[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 111 (Wednesday, June 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33016-33025]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14126]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

[Docket ID OCC-2013-0014]

BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

[Docket No. OP-1465]

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75050; File No. S7-10-15]

Final Interagency Policy Statement Establishing Joint Standards
for Assessing the Diversity Policies and Practices of Entities
Regulated by the Agencies

AGENCIES:  Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC); Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (FDIC); National Credit Union Administration
(NCUA); Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB); and Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC).

ACTION: Notice of final interagency policy statement; request for
comments on proposed collection of information.

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

SUMMARY: The OCC, Board, FDIC, NCUA, CFPB, and SEC are issuing a final
interagency policy statement establishing joint standards for assessing
the diversity policies and practices of the entities they regulate, as
required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act of 2010.

DATES: The final interagency policy statement is effective on June 10,
2015. The agencies are soliciting comments only on the collection of
information. Comments must be submitted on or before August 10, 2015.
The effective date of the collection of information will be announced
in the Federal Register following Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
approval.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    OCC: Joyce Cofield, Executive Director, Office of Minority and
Women Inclusion, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or Karen McSweeney, Counsel, Law
Department, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TDD/TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.
    BOARD: Sheila Clark, Director, Office of Diversity and Inclusion,
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Katherine Wheatley, Associate General Counsel, Legal
Division, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Alye Foster, Senior Special Counsel,
Legal Division, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FDIC: Segundo Pereira, Director, Office of Minority and Women
Inclusion,<PHONE_NUMBER>; Melodee Brooks, Senior Deputy Director,
Office of Minority and Women Inclusion,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Robert Lee,
Counsel, Legal Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429-0002.
    NCUA: Wendy A. Angus, Acting Director, Office of Minority and Women
Inclusion at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Cynthia Vaughn, Diversity Outreach Program
Analyst, Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
Regina Metz, Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel, at (703) 518-
6540, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street,
Alexandria, VA 22314.
    CFPB: Stuart Ishimaru, Director, Office of Minority and Women
Inclusion, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Stephen VanMeter, Deputy General
Counsel, Legal Division at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Bureau of Consumer Financial
Protection, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552.
    SEC: Pamela A. Gibbs, Director, Office of Minority and Women
Inclusion,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Audrey B. Little, Senior Counsel, Office
of Minority and Women Inclusion,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act or Act) required the OCC, Board,
FDIC, NCUA, CFPB, and SEC (each, an Agency and collectively, the
Agencies) to each establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion
(OMWI) to be responsible for all matters of the Agency relating to
diversity in management, employment, and business activities.\1\ The
Act also instructed each OMWI Director to develop standards for
assessing the diversity policies and practices of entities regulated by
the Agency. To facilitate the use of these standards by regulated
entities that are subject to the regulations of more than one Agency,
the Agencies worked together to develop joint standards and issue this
Final Interagency Policy Statement (Policy Statement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 342 of the Act is codified at 12 U.S.C. 5452. The
Department of Treasury, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and the
Federal Reserve Banks also have established an OMWI, but only the
federal financial agencies with regulated entities have joined in
issuing this Policy Statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to drafting these standards, the OMWI Directors held a series
of roundtable discussions and teleconferences with representatives of a
variety of regulated entities, including depository institutions,
holding companies, and industry trade groups, to solicit their views on
appropriate standards and to learn about the successes and challenges
of existing diversity policies and programs. In addition, the OMWI
Directors met with financial professionals, consumer advocates, and
community representatives to gain a greater understanding of the issues
confronting minorities and women in obtaining employment and business
opportunities within the financial services industry. The information
and feedback provided during these outreach sessions guided the
development of these standards.

II. Proposed Policy Statement

    On October 25, 2013, the Agencies published a Notice in the Federal
Register requesting comment on a ``Proposed Interagency Policy
Statement Establishing Joint Standards for Assessing the Diversity
Policies and Practices of Entities Regulated by the Agencies''
(Proposal).\2\ The comment period on the Proposal was scheduled to
close on December 24, 2013, but in response to requests from members of
the public, the Agencies extended it to February 7, 2014.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 78 FR 64052.
    \3\ 78 FR 77792.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Proposal set out standards for assessing an entity's diversity
policies and practices in the following areas: Organizational
Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion; Workforce Profile and Employment
Practices; Procurement and Business Practices--Supplier Diversity; and
Practices to Promote Transparency of Organizational Diversity and
Inclusion. These proposed standards reflected the leading policies and
practices for advancing workforce and supplier diversity.
    The Proposal also explained the Agencies' approach to assessments,

noting that the assessment envisioned by the Agencies would not be a
part of the examination or supervisory process. Instead, the Proposal
provided that a ``model assessment'' would include a self-assessment by
an entity of its diversity policies and practices using the proposed
standards; voluntary disclosure of the self-assessment to the
appropriate Agency; and publication by the entity of its diversity
efforts, in order to increase the public's awareness and understanding.
The Proposal also stated that the Agencies may periodically review this
public information to monitor diversity and inclusion practices and
reach out to regulated entities to discuss diversity and inclusion.
    In drafting the proposed standards, the Agencies recognized that
each entity has unique characteristics, such as its governance
structure, workforce size, total assets, contract volume, geographic
location, and community characteristics. To reflect this, throughout
the Proposal, the Agencies stated that the standards may be tailored
and used in a manner reflective of an individual entity's size and
other characteristics. In developing the Proposal, the Agencies were
also mindful of section 342(b)(4) of the Act, which states that the
directive to develop standards may not be construed to mandate any
requirement on or otherwise affect the lending policies and practices
of any regulated entity, or to require any specific action based on the
findings of the assessment.

III. Comment Summary and the Agencies' Response

    The Agencies collectively received more than 200 comments on the
Proposal, although some commenters submitted either multiple comments
or identical or substantially similar comments to multiple Agencies.
The comments reflected the views of interested parties, including
financial institutions, public interest organizations, trade
associations and organizations, government officials, and other members
of the public. In general, the commenters supported the concept of
diversity and inclusion, particularly in the workforce. A number of
commenters applauded the Agencies for jointly developing standards,
while others commended the Proposal's flexible approach. Other
commenters, however, expressed concern about the Proposal. Some urged
the Agencies to withdraw the proposed standards, while others suggested
specific changes to address certain issues.
    The Agencies carefully considered all of these comments in
formulating the final Policy Statement. The discussion below addresses
significant issues that commenters raised and explains the changes to
the Policy Statement.

A. General Comments

1. Legal Effect
    The Agencies received several comments that interpreted the
Proposal to impose new legal requirements on regulated entities or to
mandate specific actions. Some commenters argued that these
requirements and mandates exceeded the Agencies' statutory authority
and were unlawful. For example, several commenters interpreted
references to ``metrics'' in the Proposal to require or strongly
encourage quotas in hiring and contracting. Others expressed concern
that the new requirements would impose a significant compliance burden,
particularly on small entities. For example, some commenters
interpreted the standards to require entities to develop methods for
assessing supplier diversity, and they argued that this was unduly
burdensome for small entities.
    Other commenters stated that the Proposal used ``prescriptive''
language, from which they inferred that some level of compliance with
the standards would be expected from regulated entities. These
commenters urged the Agencies to draft the final standards as
``recommendations'' and clarify that the final Policy Statement is a
guidance document. Another commenter requested that the Agencies frame
the final Policy Statement as a ``best practices'' guide with which
regulated entities were not required to comply.
    In contrast, some commenters stated that the inclusion of new
requirements or mandates in the standards was consistent with the plain
language of section 342(b)(2)(C). For example, some commenters argued
that the Agencies should require the regulated entities to provide them
with information about their diversity policies and practices,
including assessment information. Others stated that the congressional
intent of section 342 was to promote diversity and inclusion to the
maximum extent possible and noted that the Proposal sets only minimum
standards.
    In light of these comments, it is clear that Agencies need to
provide additional guidance about the intended legal effect of the
final Policy Statement. To this end, the Agencies have added the
following language: ``This document is a general statement of policy
under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553. It does not
create new legal obligations. Use of the Standards by a regulated
entity is voluntary.'' The Agencies believe that this will clarify the
confusion noted above.
2. Meaning of ``Diversity''
    Several commenters raised questions about the meaning of
``diversity,'' which the Proposal did not define. A few commenters
requested the Agencies define the term to avoid differing
interpretations, with one commenter stating that the standards would
not be useful in the absence of a definition. Several commenters
suggested definitions, ranging from a definition limited to minorities
and women to an expanded definition that would include individuals with
disabilities, veterans, and lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender (LGBT)
individuals. Another commenter recommended also defining ``inclusion,''
to make clear that the goal of diversity is not met by simply hiring a
diverse group.
    The Agencies agree that the term ``diversity'' should be defined.
They also believe it should both reflect the general focus in section
342 on minorities and women and provide flexibility to regulated
entities that define the term more broadly. Accordingly, the final
Policy Statement provides that ``diversity'' refers to ``minorities . .
. and women.'' For purposes of this definition, ``minority'' is defined
as Black Americans, Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian
Americans, which is consistent with the definition of ``minority'' in
section 342(g)(3) of the Act.
    The final Policy Statement also states that this definition of
diversity ``does not preclude an entity from using a broader definition
with regard to these standards.'' This language is intended to be
sufficiently flexible to encompass other groups if an entity wants to
define the term more broadly. For example, a broader definition may
include the categories referenced by the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) in its Employer Information Report EEO-1 (EEO-1
Report),\4\ as well

as individuals with disabilities, veterans, and LGBT individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Private employers with 100 or more employees and federal
contractors and first-tier subcontractors with 50 or more employees
that have a contract or subcontract of $50,000 or more, or serve as
depository of Government funds in any amount, are required by Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to collect data on employment
diversity and file an EEO-1 Report with the EEOC.
    The EEO-1 Report defines race and ethnicity categories as
Hispanic or Latino; White (Not Hispanic or Latino); Black or African
American (Not Hispanic or Latino); Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific
Islander (Not Hispanic or Latino); Asian (Not Hispanic or Latino);
American Indian or Alaska Native (Not Hispanic or Latino); and Two
or More Races (Not Hispanic or Latino). http://www.eeoc.gov/employers/eeo1survey/2007instructions.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agencies also agree that the concept of inclusion is important
to include in these standards because current leading practices
advocate an inclusive culture as essential in the support of diversity
and inclusion programs. Therefore, the final Policy Statement defines
``inclusion'' to mean a process to create and maintain a positive work
environment that values individual similarities and differences, so
that all can reach their potential and maximize their contributions to
an organization.''
3. Applicability to Small Entities
    Although the Proposal encouraged the use of the standards ``in a
manner reflective of the individual entity's size and other
characteristics,'' the Agencies received questions and comments about
how the standards apply or are relevant to small entities. Some
commenters stated that the Proposal offered a ``one-size fits all
approach'' and should be replaced with standards that reflect the
unique structure of small entities. Another commenter noted that many
small regulated entities do not have boards of directors, Web sites, or
other attributes referenced in the Proposal. According to this
commenter, even with the Proposal's caveat that the standards may be
tailored for small entities, these organizations would be at a
disadvantage when measuring their policies and practices in light of
the proposed standards. Others suggested that the Policy Statement
expressly carve out entities below a certain size, such as those with
fewer than 100 employees or those that do not file EEO-1 Reports.
    These comments demonstrate that the Agencies need to clarify how
the standards are relevant to and may be used by small entities.
Therefore, the final Policy Statement states, ``The Agencies recognize
that each entity is unique with respect to characteristics such as its
size, location, and structure. When drafting these standards, the
Agencies focused primarily on institutions with more than 100
employees. The Agencies know that institutions that are small or
located in remote areas face different challenges and have different
options available to them compared to entities that are larger or
located in more urban areas. The Agencies encourage each entity to use
these standards in a manner appropriate to its unique
characteristics.''
4. Extraterritorial Application
    A few commenters requested that the Agencies clarify whether the
standards apply to a regulated entity's foreign operations. These
commenters observed that many regulated entities operate
internationally and that the concept of diversity varies from country
to country. They advocated that regulated entities be allowed the
flexibility to include or exclude foreign operations when conducting an
assessment. In response, the final Policy Statement clarifies that the
final standards address an entity's U.S. operations. This does not,
however, preclude a multinational entity from also using these
standards to undertake a broader assessment of its organization.

B. Comments on the Joint Standards

1. Organizational Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion
    The first set of standards in the Proposal addressed the role and
importance of an entity's senior leadership in promoting diversity and
inclusion across an organization. These standards described the
policies and practices that demonstrate the commitment of an entity's
senior leadership to diversity and inclusion in both employment and
contracting, as well as to fostering a corporate culture that embraces
diversity and inclusion.
    Commenters were generally supportive of including standards to
assess an organization's commitment, with several referencing the
importance of diversity and inclusion in their own organizations. Some
commenters noted that an organization's commitment to diversity and
inclusion can provide a competitive advantage. Another stated that,
while an institution's commitment to diversity is important, each
regulated entity should be allowed to demonstrate this commitment in
its own way and cautioned against assuming that extensive and
formalized policies demonstrate an organization's commitment to
diversity. This commenter noted, as an example, that it would be more
appropriate for community banks to apply their efforts to community
outreach rather than to creating documentation to show compliance.
    Several commenters recommended changes to these standards. One
commenter suggested adding language stating that diversity and
inclusion are best served when an entity assigns senior leadership to
these initiatives and provides this leadership with the appropriate
resources. Another commenter suggested that the standards specify the
appropriate credentials for the personnel responsible for an entity's
diversity efforts, such as experience, a proven track record, and the
ability to help others understand and embrace diversity efforts.
    The Agencies are encouraged that the commenters generally
acknowledge how essential organizational commitment is to advancing
diversity and inclusion. The Agencies also agree that the senior
official responsible for an entity's diversity and inclusion efforts
preferably should have relevant knowledge and experience, and they have
revised this standard to reflect this change. Otherwise, the final
standards on Organizational Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion are
consistent with the Proposal.
2. Workforce Profile and Employment Practices
    The Proposal provided examples of how an entity could promote the
fair inclusion of minorities and women in its workforce and noted that
many entities evaluate their business objectives using analytical tools
to track and measure workforce inclusiveness. It set out standards to
assess an entity's workforce profile and employment practices, which
included using the data prepared in connection with EEO-1 Reports and
Affirmative Action Plans (AAPs),\5\ as well as other metrics. The
standards also addressed whether an entity holds its management
accountable for these efforts and creates diverse applicant pools for
workforce opportunities when hiring from both within and outside of an
organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ AAPs are required of certain government contractors and
monitored by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters expressed concern about using the EEO-1 Report
data for this purpose, pointing out that it provides a purely numerical
view of workforce diversity and gives little insight into the impact of
diversity efforts. One commenter suggested that EEO-1 Report data
should constitute, at most, a small element of a more holistic view of
an entity's diversity practices. This commenter recommended that the
Agencies revise the standards to focus on an entity's diversity efforts
and to take into account: industry-specific considerations; the
relevant labor market; and ongoing efforts to facilitate, promote and
increase diversity. Other commenters observed that EEO-1 Report data
does not address concepts of diversity that are broader than gender,
race, and ethnicity or the extent of diversity within an entity's
management and senior management ranks.
    Still other commenters were concerned that references in the
Proposal to ``metrics,'' as a tool for

evaluating and assessing workforce diversity and inclusion efforts,
could be interpreted to encourage or require the unlawful use of
quotas, classifications, or preferences. These commenters recommended
that the Agencies revise the standards to clarify that the purpose of
metrics is not to force certain outcomes and that the standards are not
intended to encourage or require an entity to undertake an assessment
based on numerical goals, metrics, or percentages.
    Commenters also addressed the specific standard that would hold an
entity's management accountable for diversity and inclusion efforts.
One commenter stated that it is not clear who this standard is intended
to cover and what constitutes accountability. Another commenter argued
that this standard is overbroad and implies that regulated entities are
required to include diversity and inclusion measurements in the
performance evaluations of all management personnel. This commenter
also expressed concern that this requirement could lead to unlawful
employment decisions focused on achieving quotas and suggested that
only the senior-level official(s) responsible for overseeing and
directing diversity efforts, not all management personnel, should be
held accountable. Another group of commenters observed, however, that
accountability may be achieved most effectively by linking an entity's
diversity and inclusion efforts to its leaders' performance assessments
and compensation.
    In the final Policy Statement, the Agencies have retained the
reference to EEO-1 Report and AAP data. The Agencies recognize that the
information generated from these sources is limited, particularly for
entities with large workforces and those that broadly define diversity.
However, this information may provide a baseline that a company may
find useful. To address commenters who expressed concern that the data
coming from these particular sources is limited or narrow, the Agencies
have added a statement to encourage entities to use other analytical
tools that they may find helpful. Finally, due to a change in how the
Agencies organized the final standards, the discussion about EEO-1
data, AAP data, and other analytical tools is located in the
introduction to this set of standards and not in the standards
themselves.
    With respect to references to ``metrics,'' the Agencies continue to
believe that quantitative data is valuable for evaluating diversity and
inclusion but know that qualitative data and information also can
provide useful material for this purpose. In order to clarify that both
types of resources are important, the Agencies have revised the final
standards to reflect the importance of both quantitative and
qualitative measurements.
    With respect to the concern expressed by some commenters that the
proposed standards could be interpreted to encourage or require the
unlawful use of quotas, classifications, or preferences for personnel
actions, the Agencies note that they did not intend to require or
encourage unlawful usage. That said, the collection and use of data on
race, gender, and ethnicity for self-evaluation is not unlawful. To
address this confusion, however, the Agencies added to the Policy
Statement a new standard providing that the ``entity implements
policies and practices related to workforce diversity and inclusion in
a manner that complies with all applicable laws.'' The final Policy
Statement also includes another new standard, which provides that the
``entity ensures equal employment opportunities for all employees and
applicants for employment and does not engage in unlawful employment
discrimination based on gender, race, or ethnicity.'' The Agencies
believe that together, these new standards will address confusion about
whether the standards encourage or require the unlawful use of quotas,
classifications, or preferences.
    Finally, the Agencies retained the proposed standard that
referenced management accountability but have clarified that this
standard applies to all levels of management. The Agencies believe that
management accountability at all levels is an important factor to
consider when evaluating workforce diversity and employment practices.
In addition, the final standards provide an example of one manner of
addressing management accountability for diversity and inclusion
efforts.
3. Procurement and Business Practices--Supplier Diversity
    The third set of standards included in the Proposal addressed the
leading practices related to supplier diversity. These included a
supplier diversity policy that provides a fair opportunity for
minority-owned and women-owned businesses to compete for procurement of
business goods and services; methods to evaluate and assess supplier
diversity (which may include metrics and analytics); and practices that
promote a diverse supplier pool.
    The Agencies received many comments on this set of standards.
Several commenters argued that the scope of 342(b)(2)(C) is limited to
diversity in employment practices and, therefore, the Agencies exceeded
their statutory authority by proposing supplier diversity standards.
Others argued that these standards would unlawfully compel the use of
private funds to promote diversity. Another group of commenters
supported these standards and noted that entities with a commitment to
diversity and inclusion often have supplier diversity programs. These
commenters stated that supplier diversity can contribute to an entity's
efficiency and innovation, reflect its customer base, promote growth
and development, and support job creation and economic development.
Additional commenters urged the Agencies to include stronger or
additional standards on this topic. For example, some encouraged the
Agencies to set targets for the percentage of an entity's procurement
dollars that should be spent with diverse vendors and to establish
other quantifiable measures to ensure the full and fair inclusion of
diverse suppliers.
    After careful consideration of these comments, the Agencies have
elected not to make any substantive changes to the standards for
policies and practices related to supplier diversity. The Agencies
believe that consideration of an entity's supplier diversity policies
and practices is within the scope of section 342(b)(2)(C) and is
appropriate for a comprehensive self-assessment. The Agencies do not
believe, however, that it is appropriate for them to dictate
quantifiable targets for supplier diversity and have not included
targets in the final Policy Statement.
4. Practices To Promote Transparency
    As explained in the Proposal, transparency of an entity's diversity
and inclusion program promotes the objectives of section 342.
Transparency and publicity are important because they give members of
the public information to assess an entity's diversity policies and
practices. Accordingly, the Proposal included standards setting out the
leading practices in this area, which include the entity making
information about its diversity and inclusion strategic plans,
commitment, and progress available to the public.
    Several commenters supported the goal of transparency, arguing that
it is critical to the fair and efficient manner in which our financial
markets operate. They also believe that transparency provides valuable
information to an entity's management, employees, prospective
employees, customers, and investors, as well as to the general

public. In contrast, other commenters expressed concern that these
standards would be interpreted to encourage or require the release of
proprietary, privileged or confidential information and compromise an
entity's competitive position. This concern, they argued, would create
a disincentive for an entity to conduct a self-assessment. Another
commenter argued that these standards are unnecessary because regulated
entities can achieve diversity and inclusion without disclosing this
information, while others noted that many entities already publish
information about their diversity and inclusion efforts.
    The Agencies believe that the goals of section 342 can be best
achieved when an entity is transparent with respect to its diversity
and inclusion efforts and progress. They believe that the proposed
standards accomplished this goal in the appropriate manner and have
included them in the final Policy Statement with no material changes.
5. Entities' Self-Assessment
    The Proposal included a section entitled ``Proposed Approach to
Assessment,'' in which the Agencies explained that in a ``model
assessment,'' a regulated entity would use the standards to undertake a
self-assessment, disclose the self-assessment and other relevant
information to the appropriate Agency, and share with the public its
efforts to comply with the standards. The Agencies received many
comments on this section.
    a. Implementation Comments
    A number of commenters requested more information on the frequency
of self-assessments. To address this, the final Policy Statement
provides that an entity with successful diversity policies and
practices conducts a self-assessment annually and monitors and
evaluates its performance under its diversity policies and practices on
an ongoing basis. An annual review and ongoing monitoring are
consistent with both leading practices and other types of business
assessments.
    Other commenters asked for clarification on where a regulated
entity should submit its assessment data and recommended that the
Agencies designate a ``lead'' agency for this purpose. In the final
Policy Statement, the Agencies clarify that entities that choose to
share their self-assessment information with their regulator may
provide it to the OMWI Director of the entity's primary federal
financial regulator.\6\ The primary federal financial regulator will
share information with other Agencies when appropriate to support
coordination of efforts and to avoid duplication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In the case of institutions identified in 12 U.S.C. 1813(q),
the primary federal financial regulator is the `appropriate federal
banking agency' identified in that section. For credit unions, the
primary federal financial regulator is the NCUA. For brokers,
dealers, transfer agents, investment advisers, municipal advisors,
investment companies, self-regulatory organizations (including
national securities exchanges, registered securities associations,
registered clearing agencies, and the Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board), nationally recognized statistical rating
organizations, securities information processors, security-based
swap dealers, major security-based swap participants, security-based
swap execution facilities, and securities-based swap data
repositories, the primary federal financial regulator is the SEC.
For any other entity that meets the definition of `covered person'
under 12 U.S.C. 5481(6), the primary federal financial regulator is
the CFPB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, to assist entities in viewing the final Policy Statement
as an integrated whole, the model assessment concepts introduced in
this section of the Proposal are now a fifth set of standards entitled
``Entities' Self-Assessment.''
    b. Self-Assessments
    The Agencies received many comments on the Proposal's description
of a model assessment as a ``self-assessment.'' Some commenters viewed
a self-assessment as a reasonable interpretation of statutory intent,
while others asserted that it was the only permissible interpretation.
Others expressed concern with the concept of an entity conducting its
own assessment and questioned whether this approach either would
undermine regulatory oversight or was inconsistent with the statute.
Some commenters suggested that the Agencies were required by statute to
conduct the assessments.
    In the final Policy Statement, the Agencies have retained the self-
assessment approach to assessments. While it is clear to the Agencies
that the statute contemplates that assessments will take place, they
interpret the statutory language as ambiguous with respect to who
should conduct the assessments or the form that assessments should
take. The Agencies also believe that the entities are in the best
position to assess their own diversity policies and practices and that
these self-assessments can provide entities with an opportunity to
focus on areas of strength and weakness in their own policies and
programs.
    c. Disclosure of Assessment Information to the Agencies
    The Agencies received many comments about the Proposal's
``disclosure'' component of a model assessment. Some commenters argued
that by encouraging disclosure, the Agencies would discourage candid
self-assessments. Another group of commenters was concerned about
protecting the confidentiality of disclosed information and recommended
including a safe harbor in the final standards to protect the disclosed
information from release.
    Other commenters interpreted the statute to mandate disclosure and
rejected the idea of a voluntary disclosure. One of these commenters
argued that ``voluntary disclosure'' conflicted with congressional
intent, as evidenced by the section 342(b)(4) statement that nothing in
the directive to develop standards may be construed to require any
specific action based on the findings of the assessment. This commenter
argued that the phrase ``findings of the assessment'' in the statutory
language indicates that the Agencies will obtain assessment information
from the regulated entities and, therefore, the disclosure cannot be
voluntary.
    One commenter expressed concern that the permissiveness of
voluntary disclosures would invite the regulated entities to disregard
the Agencies and treat their oversight as optional and irrelevant. This
commenter expressed concern that very few regulated entities would
share their assessment information with the Agencies unless they were
required to do so. Another commenter noted that financial institutions
have been required to disclose information on lending practices,
including lending by ethnic group, since 1975 pursuant to the Home
Mortgage Disclosure Act and that this requirement has provided
transparency without endangering the institutions.
    With respect to the final Policy Statement, the Agencies view a
voluntary scheme as more consistent with the framework set out by the
statute, and therefore, the final Policy Statement provides for
voluntary disclosure. Nevertheless, the final Policy Statement reflects
leading practices with respect to transparency by encouraging the
entities to disclose assessment information to the Agencies. Entities
submitting information may designate such information as confidential
commercial information as appropriate, and the Agencies will follow the
Freedom of Information Act in the event of requests for particular
submissions.
    d. Entities' Disclosure of Assessment Information to the Public
    Finally, the Agencies received comments about the Proposal's
provision encouraging entities to disclose to the public information
about their efforts to comply with the standards. Some commenters
supported

this public disclosure, asserting that it was necessary to increase
public accountability. Others argued that an entity that elects to
publish information about its diversity progress may not undertake an
honest self-assessment of this progress. Other commenters stated that
public disclosures which focus on metrics may have the unintended
consequence of encouraging numerical targets, rather than diversity and
inclusion. These commenters also stated that publicly disclosing
certain information could expose an entity to potential liability or
reveal trade secrets.
    In the final Policy Statement, the Agencies have retained the
concept of an entity publicly displaying information regarding its
efforts with respect to the standards. As noted above, disclosure
reflects leading practices with respect to transparency. In addition,
the final Policy Statement, consistent with the Proposal, also does not
specify the types of information that regulated entities might consider
making publicly available. The Agencies believe the regulated entities
should have discretion to decide the type of information and the level
of detail to share publicly.
6. Use of Assessment Information by Agencies
    In describing the model assessment, the Proposal stated that the
Agencies would monitor the information submitted to them as a resource
in carrying out their diversity and inclusion responsibilities. It also
stated that the Agencies may periodically review entities' public
information to monitor diversity and inclusion practices. The Agencies
may contact entities and other interested parties to discuss diversity
and inclusion practices and methods of assessment. The Agencies did not
receive any specific or material comments on these statements.
    In the final Policy Statement, these concepts are retained. The
final Policy Statement states that the Agencies may publish information
disclosed to them provided they do not identify a particular entity or
individual or disclose confidential business information in an effort
to balance concerns about confidentiality of information with the
importance of sharing information.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) \7\ generally provides
that a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the collection and the agency has obtained a valid OMB control
number. Furthermore, no person may be subject to a collection of
information unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number.
These provisions apply to any collection of information, regardless of
whether the responses to the collection are voluntary or mandatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PRA requires an agency to provide the public and other agencies
with an opportunity to comment on any proposed information collection.
This helps to ensure that: the public understands the agency's
collection and instructions; respondents provide the requested data in
the desired format; reporting burden (time and financial resources) is
minimized; interested parties understand the collection instruments;
and the agency can properly assess the impact of its information
collection on respondents.
    This Policy Statement Establishing Joint Standards for Assessing
the Diversity Policies and Practices of Entities Regulated by the
Agencies contains a collection of information within the meaning of the
PRA. The Agencies intend to submit this new collection of information
to OMB for review and approval in accordance with the PRA and its
implementing regulations. For collections of information not contained
in a proposed rule, the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a
notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of
information and to allow 60 days for public comment. To comply with
this requirement, the Agencies are publishing this notice in
conjunction with the issuance of this final Policy Statement.

A. Overview of the Collection of Information

1. Description of the Collection of Information and Proposed Use
    The title for the proposed collection of information is:
     Joint Standards for Assessing Diversity Policies and
Practices
    The Joint Standards entitled ``Practices to Promote Transparency of
Organizational Diversity and Inclusion'' contemplate that the regulated
entity is transparent about its diversity and inclusion activities by
making certain information available to the public annually on its Web
site or in other appropriate communications, in a manner reflective of
the entity's size and other characteristics. The information noted in
this standard is: The entity's diversity and inclusion strategic plan;
its policy on its commitment to diversity and inclusion; progress
toward achieving diversity and inclusion in its workforce and
procurement activities (which may include the entity's current
workforce and supplier demographic profiles); and employment and
procurement opportunities available at the entity that promote
diversity.
    In addition, the Joint Standards entitled ``Self-Assessment''
envision that the regulated entity uses the Joint Standards to conduct
a voluntary self-assessment of its diversity policies and practices at
least annually, provides to its primary federal financial regulator
information pertaining to the entity's self-assessment of diversity
policies and practices, and publishes information pertaining to its
efforts with respect to the standards. The information provided to the
Agencies would be used to monitor progress and trends among regulated
entities with regard to diversity and inclusion in employment and
contracting activities, and to identify and publicize promising
diversity policies and practices.
2. Description of Likely Respondents and Estimate of Annual Burden
    The collections of information contemplated by the Joint Standards
would impose no new recordkeeping burdens as regulated entities would
only publish or provide information pertaining to diversity policies
and practices that they maintain during the normal course of business.
The Agencies estimate that it would take a regulated entity
approximately 12 burden hours on average to annually publish
information pertaining to diversity policies and practices on the
entity's Web site or in other appropriate communications, and retrieve
and submit information pertaining to the entity's self-assessment of
its diversity policies and practices to the primary federal financial
regulator. The Agencies estimate the total burden for all regulated
entities as follows:
    Information Collection: Joint Standards for Assessing Diversity
Policies and Practices.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: \8\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The burden estimates are based on the average number of
responses anticipated by each Agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC: 215.
    Board: 488.
    FDIC: 398.
    NCUA: 367.
    CFPB: 750.
    SEC: 1,250.
    Frequency of Collection: Annual.
    Average Response Time per Respondent: 12 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:

    OCC: 2,580 hours.
    Board: 5,856 hours.
    FDIC: 4,776 hours.
    NCUA: 4,404 hours.
    CFPB: 9,000 hours.
    SEC: 15,000 hours.
    Obligation to respond: Voluntary.

B. Solicitation of Public Comments

    The Agencies specifically invite comment on: (a) Whether the
collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of
the Agencies' functions, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Agencies' estimate of the
information collection burden, including the validity of the methods
and the assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information proposed to be collected; (d) Ways to
minimize the information collection burden on respondents, including
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology; and (e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs
and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to
provide information.
    The Agencies will summarize the comments submitted in response to
this notice and/or include them in the request for OMB approval. All
comments will be a matter of public record.
    Commenters may submit their comments to the Agencies at:
    OCC: Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC
is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by
email, if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory
Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency,
Attention: 1557-NEW, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Mail Stop 9W-11,
Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571)
465-4326 or by electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may
personally inspect and photocopy comments at the OCC, 400 7th Street
SW., Washington, DC 20219. For security reasons, the OCC requires that
visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You may do so by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to
present valid government-issued photo identification and to submit to
security screening in order to inspect and photocopy comments.
    Board: You may submit comments, identified by OMWI Policy
Statement, by any of the following methods:
     Agency Web site: http://www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments at http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/proposedregs.aspx.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include OMB
number in the subject line of the message.
     FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary, Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20551.
    All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at
http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/proposedregs.aspx as submitted,
unless modified for technical reasons. Accordingly, your comments will
not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Public
comments may also be viewed electronically or in paper form in Room MP-
500 of the Board's Martin Building (20th and C Streets, NW.) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.
    FDIC: You may submit comments on this information collection, which
should refer to ``Policy Statement Establishing Joint Standards for
Assessing the Diversity,'' by any of the following methods:
    Agency Web site: http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the FDIC Web site.
    Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include ``Policy Statement Establishing
Joint Standards for Assessing the Diversity'' in the subject line of
the message.
    Mail: Gary A. Kuiper, Counsel, MB-3074, or John Popeo, Counsel, MB-
3007, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20429.
    NCUA: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the information collection to Jessica Khouri, National Credit Union
Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428, Fax
No.<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    CFPB: You may submit comments, identified by the title of the
information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket
number (see above), by any of the following methods:
     Electronic: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Attention: PRA
Office), 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau (Attention: PRA Office), 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20002.
    SEC: Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and include ``SEC File 270-664 OMWI Policy
Statement'' in the subject line of the message.

Interagency Policy Statement Establishing Joint Standards for Assessing
the Diversity Policies and Practices of Entities Regulated by the
Agencies

I. Introduction

    Section 342(b)(2)(C) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act) requires the Directors
of the Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI) to develop
standards for assessing the diversity policies and practices of the
entities regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency,
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration, Bureau of
Consumer Financial Protection, and Securities and Exchange Commission
(Agencies). To promote consistency, the Agencies worked together to
develop joint standards (Standards) for assessing diversity policies
and practices. This Interagency Policy Statement (Policy Statement)
announces those Standards.
    This document is a general statement of policy under the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553. It does not create new
legal obligations. Use of the Standards by a regulated entity is
voluntary. The Agencies will not use their examination or supervisory
processes in connection with these Standards.
    For purposes of this Policy Statement, the Agencies define
``diversity'' to refer to minorities, as defined in section 342(g)(3)
of the Dodd-Frank Act (that is, Black Americans, Native Americans,
Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans), and women. This definition of
diversity does not preclude an entity from using a broader definition
with regard to these standards. In addition, as used in this Policy
Statement, the Agencies define ``inclusion'' to mean a process to
create and maintain a positive work environment that values individual
similarities and differences, so that all can reach their potential and
maximize their contributions to an organization. The Standards set
forth below may be used to assess policies and practices that impact
the inclusion

of minorities and women in the regulated entity's workforce and the
existence of minority-owned and women-owned businesses among a
regulated entity's suppliers of products and services.

II. Joint Standards

    The Agencies designed these Standards to provide a framework for an
entity to create and strengthen its diversity policies and practices,
including its organizational commitment to diversity, workforce and
employment practices, procurement and business practices, and practices
to promote transparency of organizational diversity and inclusion. The
Agencies recognize that each entity is unique with respect to
characteristics such as its size, location, and structure. When
drafting these standards, the Agencies focused primarily on
institutions with more than 100 employees. The Agencies know that
institutions that are small or located in remote areas face different
challenges and have different options available to them compared to
entities that are larger or located in more urban areas. The Agencies
encourage each entity to use these Standards in a manner appropriate to
its unique characteristics. Finally, the Agencies intend that the
Standards will address an entity's U.S. operations.

(1) Organizational Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion

    The leadership of an organization with successful diversity
policies and practices demonstrates its commitment to diversity and
inclusion. Leadership comes from the governing body, such as a board of
directors, as well as senior officials and those managing the
organization on a day-to-day basis. These Standards inform how an
entity promotes diversity and inclusion in both employment and
contracting and how it fosters a corporate culture that embraces
diversity and inclusion.
Standards
    In a manner reflective of the individual entity's size and other
characteristics,
     The entity includes diversity and inclusion considerations
in both employment and contracting as an important part of its
strategic plan for recruiting, hiring, retention, and promotion.
     The entity has a diversity and inclusion policy that is
approved and supported by senior leadership, including senior
management and the board of directors.
     The entity provides regular progress reports to the board
and senior management.
     The entity regularly conducts training and provides
educational opportunities on equal employment opportunity and on
diversity and inclusion.
     The entity has a senior level official, preferably with
knowledge of and experience in diversity and inclusion policies and
practices, who oversees and directs the entity's diversity and
inclusion efforts. For example, this official may be an executive-level
Diversity Officer (or equivalent position) with dedicated resources to
support diversity strategies and initiatives.
     The entity takes proactive steps to promote a diverse pool
of candidates, including women and minorities, in its hiring,
recruiting, retention, and promotion, as well as in its selection of
board members, senior management, and other senior leadership
positions.

(2) Workforce Profile and Employment Practices

    Many entities promote the fair inclusion of minorities and women in
their workforce by publicizing employment opportunities, creating
relationships with minority and women professional organizations and
educational institutions, creating a culture that values the
contribution of all employees, and encouraging a focus on these
objectives when evaluating the performance of managers. Entities with
successful diversity and inclusion programs also regularly evaluate
their programs and identify areas to be improved.
    Entities use various analytical tools to evaluate a wide range of
business objectives, including metrics to track and measure the
inclusiveness of their workforce (e.g., race, ethnicity, and gender).
Entities that are subject to the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and
the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs currently collect
and maintain data and supporting documentation that may assist in
evaluating and assessing their policies and practices related to
workforce diversity and inclusion. Specifically, entities that file
EEO-1 Reports \9\ required under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 routinely track and analyze employment statistics by gender, race,
ethnicity, and occupational group. Entities that develop and implement
the affirmative action programs required under the regulations
implementing Executive Order 11246 track and analyze employer-created
job groups. Entities also are encouraged to use other analytical tools
that they may find helpful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Employer Information Report EEO-1 (EEO-1 Report) is
required to be filed annually with the EEOC by (a) private employers
with 100 or more employees and (b) federal contractors and first
tier subcontractors with 50 or more employees that have a contract
or subcontract of $50,000 or more or that serve as a depository of
government funds in any amount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Standards
    In a manner reflective of the individual entity's size and other
characteristics,
     The entity implements policies and practices related to
workforce diversity and inclusion in a manner that complies with all
applicable laws.
     The entity ensures equal employment opportunities for all
employees and applicants for employment and does not engage in unlawful
employment discrimination based on gender, race, or ethnicity.
     The entity has policies and practices that create diverse
applicant pools for both internal and external opportunities that may
include:
    [cir] Outreach to minority and women organizations;
    [cir] Outreach to educational institutions serving significant
minority and women student populations; and
    [cir] Participation in conferences, workshops, and other events to
attract minorities and women and to inform them of employment and
promotion opportunities.
     The entity utilizes both quantitative and qualitative
measurements to assess its workforce diversity and inclusion efforts.
These efforts may be reflected, for example, in applicant tracking,
hiring, promotions, separations (voluntary and involuntary), career
development, and retention across all levels and occupations of the
entity, including the executive and managerial ranks.
     The entity holds management at all levels accountable for
diversity and inclusion efforts, for example by ensuring that such
efforts align with business strategies and individual performance
plans.

(3) Procurement and Business Practices--Supplier Diversity

    Companies increasingly understand the competitive advantage of
having a broad selection of available suppliers to choose from with
respect to factors such as price, quality, attention to detail, and
future relationship building. A number of entities have achieved
success at

expanding available business options by increasing outreach to
minority-owned and women-owned businesses.
    As in the employment context, entities often use metrics to
identify the baseline of how much they spend procuring and contracting
for goods and services, how much they spend with minority-owned and
women-owned businesses, and the availability of relevant minority-owned
and women-owned businesses, as well as changes over time. Similarly,
entities may use outreach to inform minority-owned and women-owned
businesses (and affinity groups representing these constituencies) of
these opportunities and of the procurement process.
    In addition, entities' prime contractors often use subcontractors
to fulfill the obligations of various contracts. The use of minority-
owned and women-owned businesses as subcontractors provides valuable
opportunities for both the minority-owned and women-owned businesses
and the prime contractor. Entities may encourage the use of minority-
owned and women-owned subcontractors by incorporating this objective in
their business contracts.
Standards
    In a manner reflective of the individual entity's size and other
characteristics,
     The entity has a supplier diversity policy that provides
for a fair opportunity for minority-owned and women-owned businesses to
compete for procurement of business goods and services. This includes
contracts of all types, including contracts for the issuance or
guarantee of any debt, equity, or security, the sale of assets, the
management of the entity's assets, and the development of the entity's
equity investments.
     The entity has methods to evaluate its supplier diversity,
which may include metrics and analytics related to:
    [cir] Annual procurement spending;
    [cir] Percentage of contract dollars awarded to minority-owned and
women-owned business contractors by race, ethnicity, and gender; and
    [cir] Percentage of contracts with minority-owned and women-owned
business sub-contractors.
     The entity has practices to promote a diverse supplier
pool, which may include:
    [cir] Outreach to minority-owned and women-owned contractors and
representative organizations;
    [cir] Participation in conferences, workshops, and other events to
attract minority-owned and women-owned firms and inform them of
contracting opportunities; and
    [cir] An ongoing process to publicize its procurement
opportunities.

(4) Practices To Promote Transparency of Organizational Diversity and
Inclusion

    Transparency and publicity are important aspects of assessing
diversity policies and practices. Greater awareness and transparency
give the public information to assess those policies and practices.
Entities publicize information about their diversity and inclusion
efforts through normal business methods, which include displaying
information on their Web sites, in their promotional materials, and in
their annual reports to shareholders, if applicable. By making public
an entity's commitment to diversity and inclusion, its plans for
achieving diversity and inclusion, and the metrics it uses to measure
success in both workplace and supplier diversity, an entity informs a
broad constituency of investors, employees, potential employees,
suppliers, customers, and the general community about its efforts. The
publication of this information can make new markets accessible for
minorities and women and illustrate the progress made toward an
important business goal.
Standards
    In a manner reflective of the individual entity's size and other
characteristics, the entity is transparent with respect to its
diversity and inclusion activities by making the following information
available to the public annually through its Web site or other
appropriate communication methods:
     The entity's diversity and inclusion strategic plan;
     The entity's policy on its commitment to diversity and
inclusion;
     The entity's progress toward achieving diversity and
inclusion in its workforce and procurement activities (which may
include the entity's current workforce and supplier demographic
profiles); and
     Opportunities available at the entity that promote
diversity, which may include:
    [cir] Current employment and procurement opportunities;
    [cir] Forecasts of potential employment and procurement
opportunities; and
    [cir] The availability and use of mentorship and developmental
programs for employees and contractors.

(5) Entities' Self-Assessment

    The Agencies interpret the term ``assessment'' to mean self-
assessment. Entities that have successful diversity policies and
practices allocate time and resources to monitoring and evaluating
performance under their diversity policies and practices on an ongoing
basis. Entities are encouraged to disclose their diversity policies and
practices, as well as information related to their assessments, to the
Agencies and the public. Entities submitting information may designate
such information as confidential commercial information as appropriate,
and the Agencies will follow the Freedom of Information Act in the
event of requests for particular submissions.
Standards
    In a manner reflective of the individual entity's size and other
characteristics,
     The entity uses the Standards to conduct self-assessments
of its diversity policies and practices annually.
     The entity monitors and evaluates its performance under
its diversity policies and practices on an ongoing basis.
     The entity provides information pertaining to the self-
assessments of its diversity policies and practices to the OMWI
Director of its primary federal financial regulator.
     The entity publishes information pertaining to its efforts
with respect to the Standards.

III. Use of Assessment Information by Agencies

    The Agencies may use information submitted to them to monitor
progress and trends in the financial services industry with regard to
diversity and inclusion in employment and contracting activities and to
identify and highlight those policies and practices that have been
successful. The primary federal financial regulator will share
information with other agencies when appropriate to support
coordination of efforts and to avoid duplication. The OMWI Directors
will also continue to reach out to regulated entities and other
interested parties to discuss diversity and inclusion practices and
methods of assessment. The Agencies may publish information disclosed
to them, such as best practices, in any form that does not identify a
particular entity or individual or disclose confidential business
information.

    Dated: May 22, 2015.
Thomas J. Curry,
Comptroller of the Currency.
    By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, June 3, 2015.
Margaret McCloskey Shanks,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
    Dated at Washington, DC, this 21st of May, 2015.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
    By the National Credit Union Administration Board on May 26,
2015.
John H. Brolin,
Senior Staff Attorney.
    Dated: May 18, 2015.
Richard Cordray,
Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    By the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    Date: May 27, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-14126 Filed 6-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-33-P; 6210-01-P; 6741-01-P; 7590-01-P; 4810-AM-P;
8010-01-P


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Review Checklist for ICR Desk Officers  -  ICR Renewal Packages
INSTRUCTIONS: Complete Initial Review Checklist within 2 business days of receiving the ICR renewal package. Provide checklist to Team Lead when complete.

ICR Information
ICR Title
National Water Quality Inventory Reports (Renewal)
EPA ICR Number
1560.13
OMB Control Number
2040-0071
ICR Desk Officer
Teddy

Step 1: Review ICR Package for Completeness
Note: If the answer to any of the questions in this section is NO, the ICR renewal package is NOT complete and needs to be returned to the ICR Owner.  Via email, indicate to the ICR Owner what is missing and that it needs to be included in order for the ICR package to be marked as "received."  Include the ICR Team Lead on this email.  If the answers to ALL of these questions are YES, proceed to Step 2 in the checklist.

                            Comments for Team Lead

Does the ICR package contain all of the required files - Supporting Statement, Draft Federal Register Notice and ICR Submission Worksheet?

Has the comment period for the 1[st] Federal Register Notice closed?

Does the Supporting Statement contain all major sections listed in template?

Has the ICR Owner completed consultations as part of this ICR renewal cycle?
HINT: Section 3c of the supporting statement should address the consultations conducted for this renewal.

Step 2: Update ICR Tracker Information

                            Comments for Team Lead

Enter the received date in the ICR Tracker in the "Submitted to OMS" column.

Check to see if the EPA ICR Number in the ICR materials provided by the POC match EPA ICR Number listed in the ICR Tracker.

Step 3: Update ICRAS Information

                            Comments for Team Lead

Create a new ICR package in ICRAS if one does not already exist.

Check if there any other pending packages in ICRAS (whether pending at EPA or OMB).

                             If so, list packages.

Check to see if the EPA ICR Number in the ICR materials provided by the POC match EPA ICR Number listed in ICRAS.

                         If not, describe difference.
Step 4: Content Review

                            Comments for Team Lead

Determine if the total annual hours/costs are changing by more than 25%.
HINT: Look at the Bottom Line Burden section of the Supporting Statement and compare those amounts to the current amounts listed in ICRAS. If the difference between those numbers is larger than the existing burden hours/costs divided by 4, the change exceeds 25%.

Check if there are Part 2 tabs in the ICR Submission Worksheet for all existing Part 2 ICs in ICRAS.

Step 5: Request FRL Number

                            Comments for Team Lead
                                      ☐
Submit request to create a new FRL # and prepare the Typesetting Request.
NOTE: For OCSPP ICRs, check the FR Notice first to see if there is already an FRL Number.  If there is an FRL Number, provide this to Bill so he can add it to the Typesetting Request.
Courtney must do this when she signs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICR Supporting Statement Outline  -  Part A

 1. Identification of the Information Collection
 	1(a) Title of the Information Collection
 	1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract
 2. Need for and use of the Collection
 	2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection
 	2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data
 3. Non-duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria
 	3(a) Non-duplication
 	3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR submission to OMB
 	3(c) Consultations
 	3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection
 	3(e) General Guidelines
 	3(f) Confidentiality
 	3(g) Sensitive Questions
 4. The Respondents and the Information Requested
 	4(a) Respondents/SIC Codes
 	4(b) Information Requested
 		(i) Data items, including record keeping requirements
 		(ii) Respondent Activities
 5. The Information Collected - Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management
 	5(a) Agency Activities
 	5(b) Collection Methodology and Management
 	5(c) Small Entity Flexibility
 	5(d) Collection Schedule
 6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection
 	6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden
 	6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs
 		(i) Estimating Labor Costs
 		(ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs
 		(iii) Capital/Start-up Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs
 		(iv) Annualizing Capital Costs
 	6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost
 	6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs
 	6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables
 		(i) Respondent Tally
 		(ii) The Agency Tally
 		(iii) Variations in the Annual Bottom Line
 	6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden
 	6(g) Burden Statement


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 145 (Friday, July 29, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45769-45770]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16301]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG22-184-000.
    Applicants: TN Solar 1, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of TN Solar 1, LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/22/22.
    Accession Number: 20220722-5140.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/12/22.

    Docket Numbers: EG22-185-000.
    Applicants: EEC Skyhawk Lessee LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of EEC Skyhawk Lessee LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/22/22.
    Accession Number: 20220722-5142.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/12/22.

    Docket Numbers: EG22-186-000.
    Applicants: Top Hat Wind Energy LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Top Hat Wind Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220725-5065.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: EG22-187-000.
    Applicants: Top Hat Wind Energy Holdings LLC.
    Description: Top Hat Wind Energy Holdings LLC submits Notice of
Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 7/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220725-5070.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/22.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints
and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:

    Docket Numbers: EL22-78-000.
    Applicants: Industrial Energy Consumers of America, et al. v.
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Complaint of Industrial Energy Consumers of America,
et al.
    Filed Date: 7/22/22.
    Accession Number: 20220722-5173.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/22.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1555-002.
    Applicants: New Mexico Wind, LLC.
    Description: Refund Report: Refund Report Filing Under Docket ER21-
1555 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 7/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220725-5076.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2141-000.
    Applicants: Sun Mountain Solar 1, LLC.
    Description: Agreement to the Release of Non-Public Information of
Sun Mountain Solar 1, LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/21/22.
    Accession Number: 20220721-5151.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2210-001.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2022-07-22-PSCo-CSU-WACM-666-Amnd to
be effective 6/29/2022.

    Filed Date: 7/22/22.
    Accession Number: 20220722-5137.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/12/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2283-000; ER22-2284-000.
    Applicants: Black Bear Alabama Solar Tenant, LLC, Black Bear
Alabama Solar 1, LLC.
    Description: Agreement to the Release of Non-Public Information of
Black Bear Alabama Solar 1, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 7/21/22.
    Accession Number: 20220721-5150.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2470-000.
    Applicants: Katmai Energy, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Market Based Rate Tariff of
Katmai Energy, LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/20/22.
    Accession Number: 20220720-5206.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2471-000.
    Applicants: Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Energy Services LLC.
    Description: Request for Renewed Authorization to Undertake
Affiliate Sales of Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Energy Services.
    Filed Date: 7/21/22.
    Accession Number: 20220721-5152.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2472-000.
    Applicants: Lockhart Transmission Holdings, LLC.
    Description: Petition for Waivers and Blanket Authorization under
section 204 of Lockhart Transmission Holdings, LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/22/22.
    Accession Number: 20220722-5170.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/12/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2473-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: FPL Amendment to NITSA and
NOA with City of Blountstown to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 7/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220725-5069.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2474-000.
    Applicants: Top Hat Wind Energy LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based
Rate Authorization to be effective 9/24/2022.
    Filed Date: 7/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220725-5072.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2475-000.
    Applicants: Top Hat Wind Energy Holdings LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based
Rate Authorization to be effective 9/24/2022.
    Filed Date: 7/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220725-5073.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2476-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: OATT Modifications--MOD-030
to be effective 10/5/2022.
    Filed Date: 7/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220725-5074.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2477-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: ISA, SA No. 6542 and CSA, SA
No. 6543; Queue No. AC1-033 to be effective 6/23/2022.
    Filed Date: 7/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220725-5095.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2478-000.
    Applicants: Skylar Energy LP.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Notice of Cancellation of Market
Based Rate Tariff and Request for Waiver to be effective 7/26/2022.
    Filed Date: 7/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220725-5097.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2479-000.
    Applicants: Skylar Resources LP.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Notice of Cancellation of Market
Based Rate Tariff and Request for Waiver to be effective 7/26/2022.
    Filed Date: 7/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220725-5099.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2480-000.
    Applicants: Black Hills Power, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Jurisdictional
Agreements to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 7/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220725-5129.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2481-000.
    Applicants: Seven Cowboy Wind Project, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Seven Cowboy Wind Project,
LLC MBR Tariff to be effective 8/31/2022.
    Filed Date: 7/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220725-5133.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2482-000.
    Applicants: 25 Mile Creek Windfarm LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: 25 Mile Creek Windfarm LLC
MBR Tariff to be effective 7/26/2022.
    Filed Date: 7/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220725-5137.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/22

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 25, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-16301 Filed 7-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P