OMWI Policy Statement

33016

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Notices

Issued in Washington, DC on June 3, 2015.
William Chadwick, Jr.,
Director, Office of Airline Information,
Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
[FR Doc. 2015–14182 Filed 6–9–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P

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
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.
AGENCIES:

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.

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:46 Jun 09, 2015

Jkt 235001

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

OCC: Joyce Cofield, Executive
Director, Office of Minority and Women
Inclusion, at (202) 649–6460 or Karen
McSweeney, Counsel, Law Department,
at (202) 649–6295, TDD/TTY (202) 649–
5597, Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency, 400 7th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20219.
BOARD: Sheila Clark, Director, Office
of Diversity and Inclusion, at (202) 452–
2883, Katherine Wheatley, Associate
General Counsel, Legal Division, at
(202) 452–3779, or Alye Foster, Senior
Special Counsel, Legal Division, at (202)
452–5289.
FDIC: Segundo Pereira, Director,
Office of Minority and Women
Inclusion, (703) 562–6090; Melodee
Brooks, Senior Deputy Director, Office
of Minority and Women Inclusion, (703)
562–6090; or Robert Lee, Counsel, Legal
Division, (703) 562–2020, 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 (703) 518–1650, Cynthia
Vaughn, Diversity Outreach Program
Analyst, Office of Minority and Women
Inclusion, at (703) 518–1650, 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 (202) 435–9012, or Stephen
VanMeter, Deputy General Counsel,
Legal Division at (202) 435–7319,
Bureau of Consumer Financial
Protection, 1700 G Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20552.
SEC: Pamela A. Gibbs, Director, Office
of Minority and Women Inclusion, (202)
551–6046, or Audrey B. Little, Senior
Counsel, Office of Minority and Women
Inclusion, (202) 551–6086, 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
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

PO 00000

Frm 00088

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

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).
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
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,
Banks also have established an OMWI, but only the
federal financial agencies with regulated entities
have joined in issuing this Policy Statement.
2 78 FR 64052.
3 78 FR 77792.

E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM

10JNN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Notices

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:46 Jun 09, 2015

Jkt 235001

33017

final Policy Statement. The discussion
below addresses significant issues that
commenters raised and explains the
changes to the Policy Statement.

Agencies believe that this will clarify
the confusion noted above.

A. General Comments

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

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

PO 00000

Frm 00089

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

2. Meaning of ‘‘Diversity’’

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.

E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM

10JNN1

33018

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Notices

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

as individuals with disabilities,
veterans, and LGBT individuals.
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 ‘‘onesize 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:46 Jun 09, 2015

Jkt 235001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00090

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

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

E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM

10JNN1

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Notices
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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:46 Jun 09, 2015

Jkt 235001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00091

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

33019

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

E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM

10JNN1

33020

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Notices

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

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 selfassessment, 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
6 In the case of institutions identified in 12 U.S.C.
1813(q), the primary federal financial regulator is

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:46 Jun 09, 2015

Jkt 235001

regulator will share information with
other Agencies when appropriate to
support coordination of efforts and to
avoid duplication.
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’ SelfAssessment.’’
b. Self-Assessments
The Agencies received many
comments on the Proposal’s description
of a model assessment as a ‘‘selfassessment.’’ 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 selfassessment 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 selfthe ‘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, selfregulatory 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.

PO 00000

Frm 00092

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

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

E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM

10JNN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Notices

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

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
7 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:46 Jun 09, 2015

Jkt 235001

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.
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;

PO 00000

Frm 00093

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

33021

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

E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM

10JNN1

33022

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Notices

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

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 regs.comments@
occ.treas.gov. 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 (202) 649–6700.
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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:46 Jun 09, 2015

Jkt 235001

http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/
foia/proposedregs.aspx.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Email: regs.comments@
federalreserve.gov. Include OMB
number in the subject line of the
message.
• FAX: (202) 452–3819 or (202) 452–
3102.
• 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: comments@FDIC.gov. 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. 703–837–2861,
Email: OCIOPRA@ncua.gov.
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:

PO 00000

Frm 00094

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

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 PavlikSimon, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549, or send an email to PRA_
Mailbox@sec.gov, 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 DoddFrank 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

E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM

10JNN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Notices
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.

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:46 Jun 09, 2015

Jkt 235001

• 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
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.

PO 00000

Frm 00095

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

33023

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.
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:
Æ Outreach to minority and women
organizations;
Æ Outreach to educational
institutions serving significant minority
and women student populations; and
Æ 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

E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM

10JNN1

33024

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Notices

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 womenowned 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 minorityowned 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.

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

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:
Æ Annual procurement spending;
Æ Percentage of contract dollars
awarded to minority-owned and
women-owned business contractors by
race, ethnicity, and gender; and
Æ 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:
Æ Outreach to minority-owned and
women-owned contractors and
representative organizations;
Æ Participation in conferences,
workshops, and other events to attract
minority-owned and women-owned

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:46 Jun 09, 2015

Jkt 235001

firms and inform them of contracting
opportunities; and
Æ 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:
Æ Current employment and
procurement opportunities;
Æ Forecasts of potential employment
and procurement opportunities; and
Æ The availability and use of
mentorship and developmental
programs for employees and contractors.

PO 00000

Frm 00096

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

(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.

E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM

10JNN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Notices
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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of Foreign Assets Control
Unblocking of Specially Designated
Nationals and Blocked Persons
Pursuant to the Cuban Assets Control
Regulations
Office of Foreign Assets
Control, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:

The Department of the
Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets
Control (OFAC) is publishing the name
of five individuals, 53 entities, and one
vessel whose property and interests in
property have been unblocked pursuant
to the Cuban Assets Control
Regulations, 31 CFR part 515.
DATES: The unblocking and removal
from the list of Specially Designated
Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN
List) of the individuals, entities, and
vessel identified in this notice is
effective June 4, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Assistant Director, Sanctions
Compliance & Evaluation, Department
of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets
Control, Washington, DC 20220, Tel:
(202) 622–2490.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

SUMMARY:

Electronic and Facsimile Availability
The SDN List and additional
information concerning OFAC are

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:46 Jun 09, 2015

Jkt 235001

available from OFAC’s Web site
(www.treas.gov/ofac). Certain general
information pertaining to OFAC’s
sanctions programs is available via
facsimile through a 24-hour fax-ondemand service, tel.: 202/622–0077.
Background
On June 4, 2015, the Associate
Director of OFAC removed from the
SDN List the individuals, entities, and
vessel listed below, whose property and
interests in property were blocked
pursuant to the Cuban Assets Control
Regulations:
Individuals
1. ALOARDI, Carlo Giovanni, Milan,
Italy (individual) [CUBA].
2. CRUZ REYES, Antonio Pedro,
Milan, Italy (individual) [CUBA].
3. HERNANDEZ CARBALLOSA,
Alexis Eneilo, Milan, Italy (individual)
[CUBA].
4. LOPEZ, Quirino Gutierrez, c/o
ANGLO CARIBBEAN SHIPPING CO.,
LTD., 7th Floor, Ibex House, the
Minories, London EC3N 1DY, United
Kingdom (individual) [CUBA].
5. ORS, Jose Antonio Rego, Tokyo,
Japan (individual) [CUBA].
Entities
1. MARINE REGISTRATION
COMPANY, Panama [CUBA].
2. CANIPEL S.A. (a.k.a. CANAPEL
S.A.), c/o EMPRESA DE NAVEGACION
MAMBISA, Apartado 543, San Ignacio
104, Havana, Cuba [CUBA].
3. EAST ISLAND SHIPPING CO.
LTD., c/o EMPRESA DE NAVEGACION
MAMBISA, Apartado 543, San Ignacio
104, Havana, Cuba [CUBA].
4. NORTH ISLAND SHIPPING CO.
LTD., c/o UNION MARITIMA
PORTUARIA, 9-Piso, Apartado B,
Esquina Cuarteles y Pena Pobre 60,
Havana Vieje, Havana, Cuba [CUBA].
5. SOUTH ISLAND SHIPPING CO.
LTD., c/o EMPRESA DE NAVEGACION
MAMBISA, Apartado 543, San Ignacio
104, Havana, Cuba [CUBA].
6. WEST ISLAND SHIPPING CO.
LTD., c/o UNION MARITIMA
PORTUARIA, 9-Piso, Apartado B,
Esquina Cuarteles y Pena Pobre 60,
Havana Vieja, Havana, Cuba [CUBA].
7. BRADFIELD MARITIME
CORPORATION INC., c/o EMPRESA DE
NAVEGACION MAMBISA, Apartado
543, San Ignacio 104, Havana, Cuba
[CUBA].
8. WADENA SHIPPING
CORPORATION, c/o EMPRESA DE
NAVEGACION MAMBISA, Apartado
543, San Ignacio 104, Havana, Cuba
[CUBA].
9. ACEFROSTY SHIPPING CO., LTD.,
171 Old Bakery Street, Valletta, Malta
[CUBA].

PO 00000

Frm 00097

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

33025

10. ARION SHIPPING CO., LTD., 60
South Street, Valletta, Malta [CUBA].
11. GOLDEN COMET NAVIGATION
CO. LTD., c/o EMPRESA DE
NAVEGACION MAMBISA, Apartado
543, San Ignacio 104, Havana, Cuba
[CUBA].
12. GRETE SHIPPING CO. S.A., c/o
EMPRESA DE NAVEGACION CARIBE,
Edificio Lonja del Comercio, Lamparilla
2, Caja Postal 1784, Havana 1, Cuba
[CUBA].
13. KASPAR SHIPPING CO. S.A., c/o
EMPRESA DE NAVEGACION CARIBE,
Edificio Lonja del Comercio, Lamparilla
2, Caja Postal 1784, Havana 1, Cuba
[CUBA].
14. MARYOL ENTERPRISES INC., c/
o EMPRESA DE NAVEGACION
MAMBISA, Apartado 543, San Ignacio
104, Havana, Cuba [CUBA].
15. NAVIGABLE WATER
CORPORATION, c/o EMPRESA DE
NAVEGACION CARIBE, Edificio Lonja
del Comercio, Lamparilla 2, Caja Postal
1784, Havana 1, Cuba [CUBA].
16. VALETTA SHIPPING
CORPORATION, c/o EMPRESA DE
NAVEGACION MAMBISA, Apartado
543, San Ignacio 104, Havana, Cuba
[CUBA].
17. ACE INDIC NAVIGATION CO.
LTD., c/o ANGLO-CARIBBEAN
SHIPPING CO. LTD., 4th Floor, South
Phase 2, South Quay Plaza II, 183,
March Wall, London, United Kingdom
[CUBA].
18. ACECHILLY NAVIGATION CO.
LTD., c/o ANGLO-CARIBBEAN
SHIPPING CO. LTD., 4th Floor, South
Phase 2, South Quay Plaza II, 183,
March Wall, London, United Kingdom
[CUBA].
19. AIRMORES SHIPPING CO. LTD.
(a.k.a. AIMOROS SHIPPING CO. LTD.),
c/o MELFI MARINE CORPORATION
S.A., Oficina 7, Edificio Senorial, Calle
50, Apartado 31, Panama City 5, Panama
[CUBA].
20. ANTILLANA SALVAGE CO.
LTD., c/o EMPRESA ANTILLANA DE
SALVAMENTO, 4th Floor, Lonja del
Comercio, Havana Vieja, Havana, Cuba
[CUBA].
21. ATAMALLO SHIPPING CO. LTD.
(a.k.a. ANTAMALLO SHIPPING CO.
LTD.), c/o EMPRESA DE NAVEGACION
MAMBISA, Apartado 543, San Ignacio
104, Havana, Cuba [CUBA].
22. BETTINA SHIPPING CO. LTD.,
c/o EMPRESA DE NAVEGACION
MAMBISA, Apartado 543, San Ignacio
104, Havana, Cuba [CUBA].
23. EPAMAC SHIPPING CO. LTD.,
c/o EMPRESA DE NAVEGACION
MAMBISA, Apartado 543, San Ignacio
104, Havana, Cuba [CUBA].
24. FLIGHT DRAGON SHIPPING
LTD., c/o ANGLO–CARIBBEAN

E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM

10JNN1