Response to OMB Comments 2-12-16 130PM

JOINT SUPPORTING STATEMENT
FOR THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION FOR A NEW
INFORMATION COLLECTION
“Joint Standards for Assessing the Diversity Policies and Practices”
A. JUSTIFICATION.
1.

Legal and Administrative Requirements

Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010
(Act) required the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System (Board), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Bureau of
Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB), and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
(together, Agencies and separately, Agency) each to 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. The Act also instructed each OMWI Director
to develop standards for assessing the diversity policies and practices of entities regulated by the
Agency. The Agencies worked together to develop joint standards (Joint Standards) and, on June
10, 2015, they jointly published in the Federal Register 1 the “Final Interagency Policy Statement
Establishing Joint Standards for Assessing the Diversity Policies and Practices of Entities
Regulated by the Agencies” (Policy Statement). 2
The Policy Statement contains a “collection of information” within the meaning of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The Policy Statement includes Joint Standards that
cover “Practices to Promote Transparency of Organizational Diversity and Inclusion.” These
Joint Standards contemplate that a regulated entity is transparent about its diversity and inclusion
activities by making certain information available to the public annually on its Web sites or
through other appropriate communications methods, in a manner reflective of the entity’s size
and other characteristics. The specific information referenced in these standards is: (a) the
entity’s diversity and inclusion strategic plan; (b) its policy on its commitment to diversity and
inclusion; (c) its progress toward achieving diversity and inclusion in its workforce and
procurement activities (which may include the entity’s current workforce and supplier diversity
demographic profiles); and (d) opportunities available at the entity that promote diversity. The
individual entity would determine the type and extent of information that demonstrates its
progress toward achieving diversity and inclusion. The information supplied would be
commensurate with the size and complexity of the entity. No specific information is required by
the Agencies. In addition, opportunities that promote diversity would vary by entity and,
1

80 Fed. Reg. 33016.
The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) joined the Agencies in issuing the Policy Statement.
However, the NCUA has not joined in this request for approval under the PRA of the information collection
contained in the Policy Statement. NCUA intends to submit a separate request for PRA approval.

2

1

therefore, would not be specified by the Agencies. Examples of such opportunities could be
current employment and procurement opportunities; forecasts of potential employment and
procurement opportunities; and the availability of mentorship and developmental programs for
employees and contractors.
In addition, the Policy Statement includes Joint Standards that address “Entities’ SelfAssessment.” The Joint Standards for Entities’ Self-Assessment envision that a regulated entity,
in a manner reflective of its size and other characteristics, (a) conducts annually a voluntary selfassessment of its diversity policies and practices; (b) monitors and evaluates its performance
under its diversity policies and practices on an ongoing basis; (c) provides information pertaining
to its self-assessment to the OMWI Director of its primary federal financial regulator; and (d)
publishes information pertaining to its efforts with respect to the Joint Standards.
2.

Purpose and Use of the Information Collection

The Agencies will use the information provided to them to monitor progress and trends in
the financial services industry with regard to diversity and inclusion in employment and
contracting activities, as well as 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
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.
This is a new collection; therefore, there is no current collection.
3.

Consideration Given to Information Technology

An entity may use any available automated, electronic, mechanical or other
technological collection technique to submit information to the Agencies.
4.

Duplication of Information

Entities that are subject to certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements, such as
those required by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 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. Entities also are encouraged to use other analytical tools
that they may find helpful. In addition, the primary federal financial regulator will share
information with other agencies, when appropriate, to support coordination of efforts and to
avoid duplication.
5.

Reducing the Burden on Small Entities
2

When drafting these standards, the Agencies focused primarily on institutions
with more than 100 employees in an effort to minimize the impact on smaller entities.
In addition, in order to make clear how the standards are relevant to and may be used
by small entities, the Policy Statement encourages each entity to use the standards in a
manner appropriate to its size and unique characteristics. This also should minimize
burden on smaller institutions. Finally, we note that the standards are voluntary.
6.

Consequences of Not Conducting Collection

If the information is not collected or is collected less frequently, the Agencies may not
be able to monitor progress and trends in the financial services industry with regard to
diversity and inclusion in employment and contracting activities or identify and highlight
those policies and practices that have been successful.
7.

Inconsistencies with Guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2)
The information is collected in a manner consistent with 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2).

8.

Consultations Outside the Agency

The Agencies requested comments on the collection of information contained in the
Policy Statement at the time of the publication of the Policy Statement. During the 60-day
comment period, the Agencies collectively received four comment letters: two from industry
trade associations, 3 one from an advocacy organization, 4 and one from an individual. 5 6 The
comments addressed the collection of information under the Joint Standards that address
“Entities’ Self-Assessment.” (These Joint Standards envision that a regulated entity should
“provide information pertaining to the self-assessments of its diversity policies and practices
to the OMWI Director of its primary federal financial regulator.”) The commenters also
commented on aspects of the Policy Statement unrelated to the collection of information;
these views are not relevant to this Supporting Statement and, accordingly, they are not
addressed below.
a.

Practical Utility of Information Collection

3

See letters from Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA), dated August 10, 2015, and Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), dated August 10, 2015.
4
See letter from The Greenlining Institute, dated August 10, 2015.
5
See letter from William Johnson (undated).
6
NCUA joined in issuing the 60-day Federal Register notice and request for comments on the information
collection. The National Association of Federal Credit Unions (NAFCU) submitted a comment letter to NCUA
during the comment period, which was shared among the Agencies. Accordingly, the comment letter from NAFCU
is included in the discussion of comments below.

3

Two commenters addressed whether the collection of information pertaining to selfassessments will have practical utility. One commenter asserted that it is premature to gauge
how useful information will be without knowing precisely what information the Agencies
will request. 7 This commenter assumed that the Agencies would provide details about the
information to be submitted or develop an information collection instrument.
The other commenter maintained that the information collection request in the Policy
Statement will yield large variations in the information submitted and predicted that the
information received will have little practical utility. 8 The commenter noted that the
information submitted should be standardized in order for the Agencies to accurately assess
the state of diversity and inclusion across the industry. The commenter’s view is that
standardization of the data request would enhance quality, utility, and clarity of the collected
information.
Although the Agencies have not specified the content or format for the information
collection described in the Policy Statement, they anticipate that the information submitted to
them will be similar in content, if not in form. This is because they contemplate that
regulated entities will organize their information collection around the categories in the Joint
Standards. The Agencies also expect that the information they receive will help achieve the
purpose of the collection: to allow the Agencies to monitor progress and trends in the
financial services industry regarding diversity and inclusion in employment and contracting
and to identify and highlight those policies and practices that have been successful.
b.

Specific Collection Instrument

Three commenters requested that the Agencies be more specific about the information
collection. 9 One commenter asked the Agencies to send questions that “comport with how
its member firms operate” and that the information collection request allow entities to submit
qualitative information to add context to quantitative submissions. 10
Another commenter asked the Agencies to provide a “robust” example or template of
how best to submit information. 11 The commenter also recommended that the Agencies
provide a non-exhaustive list of materials that respondents can use to compare against what
they are planning to submit.

7

See letter from SIFMA.
See letter from Greenlining Institute.
9
See letters from Greenling Institute, SIFMA, and MBA.
10
See letter from SIFMA.
11
See letter from MBA.
8

4

The third commenter recommended that the Agencies develop a standardized
collection instrument. 12 The commenter stated that the comment letter it submitted in
response to the proposed Policy Statement recommended questions for a standardized
survey. 13 The commenter urged the Agencies to adopt a thorough framework for collecting
specific and consistent data.
The Agencies appreciate receiving collection instrument recommendations and offers
to assist in developing an instrument. At this time, however, the Agencies have not
developed a joint information collection instrument. The Agencies believe that the Policy
Statement encourages regulated entities to provide information regarding their selfassessments in a manner reflective of the Joint Standards and that any such information
received will be useful.
c.

Assurance of Confidentiality

The Joint Standards addressing Entities’ Self-Assessments provide that the entities
submitting information may designate such information as confidential commercial
information, where appropriate. Three commenters expressed concerns about whether this
information submitted would remain confidential. One commenter indicated that its
members are concerned that information submitted to their primary regulator might be sent,
without context, to other regulators or to the U.S. Congress and lead to confusion or the
disclosure of competitive information. 14 This commenter asked the Agencies to provide a
clearer confidentiality policy and suggested that the Agencies make clear that submissions
will remain confidential unless the submitting entity expressly waives confidentiality.
Similarly, another commenter stated that its members are concerned that third parties
may have access to information they submit and could use this information to the
disadvantage of the submitters. 15 The commenter requested additional clarification regarding
how the Agencies will use and protect submitted information, as well as a written statement
providing assurance that information would not be shared with third parties.
The third commenter expressed concern that designating information as confidential
will not guarantee protection from disclosure. 16 The commenter observed that, if the public
requests information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the regulated entity will
12

See letter from Greenlining Institute.
The comment letter submitted by Greenlining Institute in response to the proposed Policy Statement recommended
that the Agencies ask regulated entities to respond to a series of questions grouped under the categories found in the
Joint Standards and that entities complete data tables similar to those found in the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission’s Management Directive 715. See the Greenlining Institute’s letter dated February 6, 2014, available at
https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/2013/2013-diversity-assessment-c_32.pdf.
14
See letter from SIFMA.
15
See letter from MBA.
16
See letter from NAFCU.
13

5

be notified of the request and provided the opportunity to argue against disclosure. In the
event that the entity’s argument does not prevail, a regulated entity could potentially have its
voluntarily submitted information released to the public under FOIA.
Two commenters recommended that regulated entities be allowed to submit
information anonymously. One commenter said its members might support the use of a
third-party vendor that could capture and potentially anonymize submissions as a way to
minimize information collection burden. 17 The other commenter asserted that by giving
respondents the option to submit information anonymously, the Agencies would enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of information submitted, minimize burden, and address
confidentiality concerns. 18 This commenter recommended that respondents be allowed to
classify themselves through general categories, such as approximate asset size, number of
employees, and geographic location.
The Agencies understand that regulated entities want assurances that the information
submitted will be considered confidential and sensitive and will not be disclosed unless
confidentiality is expressly waived. To the extent the submissions include confidential
information, the Agencies will keep such information confidential to the extent allowed by
law. The Agencies advise regulated entities submitting sensitive or information they consider
confidential to follow their primary federal financial regulator’s regulations implementing
FOIA with respect to designating information as confidential business information or seeking
confidential treatment.
With respect to anonymity, the Agencies are concerned that anonymous submissions
would be less useful than submissions in which the submitting entity is identified. As
indicated in the Policy Statement, the OMWI Directors plan to reach out to regulated entities
to discuss diversity and inclusion practices and methods of assessment, and these contacts
will be more informative for both the Agencies and the entities if the Agencies know which
submission came from which entity. However, the Agencies will reassess this matter over
time.
d.

Accuracy of Burden Estimate

The Agencies estimated that it would take an entity 12 burden hours, on average, to
publish information pertaining to its diversity policies and practices on its Web site and to
retrieve and submit self-assessment information to its primary federal financial regulator.
One commenter stated that the Agencies underestimated the time it would take to collect,
categorize, and submit this information. 19 The commenter asserted that retrieving diversity
data is a time-consuming and labor-intensive task, particularly for entities with hundreds or
17

See letter from SIFMA.
See letter from NAFCU.
19
See letter from SIFMA.
18

6

thousands of employees throughout the country and the world. In addition, the commenter
maintained that an entity’s submission would have to undergo a time consuming review by
legal counsel and others to assure accuracy and clarity before it is submitted to the primary
federal financial regulator.
The Agencies note that the commenter did not provide an alternative estimate or
formula for calculating the burden hours. In the absence of any alternative estimates or
formulas, the Agencies are not changing the burden estimate at this time. If, however, future
feedback indicates that the current estimate of burden hours needs further refinement, the
Agencies will consider adjusting their estimates accordingly.
e.

Estimate of Start-Up Costs

One commenter asserted that it would take substantial information technology, legal,
and operational resources to put diversity data into a format appropriate for submission to a
regulator. 20 The commenter said that it could not provide an exact estimate of capital or
start-up costs for submitting this information until an actual information request is available.
To address the commenter’s concern about start-up costs, however, the Agencies have
estimated the possible burden to an entity associated with preparing (a) to publish this
information on its Web site or in other appropriate communications and (b) to retrieve and
submit this information to its primary federal financial regulator. The Agencies anticipate
that 4 hours will be sufficient to prepare for these activities. (This is in addition to the 12
hours estimated to be expended by entities actually publishing the information pertaining to
diversity policies and practices on the entity’s Web site or in other appropriate
communications and retrieving and submitting information pertaining to a self-assessment to
a regulated entity’s primary federal financial regulator.) For entities regulated by the OCC,
Board, FDIC, and CFPB, the cost of the burden associated with this preparation would be
$101 per hour, with an average response time per respondent of 4 hours. For entities
regulated by the SEC, the estimated cost of the associated burden would be $104 per hour.
(See Item #12 of this Supporting Statement for the calculation method).
9.

Payment or Gift to Respondents
Not applicable.

10.

Assurance of Confidentiality

The 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
20

See letter from SIFMA.

7

information in an effort to balance concerns about confidentiality of information with the
importance of sharing information. Any entities submitting information may designate such
information as confidential, as appropriate, and the Agencies will keep this information private to
the extent allowed by law. The Agencies note that the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.
552(b)(4), permits non-disclosure of trade secrets and commercial or financial information.
11.

Sensitive Questions
Not applicable: no sensitive information is collected.

12.

Estimate of Information Collection Burden

The collection of information contemplated by the Joint Standards imposes no new
recordkeeping burdens as regulated entities will 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 will take a regulated entity approximately 12 burden hours,
on average, to (a) to publish annually information pertaining to diversity policies and practices on
the entity’s Web site or in other appropriate communications and (b) to retrieve and submit
information pertaining to the entity’s self-assessment of its diversity policies and practices to its
primary federal financial regulator.
The Agencies estimate the total burden for all regulated entities as follows:
Estimated Number of Respondents:
OCC:
215.
Board: 488.
FDIC: 398.
CFPB: 750.
SEC: 1,250.
Frequency of Collection: Annual.
Average Response Time per Respondent: 12 hours.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:
OCC:
Board:
FDIC:
CFPB:

2,580 hours.
5,856 hours.
4,776 hours.
9,000 hours.
8

SEC:

15,000 hours.

Total:

37,212 hours.

Cost of Hour Burden:
OCC:
Board:
FDIC:
CFPB:
SEC:

$260,580
$591,456
$482,376
$909,900
$1,560,000

Total:

$3,804,312

To estimate average hourly wages for entities regulated by the OCC, Board, FDIC,
and CFPB, we reviewed data from May 2014 for wages (by industry and occupation)
from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for Depository Credit Intermediation
(NAICS 522100). To estimate compensation costs associated with the collection of
information under the Joint Standards, we use $101 per hour. This is based on the
average of the 90th percentile for seven occupations 21 adjusted for inflation (at 2 percent),
plus an additional 30 percent to cover private sector benefits (30 percent represents the
average private sector costs of employee benefits).
For entities regulated by the SEC, the estimated cost of the burden hours is based
on BLS May 2014 wages for Securities and Commodity Contracts Intermediation and
Brokerage (NAICS 523100). We use $104 per hour as the estimated compensation costs
for the collection of information. This estimate reflects the mean hourly wage of $78 per
hour for human resources managers adjusted for inflation (at 2 percent), plus an
additional 30 percent to cover the average private sector costs of employee benefits.
13.

Estimate of Total Annualized Start-up and Capital Cost Burden

For entities regulated by the OCC, Board, FDIC, and CFPB, the estimate of total
annualized start-up costs, based on $101 per hour compensation costs and an average response
time per respondent of 4 hour, is $404. For entities regulated by the SEC, the estimate of total
annualized start-up costs is $416, which is based on $104 per hour compensation cost. There are
no capital costs.
14.

Estimate of Cost to Federal Government

21

The occupations are accountants and auditors, compliance officers, financial analysts, lawyers, management
occupations, software developers, and statisticians.

9

None.
15.

Explanation of Changes in Burden
This is a new information collection.

16.

Information Collections Planned for Statistical Purposes

As stated in the Policy Statement, 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. At the current time, no further plans have been made
with respect to publication.
17.

Display of OMB Expiration Date

The Agencies do not seek approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval
for the information collection. The OMB control number and expiration date will be displayed
on the Federal government’s electronic PRA docket at www.reginfo.gov.
18. Exceptions to Certification
The Agencies certify that this collection of information is consistent with the
requirements of 5 C.F.R. 1320.9 and the related provisions of 5 C.F.R. 1320.8(b)(3), and they are
not seeking an exemption to these certification requirements.
B. COLLECTION OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS
Not applicable.

10