro-
descendent populations.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Refer to the Working Group's final report and its Annexes 1 
and 2 to learn more about the Working Group's research and analysis 
that ultimately led to this recommendation, available on the Federal 
Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/, by searching for ``OMB-
2023-0001''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Decisions. OMB accepts the recommendation to combine the 
separate questions on race and ethnicity into a single combined race 
and ethnicity question. Because respondents may perceive categories 
like Hispanic or Latino or MENA as either a race or ethnicity, the 
revised SPD 15 requires agencies to treat the categories equally and 
report them as ``race and/or ethnicity'' categories.
    OMB's decision on this recommendation reflects the strong evidence 
that a combined question format results in higher quality and more 
useful data, and provides a format that is clearer and more concise for 
respondents while still allowing them to select as many race and/or 
ethnicity options that correspond to how they identify. OMB recognizes 
that additional research, testing, and stakeholder engagement is needed 
to understand how to best encourage the selection of multiple race and/
or ethnicity categories for people who identify as Afro-Latino, and is 
prioritizing that research as discussed further in Section D. Finally, 
we note here that the revised SPD 15 adopts the Working Group's 
recommendation to modify the question instructions to better signal to 
respondents that they should select all of the categories that reflect 
their identity.

2. Add Middle Eastern or North African as a New Minimum Category

    Working Group's Initial Proposals. The Working Group initially 
proposed that Middle Eastern or North African be added to SPD 15 as a 
new minimum reporting category distinct from all other reporting 
categories, and that the definition of the current White reporting 
category be edited to remove MENA from its definition. Refer to Section 
C, Part 2 of the January 2023 FRN \24\ for additional information about 
this initial proposal from the Working Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 88 FR 5379.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Summary of Public Input. Nearly all comments addressing the MENA 
category supported the proposal. Commenters expressed that the current 
classification of MENA respondents as White does not reflect the 
reality of many who are MENA. A few commenters were opposed, either 
stating some individuals from the MENA region of the world do consider 
themselves to be White or that race and ethnicity data should not be 
collected by the Federal Government.
    Many commenters also provided feedback about which groups should be 
considered MENA or have a checkbox under the MENA category, commenting 
that it was important for groups such as Armenians, Somalis, and 
Sudanese to be part of any MENA category. Overall, the vast majority of 
comments expressed

[[Page 22186]]

support for adding a MENA minimum category, separate and distinct from 
White.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ A comprehensive review of public input on this initial 
proposal can be found in the Working Group's Annex 4, available on 
the Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/, by searching 
for ``OMB-2023-0001''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Working Group's Final Recommendations. The Working Group's final 
recommendation was not changed from the initial proposal: ``Add MENA as 
a new minimum reporting category distinct from all other reporting 
categories. Revise the definition for the White category to remove 
references to MENA, and classify and tabulate MENA responses under the 
new MENA category.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Refer to the Working Group's final report and its Annex 1 
to learn more about the Working Group's research and analysis that 
ultimately led to this recommendation, available on the Federal 
Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/, by searching for ``OMB-
2023-0001''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Decisions. OMB accepts the recommendation to create a new 
minimum reporting category for MENA separate and distinct from the 
White category, and to revise the White category definition 
accordingly.
    MENA groups and members of the public generally have long voiced 
the need for a separate MENA minimum category. The 1997 revision to SPD 
15 also identified MENA as a topic for further research because there 
was a lack of public consensus on how to define the category (e.g., 
shared language, geography) at the time.\27\ Since then, Federal 
agencies have conducted research and stakeholder outreach showing broad 
public support for the use of the term ``Middle Eastern or North 
African,'' and that MENA respondents understand the use of the category 
and select it when available.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 62 FR 58787.
    \28\ Stephanie Wilson & Sheba K. Dunston, Nat'l Ctr. for Health 
Stat., Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Cognitive Interview 
Evaluation of the Revised Race Question, with Special Emphasis on 
the Newly Proposed Middle Eastern/North African Response Option 
(2017), available at https://wwwn.cdc.gov/qbank/report/Willson_2017_NCHS_MENA.pdf; Kelly Mathews, supra note 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Described further in Part 3 below and consistent with the existing 
minimum categories, the detailed checkboxes and definition examples for 
the MENA category were selected to represent the largest population 
groups in the United States as reported by the 2020 Census. Although 
several commenters expressed interest in explicitly including Armenian, 
Somali, or Sudanese, the 2015 NCT found that most respondents who 
identify as Armenian, Somali, and Sudanese did not select MENA when it 
was offered.\29\ Additional research is needed on these groups to 
monitor their preferred identification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ In NCT test panels that did not include a MENA category, 
Armenian respondents chose the White category 90.8% of the time and 
Some Other Race 9.6% of the time, Somali respondents chose the Black 
or African American category 96.2% of the time, and Sudanese 
respondents chose the Black or African American category 98.4% of 
the time.
    In NCT test panels that did include a MENA category, Armenian 
respondents chose the White category 79.0% of the time, the MENA 
category 12.6% of the time, and Some Other Race 9.3% of the time; 
Somali respondents chose the Black or African American category 
94.2% of the time, Some Other Race 4.8% of the time, and the MENA 
category 0.0% of the time; Sudanese respondents chose the Black or 
African American category 87.2% of the time and MENA 8.0% of the 
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Require the Collection of Detailed Race and Ethnicity Categories as 
a Default

    Working Group's Initial Proposals. The Working Group initially 
proposed requiring data collection of specific detailed data beyond the 
minimum categories, unless an agency determines the potential benefit 
of the detailed data would not justify the additional burden to the 
agency and the public or the additional risk to privacy or 
confidentiality and the agency requests and receives an exemption from 
OIRA. In those cases, agencies must at least use SPD 15's minimum 
categories. In any circumstance, agencies are encouraged to collect and 
provide more granular data than the minimum categories.
    The specific detailed checkboxes shown in the January 2023 FRN 
represent the six largest population groups in the United States within 
each minimum category, based on responses to the 2010 Census. The 
exception to this rule is the six checkboxes shown for the MENA 
category, which represent the two largest Arab nationalities in the 
United States from the Middle East (Lebanese and Syrian), the two 
largest Arab nationalities in the United States from North Africa 
(Egyptian and Moroccan), and the two largest non-Arab nationalities in 
the United States from the MENA region (Iranian and Israeli). Refer to 
Section C, Part 3 of the January 2023 FRN \30\ for additional 
information about this initial proposal from the Working Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 88 FR 5380.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Summary of Public Input. Comments supporting this proposal cited 
the diverse experiences of groups within each minimum reporting 
category. In particular, a number of health organizations expressed the 
importance of having data available for detailed groups to measure 
differences in healthcare outcomes. There were also comments advocating 
for flexibility in SPD 15 to allow for changes in the specific detailed 
categories used as new demographic data of the United States become 
available. Some urged that Federal agencies should be allowed to adapt 
the detailed categories based on their data collection needs and 
contexts, while others urged strict requirements for all agencies out 
of concern that any flexibility could be misused.
    A few commenters were opposed, expressing concerns with the burden 
on Federal agencies, the risks to data privacy and disclosure for small 
population groups, and burden on respondents. Overall, the majority of 
comments expressed support for requiring the collection of more detail 
beyond the minimum categories as a default, but allowing agencies to 
determine what additional data to collect in order to best meet program 
and stakeholder needs.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ A comprehensive review of public input on this initial 
proposal can be found in the Working Group's Annex 4, available on 
the Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/, by searching 
for ``OMB-2023-0001''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Working Group's Final Recommendations. The final recommendation of 
the Working Group differed from the initial proposal in the January 
2023 FRN, reflecting input from Federal agencies concerned about the 
lack of flexibility. The Working Group's final recommendation was to 
require the collection of data on race and ethnicity with greater 
detail beyond the minimum reporting categories as a default, but to 
allow agencies flexibility to determine what additional data to collect 
to best meet program and stakeholder needs, provided the detailed data 
aggregate into the minimum reporting categories, and subject to OIRA 
approval. In cases where agencies determine the additional burden would 
outweigh the potential benefits of collecting detailed data, Federal 
agencies may seek approval from OIRA to use the minimum reporting 
categories. In any circumstance, SPD 15 should encourage to collect and 
provide more granular data than the minimum reporting categories.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Refer to the Working Group's final report and its Annex 1 
to learn more about the Working Group's research and analysis that 
ultimately led to this recommendation, available on the Federal 
Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/, by searching for``OMB-
2023-0001''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Decisions. OMB accepts the recommendation to require the 
collection of more detailed data as a default. However, the intent of 
SPD 15 to produce consistent and comparable data is best served by 
providing a common framework for the collection of detailed data, 
rather than allowing each agency to determine what additional detail to 
collect. Therefore, agencies are required to collect the detailed

[[Page 22187]]

categories described in this Notice as a default. These detailed 
categories were selected to represent the largest population groups 
within the minimum categories, according to the results of the 2020 
Census. Selecting the largest groups by United States population 
prioritizes the utility of the data by maximizing the sample sizes. 
Small sample sizes are often the primary barrier to publication of data 
for specific groups; small samples decrease precision, make it harder 
to identify differences between groups, and increase privacy risk.
    OMB recognizes racial and ethnic identities and terminology are 
continuously changing and SPD 15 needs to balance the need for 
consistency with the ability to adapt to change and meet specific 
program needs. An agency may submit a request to OIRA for an exemption 
to the requirement to collect more detailed data beyond the minimum 
categories if the agency determines that the potential benefit of the 
detailed data would not justify the additional burden to the agency and 
the public or the additional risk to privacy or confidentiality. 
Agencies may also submit a request to OIRA for a variance to the 
detailed categories if they determine that collecting different 
detailed data categories than the ones listed in SPD 15 provides more 
useful or accurate data for the collection's specific context and 
intended uses. Any variances in detailed data collection must be able 
to be aggregated up to the required minimum categories. OIRA will 
review agency requests for exceptions and variances, and they will only 
be approved if they contain sufficient justification. Finally, due to 
the extensive testing done in the context of the American Community 
Survey, agencies may collect the detailed categories used on the most 
recent version of that survey, should they differ from the detailed 
categories listed in SPD 15, without further justification.

4. Updates to Terminology in SPD 15

    Working Group's Initial Proposals. The Working Group initially 
proposed SPD 15 remove certain terms or phrases in the minimum category 
definitions: ``Negro'' from the Black or African American definition; 
``Far East'' from the Asian definition, replacing with ``East Asian;'' 
``Other'' from Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander; and ``who 
maintain tribal affiliation or community attachment'' from the American 
Indian or Alaska Native (AIAN) definition.
    The FRN also proposed: (1) correcting ``Cuban'' from being listed 
twice in the minimum category definition for Hispanic or Latino; (2) 
changing the AIAN minimum category description to: ``The category 
`American Indian or Alaska Native' includes all individuals who 
identify with any of the original peoples of North, Central, and South 
America;'' (3) discontinuing the use of the terms ``majority'' and 
``minority;'' (4) using ``race'' and ``ethnicity'' as part of the 
question stem, e.g., ``What is < your/name's > race or ethnicity?;'' 
and (5) updating the current instructions of ``Mark one or more'' and 
``Select one or more'' to ``Mark all that apply'' and ``Select all that 
apply.'' Refer to Section C, Part 4 of the January 2023 FRN \33\ for 
additional information about this initial proposal from the Working 
Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 88 FR 5382.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Summary of Public Input. Comments generally demonstrated support 
for these proposals. The removal of the phrase ``who maintain tribal 
affiliation or community attachment'' was supported by several key 
organizations including the National Congress of American Indians. Some 
commenters called for greater clarity in which geographic areas would 
be referenced in the Asian definition. Comments from organizations that 
work with Central Asian populations in the United States explicitly 
requested ``Central Asia'' be included in the Asian definition. A 
number of public comments supported the replacement of the term ``Far 
East'' in the Asian definition and the removal of the term ``Other'' 
from the Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander definition. Among 
those who submitted comments about SPD 15 terminology, the majority 
agreed with the proposal to remove ``Negro'' from the Black or African 
American definition; however, some comments asked to retain the term, 
citing its long history on government records such as birth 
certificates and prior decennial census records.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ A comprehensive review of public input on this initial 
proposal can be found in the Working Group's Annex 4, available on 
the Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/, by searching 
for ``OMB-2023-0001''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Working Group's Final Recommendations. The Working Group refined 
their initial proposals based on public comment and delivered the 
following recommendations to OMB to update terminology in SPD 15.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Refer also to the Working Group's final report and its 
Annex 1 to learn more about the Working Group's research and 
analysis that ultimately led to these recommendations, available on 
the Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/, by searching 
for ``OMB-2023-0001''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) Remove ``majority'' and ``minority'' terminology, except when 
statistically accurate and used for statistical descriptions or when 
legal requirements call for use of the terms.
    (b) Use ``race and/or ethnicity'' in the question stem.
    (c) Use instructions that emphasize reporting multiple categories 
is allowed (and encouraged), regardless of whether minimum or detailed 
reporting categories are collected. Explicit instructions that the 
respondent can select all that apply AND provide detailed reporting is 
helpful. For example:
    i. In a self-administered instrument collecting the minimum 
reporting categories: ``Select all that apply. Note, you may report 
more than one group.''
    ii. In a self-administered instrument collecting detailed 
categories: ``Select all that apply and enter additional details in the 
spaces below. Note, you may report more than one group.''
    (d) Use ``Multiracial and/or Multiethnic'' in tabulations to 
represent people who identify with multiple minimum reporting 
categories.
    (e) Provide balance for definitions and use six example groups to 
illustrate the breadth and diversity of the category. In addition, make 
the following updates to the race and ethnicity definitions:
    i. Remove the phrase ``who maintains tribal affiliation or 
community attachment'' in the AIAN definition.
    ii. Change ``(including Central America)'' to having ``Central 
America'' listed co-equally with North and South America in the AIAN 
definition.
    iii. Replace ``Far East'' with ``Central or East Asia'' and 
``Indian Subcontinent'' with ``South Asia'' in the Asian definition.
    iv. Remove ``Negro'' from the Black or African American definition.
    v. Correct ``Cuban'' being listed twice in the Hispanic or Latino 
definition.
    vi. Remove ``. . . regardless of race. The term `Spanish origin' 
can be used in addition to `Hispanic or Latino' '' from the Hispanic or 
Latino definition.
    vii. Remove ``Other'' from the ``Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific 
Islander'' category title.
    OMB Decisions. OMB accepts the Working Group's final 
recommendations for revising the terminology in SPD 15, including the 
recommendations for revisions to the question stem and minimum category 
definitions, with the following two exceptions. First, in regards to 
recommendation (c) above, OMB does not include the phrase ``Note, you 
may report more than one group'' in the required question instructions. 
Additional testing conducted after the Working Group delivered their 
final recommendations found that including this phrase had the opposite 
of the

[[Page 22188]]

intended effect and resulted in a sizeable decrease in the number of 
respondents selecting multiple responses. Encouraging multiple 
responses whenever appropriate is critical to measuring the 
completeness and complexity of racial and ethnic identity. The revised 
standards require the use of the following question instructions: 
``What is your race and/or ethnicity? Select all that apply and enter 
additional details in the spaces below.'' Section D of this notice, 
which identifies OMB's priority areas for future research, includes the 
following research topic: how to encourage respondents to select 
multiple race and/or ethnicity categories when appropriate by enhancing 
question design and inclusive language.
    Second, in regards to recommendation (e) above, to align better 
with the other category definitions, as well as the previous 
definition, the revised SPD 15 adopts the following definition for the 
Hispanic or Latino category: ``Hispanic or Latino. Includes individuals 
of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Salvadoran, Cuban, Dominican, Guatemalan, and 
other Central or South American or Spanish culture or origin.'' 
Consistent with the Working Group's recommendations, the revised 
category definitions list six example groups reflecting the largest 
population groups in the United States according to the 2020 Census.
    These revisions will bring the terminology in SPD 15 more up to 
date, will more clearly explain that respondents should select more 
than one category when appropriate, and greatly increase the 
consistency and clarity of the minimum category definitions.

5. Implementation Guidance

    Working Group's Initial Proposals. The Working Group requested 
public input on how to best implement revisions to SPD 15. It listed 
several related issues including dates agencies must meet as they 
incorporate revisions; statistical methods to connect data produced 
from previous and revised collection formats; approaches for collecting 
race and ethnicity information by proxy when self-identification is not 
possible; approaches for reporting data for respondents who select more 
than one race or ethnicity; obtaining OIRA approval under the PRA to 
revise existing collections; and best practices for communicating SPD 
15 revisions to stakeholders. Refer to Section C, Part 5 of the January 
2023 FRN \36\ for additional information about the Working Group's 
request for public input.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 88 FR 5383.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Summary of Public Input. OMB received fewer public comments on the 
implementation issues than on the previous initial proposals. Public 
input on these issues included statements on the following topics: \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ A comprehensive review of public input on this initial 
proposal can be found in the Working Group's Annex 4, available on 
the Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/, by searching 
for ``OMB-2023-0001''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The importance of establishing a specific time Federal 
agencies would need to come into compliance with the revised SPD 15, 
and generally supporting the inclusion of an implementation timeline in 
the revised SPD 15;
     Concerns about data consistency when data are collected 
using the 1997 revision versus the current revision, whether across 
different data sets or within the same data set when data are collected 
over time;
     The need for tools to support bridging, or combining data 
collected under different versions of SPD 15;
     Support for requiring agencies to transparently describe 
how data were collected or generated and how nonresponse or other 
missing data were assigned or allocated when data were not collected 
via self-report;
     Questions about tabulation under a revised SPD 15, 
including:
    [cir] Will those of Hispanic or Latino origin continue to be 
treated differently in civil rights reporting? \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Currently most civil rights reporting in practice (not by 
SPD 15 guidance) is tabulated such that Hispanic or Latino responses 
supersede any race response. Hispanic or Latino responses are 
tabulated separately and race is only tabulated and reported for 
non-Hispanic or Latino respondents. Office of Management and Budget, 
supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] How will multiple race and ethnicity responses be tabulated?
    [cir] What will be the best practices and flexibilities for 
tabulating detailed data?
     Concern about individuals that select multiple response 
categories being grouped into one ``multiple race or ethnicity'' 
category, resulting in respondents with very different racial and 
ethnic identities being placed into the same category and in less 
information being released about the population's diversity;
     The importance of guidance on flexibility and best 
practices on how to tabulate detailed categories based on the 
population or sample size; and
     The limitations of proxy or observational data and the 
importance of clearly acknowledging those limitations. Several 
expressed how these forms of data collection are inherently biased. 
Some comments requested training, guidance, or technical assistance for 
how and when to use these methods and how to analyze resulting data. 
Some noted observational data collection is not necessarily of lesser 
value in some circumstances than self-identification, but instead 
measures a different concept and provides answers to a different set of 
questions that may be of interest (e.g., discrimination resulting from 
perceived race). Overall, the majority of public comments on the 
subject leaned toward prohibiting the collection of race and ethnicity 
by proxy.
    Working Group's Final Recommendations. Based on public input and 
further discussions with Federal agencies, the Working Group developed 
five final recommendations related to implementation.\39\ The first set 
includes two recommendations on planning and timing, and the second set 
includes three recommendations on how to improve collection and 
reporting practices for race and ethnicity data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Refer to the Working Group's final report and its Annex 3 
to learn more about the Working Group's research and analysis that 
ultimately led to these recommendations, available on the Federal 
Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/, by searching for ``OMB-
2023-0001''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recommendations on implementation and timing.
    (a) Require an Action Plan on Race and Ethnicity Data within 12 
months of the publication of a revised SPD 15. Encourage Federal 
agencies to use these action plans to make a unified plan to comply 
with SPD 15, identify potential risks, and inform stakeholders of these 
plans. OMB should encourage agencies to share this information 
publicly. Statistical agencies may still create their own action plan 
alongside the unified department plan to provide more detail on various 
data collection efforts and dissemination plans.
    (b) Existing Federal agency-conducted or -sponsored data collection 
efforts that include data on race and ethnicity shall be made 
consistent with the revised SPD 15 within four years of its 
publication. New Federal data collections that include data on race and 
ethnicity will adhere to the revised SPD 15 immediately.
    Recommendations for improving the collection and reporting 
practices for race and ethnicity data.
    (c) When the collection of race and ethnicity is done through 
visual observation, require the use of the minimum reporting categories 
but do not require the collection of detailed race and ethnicity. 
Respondent self-identification should be facilitated to the greatest 
extent possible.

[[Page 22189]]

    (d) When data are not self-reported, encourage agencies to 
transparently describe how the data were collected or generated, and 
how nonresponse or other missing data were assigned or allocated. 
Federal agencies and researchers should make it a practice to identify 
when data collections of race and ethnicity are intentionally designed 
to collect proxy responses, observational data, or employ a combination 
of self-identification, visual observation, and other collection 
methods.
    (e) With respect to tabulation, require that the seven minimum race 
and ethnicity reporting categories be treated co-equally, by not using 
different tabulation approaches or rules for different categories in 
the same table. Additionally, require that tabulation procedures used 
by Federal agencies result in the production of as much information on 
race and ethnicity as possible, including data on people reporting more 
than one race and/or ethnicity. However, Federal agencies shall not 
present data on detailed categories and specific Multiracial and/or 
Multiethnic populations if doing so would compromise data quality or 
respondent privacy.
    OMB Decisions.
    (a) OMB accepts this recommendation to require an Action Plan on 
Race and Ethnicity Data with the following modifications: Based on 
input from Federal agencies, each agency's Action Plan on Race and 
Ethnicity Data is required within 18 months of publication of this 
Notice, rather than the recommended 12 months. This will provide more 
time for agencies to coordinate across programs and engage stakeholders 
and data providers to submit a more specific Action Plan to OMB. 
Agencies do not need to wait for their Action Plans to be complete to 
start implementing the revisions wherever possible. To improve 
transparency, agencies must make their Action Plans publicly available 
upon submission to OMB.
    (b) OMB accepts this recommendation to create a deadline for 
implementation with the following modification: Based on input from 
Federal agencies, the deadline for compliance with this revised SPD 15 
is five years after the publication of this Notice, rather than the 
recommended four years. Most programs will be able to, and should, 
implement revisions sooner than the five-year deadline for compliance. 
Certain programs that involve interconnected data across multiple 
agencies or offices, or that rely on data collected and provided by 
non-Federal entities, may take longer to implement than programs like 
statistical surveys, but all programs are required to bring their 
collections into compliance within the five-year implementation period. 
OIRA will use the PRA review process to ensure that agencies adopt 
these revisions in a timely manner.
    (c) OMB accepts without modification this recommendation to exempt 
data collected through visual observation from requirements to collect 
detailed data. The revised SPD 15 further specifies that wherever 
possible, race and ethnicity data should be collected through self-
report.
    (d) OMB accepts this recommendation to encourage agencies to 
transparently describe race and ethnicity data with the following 
modifications: For statistical survey reporting, agencies are required, 
rather than encouraged, to transparently describe whether race and 
ethnicity data are self-reported or collected by proxy, along with any 
imputation or coding procedures. With respect to other agency products, 
agencies are strongly encouraged to provide this information whenever 
possible. OIRA will continue to review agency PRA requests to ensure 
that race and ethnicity data are collected by self-report whenever 
possible.
    (e) OMB accepts this recommendation to require agencies to treat 
the race and ethnicity categories co-equally with the following 
clarifications: With respect to collection, the seven minimum race and 
ethnicity categories shall be treated co-equally, except if a program 
or collection effort focuses on a specific racial or ethnic group, as 
approved by OIRA. Collection forms may not indicate to respondents that 
they should interpret some categories as ethnicities and others as 
races, or otherwise indicate conceptual differences among the minimum 
categories. Similarly, with respect to tabulation and presentation, the 
seven minimum race and ethnicity categories shall also be treated co-
equally, which means that when tabulating and presenting data, agencies 
may not use different tabulation approaches or rules for different 
categories within the same table. Again, an exception may be granted, 
if a program or collection effort focuses on a specific racial or 
ethnic group, as approved by OIRA.

6. Additional Topics

    Section C, Part 5 of the January 2023 FRN \40\ posed several 
additional questions for the public. This section presents public input 
on these topics, as well as any associated recommendations from the 
Working Group and OMB's decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 88 FR 5383.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order of Minimum Categories
    Summary of Public Input. The 1997 revision of SPD 15 does not 
dictate the order in which the minimum categories are displayed. 
Agencies generally order alphabetically or by population size; however, 
both approaches have received criticism. The Working Group asked what 
order, alphabetical or by population size, is preferred and why; or 
what alternative approach would be recommended. The comments addressing 
this subject agreed on ordering alphabetically, as this seemed the 
easiest way to order the categories and would be the least likely to be 
perceived as motivated by non-statistical preferences.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ A comprehensive review of public input on this question can 
be found in the Working Group's Annex 4, available on the Federal 
Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/, by searching for ``OMB-
2023-0001''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Working Group's Final Recommendation. The Working Group did not 
make a recommendation on this topic, citing insufficient research. 
Members of the Working Group raised concerns that alphabetical ordering 
could lead to measurement error if respondents scanning the question 
quickly see the term ``American'' in the AIAN category and mistakenly 
select that category to indicate American identity, even if they do not 
identify as American Indian or Alaska Native.
    OMB Decision. OMB concurs with the Working Group's determination 
that there is not sufficient evidence at this time to justify requiring 
a specific ordering for presentation, and SPD 15 will continue to 
provide agencies flexibility on how to order the response categories on 
information collections so that future research can inform the optimal 
approach to ordering response options. Note that all examples in this 
revision to SPD 15 will be shown with alphabetically-ordered minimum 
response categories.
Terms for Minimum Categories
    Summary of Public Input. The FRN asked for suggestions for 
different terms for any of the current minimum race and ethnicity 
categories. There were no prominent themes for such specific changes. 
Input from the public included requests to add Caribbean and Sub-
Saharan African minimum response categories, separate from African 
American; retire the use of the term ``African American;'' broaden the 
AIAN category title to signal inclusion of all indigenous people of the 
Americas; remove ``color'' words in category titles

[[Page 22190]]

(i.e., Black and White) and replace with regional terms; create South 
Asian and Southeast Asian minimum response categories; and add 
categories related to contextualized Hispanic or Latino heritage, such 
as Mestizo, Afro-Latino, or Trigue[ntilde]o.\42\ A comprehensive review 
of public input on this question can be found in the Working Group's 
Annex 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ A comprehensive review of public input on this question can 
be found in the Working Group's Annex 4, available on the Federal 
Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/, by searching for ``OMB-
2023-0001''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Working Group's Final Recommendation. The Working Group recommends 
preserving the existing minimum category titles in SPD 15, but also 
recommends future research, stakeholder engagement, and consultation on 
legal requirements to explore whether the names of minimum categories 
should be revised and, if so, how.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Refer to the Working Group's final report and its Annexes 1 
and 5 to learn more, available on the Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/, by searching for ``OMB-2023-0001''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Decision. OMB concurs with these recommendations and will 
maintain existing category titles. Continuity in the category titles 
supports more consistent and comparable data over time. Therefore, the 
only changes to the minimum category titles will be the addition of the 
MENA category and the removal of ``Other'' from the ``Native Hawaiian 
and Other Pacific Islander'' category title. With regard to concerns 
with the AIAN category title, OMB recognizes the need for further 
research and reiterates the importance of ensuring that major revisions 
to the question format, such as substantially changing a category 
title, are based on rigorous research and public input to avoid 
inadvertently affecting population estimates, creating breaks in 
series, or confusing respondents. OMB also notes that SPD 15 is not 
intended to measure Tribal enrollment or the status of Tribes. The 
revisions to the category definition are intended to improve estimates 
of the AIAN population in Federal statistics, and are not intended to 
in any way diminish or otherwise affect the political relationship 
between the sovereign Tribes and the Federal Government.
Collecting Data Related to Descent From Persons Who Were Enslaved in 
the United States
    Summary of Public Input. The FRN asked, ``How can Federal surveys 
or forms collect data related to descent from enslaved peoples 
originally from the African continent? For example, when collecting and 
coding responses, what term best describes this population group (e.g., 
is the preferred term `American Descendants of Slavery,' `American 
Freedmen,' or something else)? How should this group be defined? Should 
it be collected as a detailed group within the `Black or African 
American' minimum category, or through a separate question or other 
approach?''
    The majority of the public input on this subject expressed support 
for adding a category or question to identify descendants of persons 
enslaved in the United States. There was support for terms including: 
Foundational Black American, American Descendant of Slavery, American 
Freedman or Freedman, Black American, African-American, and Negro or 
American Negro; however, there was disagreement about which term is 
preferred. Commenters described the importance of collecting these data 
and the value for data users and policymakers, pointed to existing 
research that shows differences in outcome measures, like income and 
wealth, and stated that descendants of persons who were enslaved in the 
United States are ethnically distinct from African immigrants.
    Other commenters, including civil rights groups, opposed the 
collection of these data. Commenters expressed concern about the 
difficulty of verifying that identification is accurate, the usefulness 
or necessity of the data, the exclusion of other groups of historically 
enslaved people, and the creation of confusion that could make the 
Black or African American community harder to count. Related, there was 
also concern about potential harm to the full and accurate count of the 
Black or African American population, particularly Black or African 
American immigrants. The comments noted the lack of in-depth research 
and engagement with the diverse Black or African American community on 
terminology, definition, and data collection and coding protocol, as 
well as implications on the counts of other Black or African American 
diasporic populations.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ A comprehensive review of public input on this question can 
be found in the Working Group's Annex 4, available on the Federal 
Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/, by searching for ``OMB-
2023-0001''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Working Group's Final Recommendation. The Working Group did not 
recommend disaggregation of the Black or African American category by 
descent from persons who were enslaved in the United States. They 
identified the disaggregation of Black or African American population 
groups as a priority area for future research and noted that additional 
stakeholder engagement is also needed.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Refer to the Working Group's final report and its Annex 1 
to learn more, available on the Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/, by searching for ``OMB-2023-0001''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Decision. OMB concurs with this recommendation and the Working 
Group's determination that further research is needed. Individuals and 
civil rights groups disagreed on whether or how to implement this 
potential revision. We note that the revised SPD 15 does not prohibit 
agencies from asking additional questions related to race, ethnicity, 
ancestry, or other related concepts, including descent from persons who 
were enslaved in the United States. We also note that the revised SPD 
15 maintains the long-standing position that the race and/or ethnicity 
categories are not to be used as determinants of eligibility for 
participation in any Federal program.
Additional Comments Not Covered Above
    Finally, the Working Group and OMB welcomed other comments and 
suggestions on any other ways SPD 15 could be revised to produce more 
accurate and useful data.
    Some comments suggested adding a box for people to choose not to 
identify. OMB maintains the current practice of not allowing agencies 
to provide a specific response option for ``prefer not to respond,'' in 
order to maximize the quality, usefulness, and consistency of Federal 
race and ethnicity data. We note that with very few exceptions, 
provision of race and ethnicity information is voluntary for 
respondents.
    Other commenters asked OMB to revise the category definitions to 
include an exhaustive list of nationalities and their associations with 
the minimum categories for use in coding write-in responses. Aligned 
with the Working Group's recommendations on category definitions, OMB's 
revisions do not establish an exhaustive coding list that associates 
all possible nationalities with one or more of the minimum race and 
ethnicity categories. While the minimum category definitions and 
detailed categories in this revision to SPD 15 rely heavily on the 
concept of nationality, OMB recognizes that nationality is one of 
several components that contribute to racial and ethnic identity. The 
standards in SPD 15 are intended to facilitate individual identity to 
the greatest extent possible while still enabling the creation of 
consistent and comparable data. OMB specifies in this revision to SPD 
15 that when coding write-in data, agencies

[[Page 22191]]

must adopt practices that maximize comparability between data collected 
on forms and surveys with and without write-in fields to ensure the 
comparability of race and ethnicity data across Federal datasets.
    Some commenters expressed that SPD 15 is not revised often enough 
to stay current with shifts in demography and identity. In response, 
OMB commits to undertaking regular reviews of SPD 15 as described in 
Section D of this notice.
    Some commenters requested the addition of new minimum categories, 
such as a Mediterranean or Italian category, distinct from the White 
category. Other commenters also requested the addition of specific 
checkboxes for a variety of nationalities not covered in the initial 
proposals.
    OMB's revisions to SPD 15 add only one new minimum category, Middle 
Eastern or North African, the addition of which is supported by many 
years of research, testing, and stakeholder engagement. OMB will 
continue to monitor SPD 15 for its effectiveness, and regular reviews 
will include consideration of potential new minimum categories.
    Some commenters requested increasing the maximum characters in the 
American Indian or Alaska Native write-in field. OMB chose not specify 
in SPD 15 the length of the write-in fields or how these data are 
collected in order to allow agencies the flexibility to continue the 
use of paper forms when necessary and to adopt new data collection 
practices that may minimize burden, such as using drop-down menus. When 
collecting write-in data, agencies should seek to minimize burden to 
respondents and provide as much space as feasible to support complete 
and accurate responses.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ A comprehensive review of public input can be found in the 
Working Group's Annex 4, available on the Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/, by searching for ``OMB-2023-0001''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Topics for Future Research

    The Working Group and OMB identified several areas that require 
further research before the next review of SPD 15.
    1. What data processing procedures, such as coding, editing, and 
imputation practices, maximize the comparability of data collected 
across the Federal Government when using different combined question 
formats, for example between collections with and without write-in 
fields.
    2. How to encourage respondents to select multiple race and/or 
ethnicity categories when appropriate by enhancing question design and 
inclusive language, for example by researching methods for ensuring 
complete and accurate estimates of people who identify as Afro-Latino.
    3. How to collect high quality and useful data related to descent 
from persons who were enslaved in the United States, including research 
on terminology, question design, data quality, and willingness to 
provide these data.
    4. The optimal order of presentation for minimum categories, 
including research on rates of data entry error, burden, and respondent 
preference.
    5. Collecting race and ethnicity consistently across different 
languages and translations of the question.
    6. Evaluating the detailed checkboxes as demographics shift over 
time for their ability to generate useful, high-quality data.
    7. How respondents interpret each of the SPD 15 categories and 
definitions, and the combined race and/or ethnicity question in 
general, along with potential modifications to minimum category names.
    8. How to better align the AIAN category title with its definition 
while preserving data quality, for example by exploring the use of a 
more inclusive title such as ``Indigenous peoples of the Americas.''
    It is expected that the list of important research topics to 
examine before the next review will grow as agencies begin implementing 
these new standards over the coming years. OMB commits to establishing 
an Interagency Committee on Race and Ethnicity Statistical Standards, 
to be convened by the Chief Statistician of the United States, that 
will maintain and carry out a Government-wide research agenda and 
undertake regular reviews of SPD 15. These reviews will take place on a 
10-year cycle and will include opportunity for public input. The review 
will result in a recommendation to the Chief Statistician of the United 
States as to whether or not OMB should undertake a revision of SPD 15. 
Notwithstanding this regular review cycle, OMB may decide at any time 
to initiate a review of SPD 15.

Richard L. Revesz,
Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on 
Race and Ethnicity

    This Statistical Policy Directive provides the standards for 
maintaining, collecting, and presenting race and ethnicity data for all 
Federal information collection and reporting purposes. The categories 
in these standards are understood to be socio-political constructs and 
are not an attempt to define race and ethnicity biologically or 
genetically. They are not to be used as determinants of eligibility for 
participation in any Federal program. The standards do not require any 
agency or program to collect race and ethnicity data; rather they 
provide a common language for uniformity and comparability in the 
collection and use of race and ethnicity data by Federal agencies.
    The standards have seven minimum categories for data on race and 
ethnicity: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African 
American, Hispanic or Latino, Middle Eastern or North African, Native 
Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and White.

1. Categories and Definitions

    The minimum categories for data on race and ethnicity for Federal 
statistics, program administrative reporting, and civil rights 
compliance reporting are defined as follows:
    American Indian or Alaska Native. Individuals with origins in any 
of the original peoples of North, Central, and South America, 
including, for example, Navajo Nation, Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet 
Indian Reservation of Montana, Native Village of Barrow Inupiat 
Traditional Government, Nome Eskimo Community, Aztec, and Maya.
    Asian. Individuals with origins in any of the original peoples of 
Central or East Asia, Southeast Asia, or South Asia, including, for 
example, Chinese, Asian Indian, Filipino, Vietnamese, Korean, and 
Japanese.
    Black or African American. Individuals with origins in any of the 
Black racial groups of Africa, including, for example, African 
American, Jamaican, Haitian, Nigerian, Ethiopian, and Somali.
    Hispanic or Latino. Includes individuals of Mexican, Puerto Rican, 
Salvadoran, Cuban, Dominican, Guatemalan, and other Central or South 
American or Spanish culture or origin.
    Middle Eastern or North African. Individuals with origins in any of 
the original peoples of the Middle East or North Africa, including, for 
example, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Syrian, Iraqi, and Israeli.
    Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. Individuals with origins in 
any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific 
Islands, including, for example, Native Hawaiian, Samoan, Chamorro, 
Tongan, Fijian, and Marshallese.
    White. Individuals with origins in any of the original peoples of 
Europe,

[[Page 22192]]

including, for example, English, German, Irish, Italian, Polish, and 
Scottish.

2. Question Format

    Combined question: A combined race and ethnicity question is 
required for both self-response and proxy data collection. Respondents 
shall be offered a single combined race and ethnicity question that 
allows them to select one category or multiple categories. A single 
selection will be considered a complete response (e.g., Hispanic or 
Latino respondents are not required to select an additional category).
    Detailed responses: The revised SPD 15 requires the collection of 
detailed data on race and ethnicity beyond the minimum categories, 
unless an agency determines that the potential benefit of the detailed 
data would not justify the additional burden to the agency and the 
public or the additional risk to privacy or confidentiality, and 
therefore requests an exemption from OIRA. In those cases, Federal 
agencies must at least use the minimum categories and justify this 
determination in the agency's PRA information collection review 
package. In cases where the data collection is not subject to the 
information collection approval process, a direct request for a 
variance shall be made to OMB through the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). Respondents must be offered the following 
detailed categories for the corresponding minimum categories:
    Asian: Chinese, Asian Indian, Filipino, Vietnamese, Korean, and 
Japanese, Another group (for example, Pakistani, Hmong, Afghan, etc.)
    Black or African American: African American, Jamaican, Haitian, 
Nigerian, Ethiopian, Somali, Another group (for example, Trinidadian 
and Tobagonian, Ghanian, Congolese, etc.)
    Hispanic or Latino: Mexican, Puerto Rican, Salvadoran, Cuban, 
Dominican, Guatemalan, Another group (for example, Colombian, Honduran, 
Spaniard, etc.)
    Middle Eastern or North African: Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, 
Syrian, Iraqi, Israeli, Another group (for example, Moroccan, Yemeni, 
Kurdish, etc.)
    Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander: Native Hawaiian, Samoan, 
Chamorro, Tongan, Fijian, Marshallese, Another group (for example, 
Chuukese, Palauan, Tahitian, etc.)
    White: English, German, Irish, Italian, Polish, Scottish, Another 
group (for example, French, Swedish, Norwegian, etc.)
    Whenever possible, the ``Another group'' detail category checkboxes 
should be replaced with write-in fields that allows respondents to 
self-identify as shown in Figure 1 below. Providing a write-in field is 
especially critical for the American Indian or Alaska Native category, 
which does not have required detailed categories under these standards. 
The instructions for the write-in boxes should read ``Enter, for 
example,'' followed by the examples listed in parentheses above. For 
the American Indian or Alaska Native category, the instructions for the 
write-in option should read: ``Enter, for example, Navajo Nation, 
Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana, Native 
Village of Barrow Inupiat Traditional Government, Nome Eskimo 
Community, Aztec, Maya, etc.''
    Instead of the detailed categories listed above and shown in Figure 
1, agencies may use the detailed categories employed by the U.S. Census 
Bureau's most recently fielded American Community Survey. Any 
disaggregated data collected in addition to the detailed categories 
presented here (for example, a drop-down list for the American Indian 
or Alaska Native category) must be organized in such a way that the 
additional categories can be aggregated into the minimum categories. 
Any other variation to the detailed categories must be specifically 
authorized by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) through the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) information collection approval process. 
In those cases where the data collection is not subject to the 
information collection approval process, a direct request for a 
variance shall be made to OMB through the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).
    Question instruction. Respondents shall be offered the option of 
selecting one or more racial and ethnic designations. The question 
instructions will vary depending on whether there is a write-in field 
or if there are detailed categories. For questions with detailed 
categories and no write-in fields, the question instructions should 
read: ``What is your race and/or ethnicity? Select all that apply.'' 
When write-in fields are provided, the instructions should read: ``What 
is your race and/or ethnicity? Select all that apply and enter 
additional details in the spaces below.'' When collecting only the 
minimum categories, the question instructions should read ``What is 
your race and/or ethnicity? Select all that apply.''
    Examples. The following three figures provide illustrative examples 
of question formats that comply with SPD 15. The standards do not 
specify the order that responses must be presented, but agencies 
typically order the responses alphabetically, as shown, or by 
population size. SPD 15 envisions that whenever possible agencies will 
collect race and ethnicity data with a question format that includes 
the required minimum categories disaggregated by the required detailed 
categories as illustrated in Figure 1.
BILLING CODE 3110-01-P

[[Page 22193]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29MR24.000

    When an agency receives an OIRA exemption from collecting detailed 
data, it may use a format that includes only the minimum categories, as 
shown in Figures 2 and 3.

[[Page 22194]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29MR24.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29MR24.002

BILLING CODE 3110-01-C
    When using the minimum categories only, the quality of the data and 
consistency with other datasets may be improved by providing the 
respondent with examples as shown in Figure 2. Agencies should provide 
these examples when feasible over the example in Figure 3 without 
examples.

[[Page 22195]]

3. Data Collection and Editing Procedures

    With respect to collection, the seven minimum race and ethnicity 
categories shall be treated co-equally except if a program or 
collection effort focuses on a specific racial or ethnic group, and 
only as approved by OIRA. Collection forms may not indicate to 
respondents that they should interpret some categories as ethnicities 
and others as races, or otherwise indicate conceptual differences among 
the minimum categories.
    The mode of data collection may offer additional options for 
collecting detailed data. In electronic modes of collection, for 
example, agencies may use multiple screens to collect detailed data. 
The minimum reporting categories may be collected on an initial screen 
and detailed data for each minimum reporting category the respondent 
selected may be collected on follow up screens, whether through 
checkboxes, drop down menus, write-in areas, or another method.
    If detailed race and ethnicity data are collected in an 
interviewer-administered setting, the minimum categories should be 
asked first, treating each category as a yes/no question, followed by 
the detailed categories associated with the selected minimum 
categories.
    The method of data collection has implications for the quality and 
fitness for use of the resulting data. Wherever possible, race and/or 
ethnicity data should be collected through self-report, where the 
respondents directly provide their own race and/or ethnicity. In cases 
where self-report is not possible, data may be collected by proxy 
reporting, where a person knowledgeable of another's race and/or 
ethnicity responds on their behalf; by record matching, where existing 
records on an individual that contain their race and/or ethnicity are 
used to supply the information; or by observer identification, where an 
observer uses their best judgement of the most appropriate race and/or 
ethnicity categories in which to report an individual.
    When data are collected through visual observation, agencies are 
not required to collect detailed categories and are encouraged to 
instead use the minimum categories. For statistical survey reporting, 
agencies must maintain records on the mode and method of data 
collection, and how nonresponse or other missing data were assigned or 
allocated, and must make that information available to data users to 
allow them to evaluate the utility, objectivity, and integrity of the 
data. Agencies should also maintain and provide this information for 
administrative, grant, and compliance-related data collections whenever 
feasible. Agencies should use the terminology in this section when 
describing the method of collection and should make it a practice to 
describe the method of data collection in any reports on data 
collection design or methods.
    When coding write-in data, imputing missing data, or otherwise 
editing responses, agencies must adopt practices that maximize 
comparability between data collected on forms and surveys with and 
without write-in fields. Doing so will improve the comparability of 
race and ethnicity data across Federal datasets. For statistical survey 
reporting, agencies must maintain records on data processing procedures 
(such as coding, editing, and imputation practices), and must make that 
information available to data users to allow them to evaluate the 
utility, objectivity, and integrity of the data. Agencies should also 
maintain and provide this information for administrative, grant, and 
compliance related data collections whenever feasible.

4. Presentation of Data on Race and Ethnicity

    The tabulation procedures used by Federal agencies must result in 
the production of as much information on race and/or ethnicity as 
possible, including data on people reporting multiple categories. 
However, Federal agencies must not release race and ethnicity data if 
doing so would violate agency or Federal policies designed to ensure 
data quality or protect respondent privacy or confidentiality. When 
data are presented, Federal agencies are encouraged to use one or more 
of the three approaches below.
    Approach 1. The alone or in combination approach combines all 
individuals belonging to a particular racial or ethnic group (whether 
alone or in combination with another racial or ethnic group). For 
example, a respondent who reported being both White and Black or 
African American would fall into both the ``White alone or in 
combination'' category and the ``Black or African American alone or in 
combination'' category. This practice has been in place since the 1997 
revision of SPD 15 and is useful if the goal is capturing all people 
who might face a given life experience (e.g., increased risk of a 
disease or discrimination). Percentages across the categories sum to 
greater than 100 percent because the response categories are not 
mutually exclusive in this approach. The following is an example of the 
tabulation categories for this approach:

 American Indian or Alaska Native alone or in combination
 Asian alone or in combination
 Black or African American alone or in combination
 Hispanic or Latino alone or in combination
 Middle Eastern or North African alone or in combination
 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander alone or in combination
 White alone or in combination

    Approach 2. The most frequent multiple responses approach reports 
as many possible race and ethnicity combinations as possible. For 
example, an agency could report the seven minimum race and ethnicity 
categories alone, as well as race and ethnicity combinations meeting a 
specific population threshold or combinations of particular interest, 
or all observed combinations of multiple race and ethnicity groups. The 
percentages will sum to 100 percent because the response categories are 
mutually exclusive. The following is an example of possible tabulation 
categories for this approach:

 American Indian or Alaska Native alone
 Asian alone
 Black or African American alone
 Hispanic or Latino alone
 Middle Eastern or North African alone
 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander alone
 White alone
 American Indian or Alaska Native and Hispanic or Latino
 American Indian or Alaska Native and White
 Asian and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
 Asian and White
 Black or African American and Middle Eastern or North African
 Black or African American and White
 Hispanic or Latino and Black or African American
 Hispanic or Latino and White
 Middle Eastern or North African and Asian
 Middle Eastern or North African and White
 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander and Black or African 
American
 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander and White
 All additional Multiracial and/or Multiethnic groups

    Approach 3. The combined Multiracial and/or Multiethnic approach 
presents data for those reporting one of the seven race and/or 
ethnicity

[[Page 22196]]

categories alone, and then combines all other respondents reporting 
multiple race and/or ethnicity categories into an aggregated 
Multiracial and/or Multiethnic category. This approach will often 
obscure the specific racial and ethnic diversity of the population 
(e.g., over half of the population who identify as American Indian or 
Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander may be assigned 
to the Multiracial and/or Multiethnic group). Therefore, Federal 
agencies should use this approach in conjunction with another approach 
(like Approaches 1 or 2) to comply with the requirement to report as 
much information on race and ethnicity as possible, including data for 
respondents who reported more than one race and/or ethnicity category. 
The percentages in this approach will sum to 100 percent because the 
response categories are mutually exclusive. The following illustrates 
the tabulation categories used for this approach:

 American Indian or Alaska Native alone
 Asian alone
 Black or African American alone
 Hispanic or Latino alone
 Middle Eastern or North African alone
 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander alone
 White alone
 Multiracial and/or Multiethnic

    With respect to tabulation and presentation, regardless of 
approach, the seven minimum race and ethnicity categories shall be 
treated co-equally except if a program or collection effort focuses on 
a specific racial or ethnic group, and as approved by OIRA. When 
tabulating and presenting data, agencies must use a consistent approach 
across all categories within a single table. If categories must be 
combined in order to reach sample size thresholds for reporting, those 
combinations should be labeled with the list of combined categories 
rather than with ``other.''

5. Use of the Standards for Record Keeping and Reporting

a. Statistical Reporting
    These standards shall be used for all Federally sponsored 
statistical data collections that include data on race and ethnicity. 
Any variation must be specifically authorized by OIRA through the PRA 
information collection approval process. In those cases where the data 
collection is not subject to the information collection clearance 
process, a direct request for a variance must be made to OIRA.
b. General Program Administrative and Grant Reporting
    These standards shall be used for all Federal administrative 
reporting or record keeping requirements that include data on race and 
ethnicity. Agencies that cannot follow these standards must request a 
variance from OIRA. Variances will be considered if the agency can 
demonstrate that it is not reasonable for the primary reporter to 
determine race and ethnicity in terms of the specified minimum 
categories, or that the specific program is directed to only one or a 
limited number of races and ethnicities.
c. Civil Rights and Other Compliance Reporting
    These standards must be used by all Federal agencies for civil 
rights and other compliance reporting from the public and private 
sectors and all levels of government. Any variation requiring less 
detailed data or data which cannot be aggregated into the minimum 
categories must be specifically approved by OIRA.

6. Effective Date

    The provisions of these standards are effective March 28, 2024 for 
all new record keeping or reporting requirements that include race and 
ethnicity data. All existing record keeping or reporting requirements 
should be made consistent with these standards through a non-
substantive change request as soon as possible, or at the time they are 
submitted for extension or revision to OIRA under the PRA, but not 
later than March 28, 2029.
    Within 18 months of publication of these standards, the Chief 
Financial Officers Act Agencies and the U.S. Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission \47\ must submit to OMB, through their agency 
Statistical Officials and in coordination with their agency's Chief 
Data Officer, Evaluation Officer,\48\ Senior Agency Officials for 
Privacy, and other agency officials as appropriate, an Action Plan on 
Race and Ethnicity Data describing how they intend to bring their 
agency collections and publications into compliance with these 
standards by March 28, 2029. Agencies must make these plans available 
to the public through their websites at the time of submission to OMB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission does not 
currently have a Statistical Official and should submit their Action 
Plan through their Chief Data Officer.
    \48\ These three agency officials make up the Data Governance 
Bodies established under OMB M-19-23, Phase 1 Implementation of the 
Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018: Learning 
Agendas, Personnel, and Planning Guidance (July 10, 2019), available 
at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/m-19-23.pdf.

[FR Doc. 2024-06469 Filed 3-28-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-01-P