Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5843 

1The state and local laws restricting the use of 

compensation history in pay-setting and 

employment decisions are commonly referred to as 

‘‘salary history bans.’’ When referring to those laws 

and the studies analyzing their effects, the terms 

‘‘salary history’’ and ‘‘compensation history’’ may 

be used interchangeably. For this rulemaking, 

‘‘compensation history’’ means the compensation 

an applicant is currently receiving or the 

compensation the applicant has been paid in a 

previous job, where ‘‘compensation’’ is defined as 

‘‘any payments made to, or on behalf of, an 

employee or offered to an applicant as 

remuneration for employment, including but not 

limited to salary, wages, overtime pay, shift 

differentials, bonuses, commissions, vacation and 

holiday pay, allowances, insurance and other 

benefits, stock options and awards, profit sharing, 

and retirement.’’ 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT 

POLICY 

48 CFR Parts 1, 2, 12, 22, and 52 

[FAR Case 2023–021; Docket No. FAR– 

2023–0021; Sequence No. 1] 

RIN 9000–AO69 

Office of Federal Procurement Policy; 

Federal Acquisition Regulation: Pay 

Equity and Transparency in Federal 

Contracting 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA), and Office of 

Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD, GSA, and NASA are 

proposing to amend the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to 

implement a proposed Governmentwide 

policy developed by the Administrator 

for Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP 

Administrator), pursuant to the 

Administrator’s authority that would 

prohibit contractors and subcontractors 

from seeking and considering 

information about job applicants’ 

compensation history when making 

employment decisions for certain 

positions. Under the proposed policy 

and the proposed regulatory 

amendments, contractors and 

subcontractors would also be required 

to disclose the compensation to be 

offered to the hired applicant in job 

announcements for certain positions. 

DATES: Interested parties should submit 

written comments to the Regulatory 

Secretariat Division at the address 

shown below on or before April 1, 2024 

to be considered in the formation of the 

final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in 

response to FAR Case 2023–021 to the 

Federal eRulemaking portal at https://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

‘‘FAR Case 2023–021’’. Select the link 

‘‘Comment Now’’ that corresponds with 

‘‘FAR Case 2023–021’’. Follow the 

instructions provided on the ‘‘Comment 

Now’’ screen. Please include your name, 

company name (if any), and ‘‘FAR Case 

2023–021’’ on your attached document. 

If your comment cannot be submitted 

using https://www.regulations.gov, call 

or email the point of contact in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this document for alternate instructions. 

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite ‘‘FAR Case 2023–021’’ in 

all correspondence related to this case. 

Comments received generally will be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal and/or business confidential 

information provided. Public comments 

may be submitted as an individual, as 

an organization, or anonymously (see 

frequently asked questions at https://

www.regulations.gov/faq). To confirm 

receipt of your comment(s), please 

check https://www.regulations.gov, 

approximately two to three days after 

submission to verify posting. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

clarification of content, contact Ms. 

Mahruba Uddowla, Procurement 

Analyst, at 703–605–2868 or by email at 

mahruba.uddowla@gsa.gov. For 

information pertaining to status, 

publication schedules, or alternate 

instructions for submitting comments if 

https://www.regulations.gov cannot be 

used, contact the Regulatory Secretariat 

Division at 202–501–4755 or 

GSARegSec@gsa.gov. Please cite FAR 

Case 2023–021. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Proposed Policy of the OFPP 

Administrator 

Pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1121(b), the 

Senior Advisor, Office of Federal 

Procurement Policy (OFPP), performing 

by delegation the duties of the 

Administrator for Federal Procurement 

Policy, is proposing a Government-wide 

procurement policy that would: 

(1) prohibit contractors and 

subcontractors from seeking and 

considering information about job 

applicants’ compensation history when 

making employment decisions about 

personnel working on or in connection 

with a government contract; and 

(2) require contractors and 

subcontractors to disclose, in all 

advertisements for job openings 

involving work on or in connection with 

a government contract placed by or on 

behalf of the contractor or 

subcontractor, the compensation to be 

offered to the hired applicant, for any 

position to perform work on or in 

connection with the contract. 

The Administrator is proposing this 

policy based on her determination, 

described in more detail in section IV 

below, that compensation history bans 

and compensation disclosure 

requirements (the latter are also 

collectively referred to as pay 

transparency), both together and 

separately, would promote economy, 

efficiency, and effectiveness in the 

procurement of property and services by 

the Federal Government. Compensation 

history bans and pay transparency 

requirements have been shown to 

promote pay equity by closing pay gaps, 

which leads to increased worker 

satisfaction, better job performance, and 

overall increased worker productivityall factors associated with promoting 

economy, efficiency, and effectiveness 

of the Federal contractor workforce. 

When workers feel that they are valued 

and their pay is fair, it can foster a 

higher level of commitment to an 

employer associated with better job 

performance and increased 

productivity. Compensation history 

bans 1 have been found to reduce pay 

gaps that have been shown to 

disadvantage certain populations, 

including women, workers of color, and 

workers entering the labor market 

during recessions. Similar to 

compensation history bans, 

compensation disclosure requirements 

reduce gender, racial and ethnic pay 

gaps by reducing pay secrecy and 

helping workers negotiate. Pay 

transparency requirements also promote 

economy, efficiency, and effectiveness 

in recruitment and retention. By 

disclosing the compensation upfront, 

employers can effectively lower 

recruiting costs, both in terms of direct 

expenses, such as job advertising costs, 

and indirect expenses, such as those 

related to the selection and negotiation 

process. In addition to pay equity, 

compensation history bans and 

compensation disclosure requirements 

can help companies attract and retain 

better talent and lower worker turnover. 

These practices demonstrate a 

commitment to fairness for all workers 

and increase hiring efficiencies and 

reduce the costs for employers to hire 

new workers for Federal contracts. A 

fuller discussion of how the proposed 

policy would further economy, 

efficiency and effectiveness in Federal 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
5844 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

procurement may be found in section IV 

below. 

This proposed policy also accords 

with Executive Order (E.O.) 14069 of 

March 15, 2022, titled ‘‘Advancing 

Economy, Efficiency, and Effectiveness 

in Federal Contracting by Promoting Pay 

Equity and Transparency.’’ E.O. 14069 

established an administration policy of 

eliminating discriminatory pay practices 

that inhibit the economy, efficiency, and 

effectiveness of the Federal workforce 

and the procurement of property and 

services by the Federal Government; 

highlighted regulatory efforts by the 

Office of Personnel Management to 

address the use of salary history in 

hiring and pay-setting processes for 

Federal employees (see Office of 

Personnel Management, Proposed Rule, 

Advancing Pay Equity in 

Governmentwide Pay Systems, 88 FR 

30251 (May 11, 2023), https://

www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023- 

05-11/pdf/2023-09564.pdf); and 

directed the Federal Acquisition 

Regulatory Council (FAR Council), in 

consultation with the Secretary of Labor 

and other agency heads as appropriate, 

to consider issuing proposed rules to 

advance economy, efficiency, and 

effectiveness in Federal procurement by 

promoting pay equity and transparency 

for job applicants and employees of 

Federal contractors and subcontractors. 

Pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1121(b), the OFPP 

Administrator proposes these pay equity 

policies to be implemented in the FAR 

through rulemaking. See 41 U.S.C. 

1121(b), 1303. The OFPP Administrator 

invites public comment on this 

proposed policy and the analysis 

supporting it, which is set forth in 

section IV below. 

II. Proposed FAR Rule: Discussion and 

Analysis 

To implement the OFPP 

Administrator’s proposed policy, which 

is reinforced by E.O. 14069, DoD, GSA, 

and NASA are proposing to amend the 

FAR to limit or prohibit contractors and 

subcontractors from seeking and 

considering information about job 

applicants’ compensation history when 

making employment decisions on 

certain positions and to require 

contractors and subcontractors to 

disclose the compensation to be offered 

to the hired applicant in job 

announcements for certain positions. 

The proposed rule would establish a 

new FAR subpart 22.XX entitled 

‘‘Prohibition On Compensation History 

Inquiries and Requirement For 

Compensation Disclosures By 

Contractors’’ to incorporate the 

proposed policy of the OFPP 

Administrator described in section I. A 

summary of the proposed changes 

follows: 

A. FAR Part 1 

FAR 1.106, OMB approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, will include 

the OMB control number associated 

with the notification of rights to job 

applicants, the compensation 

disclosures, and the complaints process. 

B. FAR Part 2 

FAR 2.101, Definitions, has a 

conforming change to the clause 

prescription in the new subpart, 

showing ‘‘United States’’ will include 

outlying areas (e.g., territories). 

C. FAR Part 12 

FAR 12.301(d)(11) is added to clarify 

that use of the new clause is required for 

acquisitions of commercial products 

and commercial services. 

D. FAR Part 22 

This new subpart at FAR 22.XX 

communicates the policy that 

contractors and subcontractors are 

prohibited from seeking and considering 

information about job applicants’ 

compensation history when making 

employment decisions on certain 

positions. The prohibition would apply 

to the recruitment and hiring for any 

position to perform work on or in 

connection with the contract, and 

applicants are to be provided with 

notice of this requirement as either part 

of the job announcement or application 

process. In addition, the proposed new 

subpart must communicate the policy 

that contractors and subcontractors are 

required to disclose in all 

advertisements for job openings placed 

by or on behalf of the contractor or 

subcontractor, for any position to 

perform work on or in connection with 

the contract, the compensation thereof 

to be offered to the hired applicant. 

The new subpart contains the 

prescription for a new clause at FAR 

52.222–ZZ entitled ‘‘Prohibition on 

Compensation History Inquiries and 

Requirement for Compensation 

Disclosures by Contractors During 

Recruitment and Hiring’’, and proposed 

to be included in all solicitations and 

contracts, where the principal place of 

performance will be in the United 

States, which is defined as including its 

outlying areas. 

The proposed policy provides that an 

applicant for a position covered by the 

proposed policy may submit a 

complaint relating to the contractor’s 

noncompliance with the clause to a 

central collection point of the agency 

that issued the solicitation or awarded 

the contract or order. The complaint 

must be submitted within 180 days of 

the date the violation occurred. The 

FAR text provides a link to where the 

list of agency central collection points is 

posted. The proposed rule states that the 

contracting agency will review the 

complaint, consult with the 

complainant as necessary to confirm the 

complainant is a covered applicant, and 

take action as appropriate. The subpart 

reiterates that complaints alleging 

discrimination prohibited by E.O. 

11246, Section 503 of the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973, and the Vietnam Era 

Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act 

by the contractor or subcontractor 

should be submitted directly to the 

Department of Labor’s Office of Federal 

Contract Compliance Programs 

(OFCCP). If complaints alleging 

discrimination are submitted to an 

agency central collection point rather 

than directly with OFCCP, the 

complaints will be forwarded to OFCCP. 

E. FAR Part 52 

FAR clauses 52.213–4, Terms and 

Conditions—Simplified Acquisitions 

(Other Than Commercial Products and 

Commercial Services) and 52.244–6, 

Subcontracts for Commercial Products 

and Commercial Services, are revised to 

reflect the application of the new policy 

to both prime contracts and 

subcontracts for commercial products 

and commercial services and both prime 

contracts and subcontracts under the 

simplified acquisition threshold (see 

Section III of this preamble). 

New FAR clause 52.222–ZZ entitled 

‘‘Prohibition on Compensation History 

Inquiries and Requirement for 

Compensation Disclosures by 

Contractors During Recruitment and 

Hiring’’ is added to FAR part 52. With 

regard to compensation history, the 

clause prohibits contractors from 

seeking an applicant’s compensation 

history either directly or indirectly, 

from requiring disclosure of 

compensation history as a condition of 

an applicant’s candidacy, and from 

retaliating against any applicant for 

failing to respond to an inquiry 

regarding their compensation history. 

The clause also prohibits contractors 

from relying on an applicant’s 

compensation history, even if an 

applicant for employment volunteers 

their compensation history without 

prompting at any stage in the selection 

process. 

With regard to compensation 

disclosure, the clause requires 

contractors to, in solicitations or 

advertisements for job openings placed 

by or on behalf of the contractor for any 

position to perform work on or in 

connection with the contract, disclose 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5845 

2HRDive. (Aug 2023). Salary history bans: A 

running list of states and localities that have 

outlawed pay history questions. Retrieved January 

4, 2024 from https://www.hrdive.com/news/salaryhistory-ban-states-list/516662/. 

3Mandel, H., & Semyonov, M. (2014). Gender pay 

gap and employment sector: Sources of earnings 

disparities in the United States, 1970–2010. 

Continued 

the compensation to be offered to the 

hired applicant. The disclosure must 

indicate the salary or wages, or range 

thereof, that the contractor in good faith 

believes that it will pay for the 

advertised position and may reflect, as 

applicable, the contractor’s pay scale for 

that position, the range of compensation 

for those currently working in similar 

jobs, or the amount budgeted for the 

position. The disclosure must also 

include a general description of the 

benefits and other forms of 

compensation applicable to the job 

opportunity. Where at least half of the 

expected compensation for the 

advertised position is derived from 

commissions, bonuses, and/or overtime 

pay, the contractor must specify the 

percentage of overall compensation or 

dollar amount, or ranges thereof, for 

each form of compensation, as 

applicable, that it in good faith believes 

will be paid for the advertised position. 

The proposed new clause requires 

contractors to provide any applicants 

that are covered by the prohibitions and 

disclosure requirements in the clause 

with a notice of their rights as either 

part of the job announcement or 

application process. Specific language 

for the notice is provided in the clause, 

along with a fill-in where the contractor 

would inform the applicant of the 

agency that issued the solicitation or 

awarded the contract so that applicants 

know which agency should receive any 

complaints of noncompliance. 

The clause includes language to 

ensure it will flow down the 

compensation disclosure requirement 

and the prohibition on compensation 

history inquiries to all subcontracts at 

any tier, to be performed within the 

United States including its outlying 

areas. 

III. Applicability to Contracts at or 

Below the Simplified Acquisition 

Threshold (SAT) and for Commercial 

Products (Including Commercially 

Available Off-the-Shelf (COTS) Items) 

or for Commercial Services 

This rule proposes a new FAR clause 

at 52.222–ZZ. The proposed clause is 

prescribed at FAR 22.XX04 for use in all 

solicitations and contracts. The clause is 

applicable to acquisitions at or below 

the SAT and to acquisitions for 

commercial products and commercial 

services, including COTS items. 

The benefits of the pay equity and 

transparency requirements in this 

proposed rule are equally impactful in 

commercial and noncommercial settings 

as well as to large or small dollar 

contracts. For this reason, an increasing 

number of states and localities have 

imposed requirements similar to those 

described in this proposed rulemaking 

for sales of any goods or services in any 

dollar amount, whether business to 

business, business to consumer, or 

business to government. Limiting 

application would forgo the various 

ways in which pay equity promotes 

economy, efficiency, and effectiveness. 

In addition, because many entities who 

sell in those states or localities also sell 

in the Federal marketplace, it is 

believed that many government 

contractors, including small businesses, 

already have incorporated these 

requirements into their existing human 

capital management practices. 

Moreover, limiting the application of 

the proposed rule could create 

unintended confusion and ambiguity for 

contractors and prospective employees. 

Many contractors who do business with 

the government have contracts below 

and above the SAT, and provide both 

commercial and government unique 

products and services. Carve-outs to the 

rule could result in contractor 

employees performing the same or 

similar functions receiving disparate 

treatment during hiring and recruiting 

for work on or in connection with 

government contracts, which would 

perpetuate inequity and deprive the 

Federal marketplace of economy, 

efficiency, and effectiveness in the 

procurement of property and services. 

The FAR Council will consider public 

feedback before making a final 

determination on the scope of the final 

rule. 

IV. Expected Impact on Economy, 

Efficiency, and Effectiveness 

In implementing the OFPP 

Administrator’s proposed policy, this 

proposed rule provides that for any 

recruitment and hiring for work on or in 

connection with a government contract, 

the contract would prohibit the 

contractor and subcontractor from 

seeking an applicant’s compensation 

history, requiring disclosure of 

compensation history as a condition of 

an applicant’s candidacy, or retaliating 

against or refusing to interview or 

otherwise consider, hire, or employ any 

applicant for failing to respond to an 

inquiry regarding their compensation 

history. Furthermore, the contractor and 

subcontractor would be prohibited from 

relying on an applicant’s compensation 

history as a criterion in screening or 

considering the applicant for 

employment, or relying on an 

applicant’s compensation history in 

determining the compensation for such 

individual at any stage in the selection 

process. These prohibitions are 

collectively referred to as a 

compensation history ban in this 

section. 

This rule would also require 

contractors and subcontractors to 

disclose in all advertisements for job 

openings involving work on or in 

connection with a government contract 

placed by or on behalf of the contractor 

or subcontractor, the compensation to 

be offered to the hired applicant. This 

requirement is referred to as a 

compensation disclosure in this section. 

The OFPP Administrator has outlined 

the results of an analysis of economy, 

efficiency and effectiveness regarding 

the proposed compensation history bans 

and compensation disclosure 

requirements in this section. The OFPP 

Administrator invites public comments 

on existing literature or ongoing 

research that may further inform this 

analysis. 

Expected Benefits 

A. Promoting Economy, Efficiency, and 

Effectiveness through Compensation 

History Bans 

State and local governments are 

increasingly adopting laws and 

regulations that prohibit employers from 

requesting compensation history 

information from job applicants. A 

running list of states and localities that 

have outlawed pay history questions 

from various employers reveals 22 

statewide bans and 22 local bans.2 The 

OFPP Administrator’s analysis shows 

that compensation history bans promote 

economy, efficiency and effectiveness in 

various ways. 

1. Compensation history bans were 

found to reduce pay gaps that 

disadvantage certain populations, 

including women, workers of color and 

workers entering the labor market 

during recessions. Closing pay gaps 

increases job satisfaction, helps attract 

and retain staff, and increases 

performance, retention, and 

productivity. This, in turn, may lead to 

improved economy, efficiency and 

effectiveness in Government 

procurement. 

Many employers set pay offers on the 

basis of workers’ past pay. This is 

problematic because research has 

documented the persistence of racial, 

ethnic, and gender discrimination in the 

labor market that may be reflected in 

pay-setting.3


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
5846 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Demography, 51(5), 1597–1618.; Blau, F.D., & Kahn, 

L.M. (2017). The gender wage gap: Extent, trends, 

and explanations. Journal of economic literature, 

55(3), 789–865.; Manduca, R. (2018). Income 

inequality and the persistence of racial economic 

disparities. Sociological Science, 5, 182–205. 

4 Kular, S., & Gatenby, M. (2019). Performancerelated pay and employee well-being: Investigating 

relationships between rewards, pay, satisfaction, 

and engagement. Human Resource Management 

International Digest, 27(4), 11–14. https://doi.org/ 

10.1108/HRMID-03-2019-0080.; Rosenfeld, J. (2021). 

You’re Paid What You’re Worth. In You’re Paid 

What You’re Worth. Harvard University Press.; 

Lam, L., Cheng, B.H., Bamberger, P., & Wong, M.- 

N. (2022). Research: The unintended consequences 

of pay transparency. Harvard Business Review. 

https://hbr.org/2022/08/research-the-unintendedconsequences-of-pay-transparency. 

5 Xue, J., Wang, H., Chen, M., Ding, X., & Zhu, M. 

(2022). Signifying the relationship between 

psychological factors and turnover intension: the 

mediating role of work-related stress and 

moderating role of job satisfaction. Frontiers in 

Psychology, 13, 847948.; Pelly, D. (2023). Worker 

well-being and quit intentions: is measuring job 

satisfaction enough?. Social Indicators Research, 

169(1), 397–441. 

6 Kulik, C.T., & Perera, S. (2016). Help or 

hindrance? Work-life practices and women in 

management. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), 504– 

5184.; Li, J., & Nelson, J. (2022). Employee 

development and organizational performance: A 

review of literature. Journal of Human Resource 

Development International, 23(1), 1–14.; Li, J., & 

Nelson, J. (2023). Employee turnover and 

organizational performance: Testing a hypothesis 

using longitudinal data from over 800 similar 

workplaces in the United States. Journal of Public 

Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 573– 

592. 

7 Kuhn, P., & Yu, L. (2021). How costly is 

turnover? Evidence from retail. Journal of Labor 

Economics, 39(2), 461–496. 

8 Davis, J., Ouimet, P., & Wang, X. (2022). Hidden 

Performance: Salary History Bans and the Gender 

Pay Gap. The Review of Corporate Finance Studies, 

11(3), 511–553. 9Mask, J. (2023). Salary history bans and healing 

scars from past recessions. Labor Economics, 84, 

102408. 10 Yagan, Danny (2019). ‘‘Employment hysteresis 

from the Great Recession.’’ Journal of Political 

Economy, 127.5: 2505–2558. 11Huckfeldt, C. (2022). Understanding the 

scarring effect of recessions. American Economic 

Review, 112(4), 1273–1310. 

12Sinha, Sourav, Salary History Bans: Strategic 

Disclosure by Job Applicants and the Gender Pay 

Gap (January 24, 2022). Retrieved January 4, 2024, 

from https://ssrn.com/abstract=4025580. 

13Bessen, James E. and Meng, Chen and Denk, 

Erich, Perpetuating Inequality: What Salary History 

Bans Reveal About Wages (June 2020). Retrieved 

January 4, 2024 from https://ssrn.com/ 

abstract=3628729. 14Hansen, B., & McNichols, D. (2020). 

Information and the persistence of the gender wage 

gap: Early evidence from California’s salary history 

ban (National Bureau of Economic Research 

Working Paper No. w27054). Retrieved January 4, 

2024 from https://www.nber.org/system/files/ 

working_papers/w27054/w27054.pdf. 15Bessen, J., Denk, E., & Kossuth, J. (2020). Stop 

asking job candidates for their salary history. 

Harvard Business Review. Retrieved January 4, 

2024 from: Stop Asking Job Candidates for Their 

Salary History (hbr.org). 

16Barach, M.A., & Horton, J.J. (2021). How do 

employers use compensation history? Evidence 

from a field experiment. Journal of Labor 

Economics, 39(1), 193–218. 

Closing pay gaps is important to the 

economy, efficiency, and effectiveness 

of contract performance because it has 

been shown to increase the satisfaction, 

commitment, and motivation of 

employees.4 When workers feel that 

they are valued and their pay is fair, 

they are more likely to be committed to 

their employer, which leads to 

improved job performance and 

enhanced productivity. In contrast, 

when employees think they are 

underpaid or undervalued, those 

perceptions can lead to dissatisfaction. 

Worker dissatisfaction is a very strong 

predictor of workers’ quit intentions.5

Consequently, this leads to higher staff 

turnover.6 Turnover is costly to 

employers, requiring employers to 

invest in new searches, hiring, and 

training at the same time that they are 

losing the contributions of the departed 

worker. Kuhn and Yu 7 estimated the 

costs of employee turnover in small 

retail sales teams using daily sales data 

and an advance notice requirement and 

found that turnover has a negative 

impact on productivity, especially when 

it involves high-performing workers or 

workers with longer tenure. Kuhn and 

Yu’s study estimated that 10 percent 

higher turnover is about as costly as a 

0.6 percent wage increase. Thus, 

reductions in turnover can improve 

Federal contractor and Federal 

Government—procurement efficiencies. 

A growing body of evidence indicates 

that compensation history bans 

effectively reduce pay gaps. Davis, 

Ouimet and Wang 8 evaluated 

compensation history bans covering all 

public sector employees in 36 states. 

They found that on average, 

compensation history bans lead to a 1.5 

percent increase in wages of women 

relative to men, though this decrease in 

the gender pay gap was driven in part 

by overall wage decreases of around 3 

percent in the new hire sample. Mask 9

studied the effect of compensation 

history bans on workers who enter the 

labor market during recessions. During 

a recession, increased competition 

forces inexperienced job market entrants 

to accept lower wages than those who 

start their careers during an economic 

boom. This penalty does not reflect 

workers’ skills, experiences, or ability to 

do their job but simply the misfortune 

to enter the labor market during an 

economic downturn. In other words, 

workers who had the misfortune of 

working in areas with larger economic 

shocks have worse employment and 

wage outcomes years later, unrelated to 

their own initial skills or experience.10

This effect is referred to as ‘‘scarring,’’ 

defined as the negative long-term effect 

that unemployment has on future labor 

market possibilities.11 Mask found by 

breaking the linkage between past wages 

and current offers, compensation history 

bans could reduce this scarring effect. 

Moreover, Mask found that 

compensation history bans increase job 

mobility, hourly wages, and weekly 

earnings for scarred workers relative to 

non-scarred workers, and reduce the gap 

in wages caused by scarring. 

Several working papers support the 

claim as well. For example, Sinha 12

analyzed the effects of U.S. salary 

history bans with the option to 

voluntary share information and 

showed that these policies narrowed the 

gender pay gap significantly by 2 

percentage points, driven almost 

entirely by an increase in female 

earnings. Another working paper by 

Bessen, Meng and Denk 13 found that 

following salary history bans, employers 

posted wages more often and increased 

pay for job changers, particularly for 

women (6.2 percent) and non-whites 

(5.9 percent). A working paper 

published in the NBER Working 

Series 14 showed that the gender 

earnings ratio increased by 1 percent in 

states with salary history bans, and that 

the increase was mainly driven by 

workers who switched jobs, especially 

women and non-whites. 

2. Compensation history bans were 

found to increase the pool of applicants 

to Federal contractors who might have 

relevant skills or experiences but who 

otherwise might not apply. Better 

aligning hiring and compensation 

decisions with workers’ skills and 

experiences results in a broader 

applicant pool for Federal contractors, 

thus increasing efficiencies in federal 

procurement. 

If workers know that Federal 

contractors base hiring and 

compensation decisions on workers’ 

past pay, and in turn, that past pay 

reflects arbitrary factors, workers may be 

less likely to seek new positions with 

Federal contractors because they know 

that their past pay may hamper their 

ability to secure a job offer or to receive 

higher pay. This likely is especially true 

for workers disadvantaged by current 

hiring and pay-setting practices. In turn, 

this effect may limit applicant pools for 

Federal contractors, thereby reducing 

the availability of workers with relevant 

skills and experiences and reducing 

Federal contractor productivity. 

For instance, a Harvard Business 

Review article by Bessen, Denk and 

Kossuth 15 reported that job seekers or 

applicants are more likely to apply if 

salary history is banned. Barach and 

Horton 16 found that without access to 

applicant wage histories, employers 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5847 

17Agan, A., Cowgill, B., & Gee, L.K. (2020, May). 

Do workers comply with salary history bans? a 

survey on voluntary disclosure, adverse selection, 

and unraveling. In AEA Papers and Proceedings 

(Vol. 110, pp. 215–219). 2014 Broadway, Suite 305, 

Nashville, TN 37203: American Economic 

Association. Retrieved January 4, 2024 from https:// 

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_

id=3522170. 

18Cowgill, Bo and Agan, Amanda Y. and Gee, 

Laura, The Gender Disclosure Gap: Salary History 

Bans Unravel When Men Volunteer their Income 

(May 9, 2022). Columbia Business School Research 

Paper No. 4104743. Retrieved on January 4, 2024 

from https://ssrn.com/abstract=4104743. 

19Sran, G., Vetter, F., & Walsh, M. (2020). 

Employer responses to pay history inquiry bans. 

Retrieved January 4, 2024 from https://papers.ssrn.

com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3587736. 

20Bessen, J., Denk, E., & Kossuth, J. (2020). Stop 

asking job candidates for their salary history. 

Harvard Business Review. Retrieved January 4, 

2024 from https://hbr.org/2020/07/stop-asking-jobcandidates-for-their-salary-history. 

21CareerBuilder. (2017, December 7). Nearly 

three in four employers affected by a bad hire, 

according to a recent CareerBuilder survey. 

Retrieved January 24, 2024 from https://press.career

builder.com/2017-12-07-Nearly-Three-in-FourEmployers-Affected-by-a-Bad-Hire-According-to-aRecent-CareerBuilder-Survey. 

22Lundberg, S.J., & Startz, R. (1983). Private 

discrimination and social intervention in 

competitive labor markets. American Economic 

Review, 73(3), 340–347.; Coate, S., & Loury, G.C. 

(1993). Will affirmative-action policies eliminate 

negative stereotypes? American Economic Review, 

83(5), 1220–1240. 

23Center for American Progress. (Mar. 9, 2023). 

Quick Facts About State Salary Range Transparency 

Laws. Retrieved Jan. 8, 2024 from https://www.

americanprogress.org/article/quick-facts-aboutstate-salary-range-transparency-laws/#:∼:text=

These%20laws%20create%20

an%20environment,are%20penalized%20

more%20than%20men. 

who had salary history bans tend to 

consider a wider group of candidates, 

invite more candidates in for interviews, 

and ask more questions of each 

candidate, thus leading to recruiting 

more diverse and qualified set of 

candidates. Barach and Horton found 

that employers evaluated about 7 

percent more applicants following a 

salary history ban. A strong applicant 

pool may lead to efficiencies in 

procurement in terms of reduced timeto-hire and greater possibility of finding 

stronger shortlist of candidates. 

It is important to note, however, that 

the benefit of a large applicant pool 

holds true only in the absence of 

reliance on voluntary disclosures of 

compensation histories, known as 

unravelling. In addition to reversing the 

benefits outlined in this section, 

unravelling can impose disclosure costs 

on applicants who must decide whether 

or not to voluntarily disclose their 

compensation history. Agan et al.17

suggest that job candidates also face 

different direct costs for disclosing; for 

example, an innate feeling of harm or 

vulnerability from disclosing. These 

costs tend to be higher for some groups. 

In Agan et al.’s study, women are more 

likely to report discomfort with 

disclosing than men and tend to ask for 

lower salaries from employers in the 

first place. The proposed rule would 

prevent contractors from using 

voluntarily-disclosed salary histories as 

a criterion in screening or considering 

the applicant for employment, or relying 

on an applicant’s voluntarily-disclosed 

compensation history in determining 

the compensation for such individual at 

any stage in the selection process, 

which should will likely prevent 

unravelling. A Columbia Business 

School research paper 18 used 

information from a survey of the U.S. 

labor force to evaluate the connections 

between voluntary disclosure, wage 

history, and associated bans. In 

locations where it is illegal for 

employers to request pay history, the 

study found that a significant portion of 

employees (28 percent) nevertheless 

provide it. In addition, the study found 

that if enough of the applicant pool for 

the position discloses their 

compensation history, an additional 47 

percent will do so. 

3. Compensation history bans expand 

the pool of applicants, thereby 

facilitating the hiring of more quality 

candidates. In turn, hiring quality 

candidates reduces the risks of turnover 

and leads to overall productivity gains. 

By limiting Federal contractors’ 

ability to make hiring and 

compensation-setting decisions based 

on workers’ past pay, a compensation 

history ban will more closely align 

employment decisions with quality 

factors relevant for the job, thereby 

improving the quality of the contracting 

workforce. A working paper by Sran et 

al.19 studied the effects of pay history 

inquiry bans on employers’ pay offers 

and hiring practices. They found some 

evidence that the number of online job 

postings increases and that postings are 

more likely to include salary 

information after salary history bans. 

Another article by Bessen et al.20

showed that employers are more likely 

to include work experience and other 

skill expectations in job postings 

following the passage of compensation 

history bans, indicating that employers 

tend to be more explicit about these jobrelevant characteristics with bans in 

place. 

Hiring the right employee is crucial to 

an organization as it reduces employee 

burnout, thereby reducing the risk of 

understaffing and turnovers. Hiring an 

unqualified candidate can lead to 

significant decrease in productivity 

within the organization resulting in cost 

overruns and schedule disruptions for 

Federal contracts. A survey conducted 

by CareerBuilder 21 asked companies 

how a bad hire affected their 

organization and found that 37 percent 

of companies cited less productivity, 32 

percent reported lost time in recruiting 

and training another worker, and 31 

percent experienced compromised 

quality of work. The study calculated an 

average of $14,900 lost on every bad 

hire. 

4. Compensation history bans 

strengthen incentives for prospective 

and current Federal contractor workers 

to invest in job-relevant skills and 

experiences. Better aligning hiring and 

compensation decisions with workers’ 

skills and experiences incentivizes 

workers to invest in relevant skills and 

experiences, increasing efficiencies in 

Federal procurement. 

If workers are aware that Federal 

contractors are making pay setting 

decisions based on their skills and 

experiences, rather than their past pay, 

they likely will be motivated to invest 

in enhancing their skill sets and gaining 

relevant experiences. This investment, 

in turn, will better equip them for 

employment opportunities within 

Federal contractor jobs, increasing the 

quality of Federal contract work and 

reducing the potential for cost overruns 

and schedule delays in Federal 

contracts. By prioritizing the 

employment of high-quality workers, 

the risk of understaffing and turnover 

can be significantly reduced, leading to 

further cost savings in terms of hiring 

expenses. 

Seminal theories in labor economics 

document that unequal treatment among 

groups, including in hiring and pay, can 

create self-fulfilling prophecies, 

whereby minorities believe that their 

investments in skills and training will 

not be fully rewarded by employers, 

leading those groups to under-invest in 

training and creating inefficiencies for 

employers and the economy as a 

whole.22

B. Promoting Economy, Efficiency, and 

Effectiveness Through Salary Range 

Disclosure 

Pay transparency laws at the state and 

local level are becoming increasingly 

prevalent. These regulations require 

employers to be more transparent with 

salary ranges and benefits, and they aim 

to help promote fairness and equity in 

the workplace. According to the Center 

for American Progress,23 as of March 

2023, 8 states had enacted, and at least 

15 states were considering, salary range 

transparency laws. There are a number 

of ways that salary range disclosures 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
5848 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

24Arnold, David and Quach, Simon and Taska, 

Bledi, The Impact of Pay Transparency in Job 

Postings on the Labor Market (August 9, 2022). 

Retrieved Jan. 9, 2024 from https://ssrn.com/ 

abstract=4186234. 

25Lyons, E., & Zhang, L. (2023). Salary 

transparency and gender pay inequality: Evidence 

from Canadian universities. Strategic Management 

Journal. 

26Baker, M., Halberstam, Y., Kroft, K., Mas, A., 

& Messacar, D. (2023). Pay transparency and the 

gender gap. American Economic Journal: Applied 

Economics, 15(2), 157–183. 

27Salary transparency: One organization’s story, 

Nonprofit Quarterly/Jeanne Bell, 2021. Retrieved 

January 4, 2024 from https://nonprofitquarterly.org/ 

salary-transparency-one-organizations-story/. 

28How Salary Transparency can Impact retention. 

Insights2Action Perspective/McAneny, 2022. 

Retrieved January 4, 2024 from https://action.

deloitte.com/insight/3037/how-salary-transparencycan-impact-retention.; Show me the money: More 

job listings have salary details, The Wall Street 

Journal/Kate Linebaugh and Ryan Knutson, 2022. 

Retrieved January 4, 2024 from https://

www.wsj.com/podcasts/the-journal/show-me-themoney-more-job-listings-have-salary-details/ 

7490aa9e-6100-4ff0-9197-cfc78a0cff55. 

29Pay Transparency Reduces Turnover, Payscale 

Research Indicates. HRDive/Tornone, 2022. 

Retrieved January 4, 2024 from Pay transparency 

reduces turnover, Payscale research indicates | HR 

Dive. 

30Salary transparency: One organization’s story, 

Nonprofit Quarterly/Jeanne Bell, 2021. Retrieved 

January 4, 2024 from https://nonprofitquarterly.org/ 

salary-transparency-one-organizations-story/. 

promote economy, efficiency, and 

effectiveness in Federal procurement. 

1. Similar to compensation history 

bans, salary range disclosure 

requirements reduce gender and racial/ 

ethnic pay gaps by reducing pay secrecy 

and helping workers negotiate. This 

may reduce the costs for Federal 

contracting. 

Pay transparency measures can also 

effectively identify compensation 

differences and reduce broader gender 

inequalities in the labor market. Arnold 

et al.24 is a working paper which studies 

the impact of a January 2021 law in 

Colorado that required job postings to 

contain expected salary information. 

Arnold et al. used data from Burning 

Glass Technologies and found that this 

law increased the fraction of postings 

with salary information by 30 

percentage points, although there 

remains substantial non-compliance. 

For employers that posted salaries both 

before and after the policy, the Arnold 

et al. found that posted salaries 

increased by about 3.6 percent, on 

average, following the policy. Note, 

however, that while the results of 

Arnold et al. support the intended 

policy effect of raising workers’ salaries, 

the study did not look at effect of pay 

transparency on inequality, gender pay 

gaps, and racial pay disparities. 

Lyons and Zhang 25 examined 

whether salary transparency influences 

gender pay inequality in the context of 

Canadian universities. The authors 

relied on a policy change enacted in one 

Canadian province that required salary 

disclosure through a publicly searchable 

database, thus lowering the cost of 

monitoring the gender pay gap, and 

found that, on average, salary disclosure 

improves gender pay equality but 

institutions respond in different ways. 

Similarly, Baker et al.26 examined the 

impact of public sector salary disclosure 

laws on university faculty salaries in 

Canada. The laws, which enable public 

access to the salaries of individual 

faculty, were introduced in different 

provinces at different times. Using 

detailed administrative data covering 

the majority of faculty in Canada, and 

an event-study research design that 

exploits within-province variation in 

exposure to the policy across 

institutions and academic departments, 

Baker et al. found robust evidence that 

the laws reduced the gender pay gap 

between men and women by 

approximately 20–40 percent. 

2. Salary range disclosure 

requirements reduce turnover rates. 

Employee retention is critical to 

organizational success. Keeping the 

turnover rate low strengthens 

contracting relationships, which 

ultimately boosts productivity and 

improves the ability of contractors to 

stay on budget and on time. 

Salary transparency may help build 

workforce loyalty by building trust in 

management.27 While pay impacts 

where people decide to work initially, 

some reports have shown that pay 

transparency also impacts whether or 

not workers stay at their current jobs.28

A recent study conducted by Payscale,29

a Seattle-based compensation software 

firm, showed that pay transparency 

decreases intent to quit by 30 percent 

when analyzed in isolation. Payscale’s 

first Retention Report suggests that 

workers are eager for greater 

transparency from their employer in 

general, with crowdsourced data from 

more than 578,000 workers indicating 

that they want information about the 

health of the business and how their pay 

is determined. 

3. The proposed salary range 

disclosure may lower recruiting costs. 

By disclosing the salary range upfront, 

employers can effectively lower 

recruiting costs related to the selection 

and negotiation process. This reduces 

the costs for Federal contracting. 

Studies have found that candidates 

are more likely to click on job 

advertisements that include a salary 

range.30 Thus, implementing pay 

transparency can streamline the hiring 

process. Upfront information aligns 

expectations between employers and 

applicants on pay and improves time-tofill open positions. Salary transparency 

at the outset of the hiring process 

facilitates pay negotiations later on, 

eliminates candidates who would later 

turn down an offer due to salary, and 

frees up candidate interviews to cover 

other topics. 

C. The Combined Impact of 

Compensation History Bans and Salary 

Range Disclosures 

Compensation history bans and salary 

range disclosure requirements are 

relatively new policies. As of August 

2023, 22 states have enacted 

compensation history bans and 10 states 

have enacted a pay transparency law 

with their ban. The States that have 

implemented these policies have, 

consistent with the literature discussed 

above, highlighted the important 

benefits of these policies to 

‘‘increas[ing] efficiency and achiev[ing] 

cost savings in state government.’’ Pa. 

Exec. Order No. 2018–03 (June 6, 2016); 

see also Office of Governor of Va., Press 

Release, Governor Northam Announces 

Employment Equity Initiative for State 

Agencies (June 20, 2019) (‘‘This 

initiative adopts industry-wide best 

practices in compensation and 

employment, which will help attract 

and retain top talent in our state 

workforce and bring greater equity and 

overdue improvements to our state 

policies.’’); and Hawai’i Senate Bill 1057 

(July 3, 2023) (‘‘[I]nitial experiences 

have benefited employers, current 

employees, and prospective 

employees.’’). 

Moreover, despite the important 

benefits of these policies, including in 

reducing turnover, increasing the 

quality of applicants, and streamlining 

the hiring process, absent a 

Government-wide policy individual 

contractors cannot reasonably be 

expected to adopt these policies with 

sufficient uniformity. 

Expected Costs 

The FAR Council has identified 

certain nonrecurring costs associated 

with the initial rule familiarization, 

review and revisions of existing 

policies, and preparation of training for 

those involved in the recruitment and 

hiring process discussed below, and 

welcomes public feedback on these and 

any potential additional costs associated 

with implementation of the proposed 

rule. 

Federal contractors like all businesses 

establish market-based compensation to 

recruit and retain a diverse and talented 

workforce. Likewise, to be a competitive 

and viable business, companies need to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5849 

establish some level of budgeting and 

human capital management. Regardless 

of the size of the entity or the 

sophistication level of their processes, 

companies will, regardless of the 

proposed rule, go through a process to 

determine budgets and set expected 

compensation levels. Companies will 

seek market information from public 

sources such as Bureau of Labor 

Statistics Economic Cost Indices or 

purchase compensation survey data. 

The FAR Council has not identified any 

additional expected costs related to 

budgeting that would be incurred as a 

result of not asking a job applicant their 

compensation history, or more than a de 

minimis amount for including a good 

faith estimate of compensation as part of 

existing human resource practices. 

Identified Costs 

Category Costs 

Rule Familiarization .............. $15,754,521 

Review and Modification of 

Existing Policies ................ 31,509,043 

Preparation of Training ......... 47,263,564 

Total Nonrecurring 

Costs .......................... 94,527,128 

Rule Familiarization 

Active SAM Registrants (1) .. 486,551 

Hours (2) ............................... 1 

Rate (3) ................................. 32.38 

15,754,521 

(1) Based on SAM data as of 

November 30, 2023, there are 486,551 

active registrants. We estimate this is 

the universe of entities that may seek to 

do business with the Government. Since 

the actual number of prime contractors 

during 2022 was less than 120,000 we 

believe this represents the upper limit of 

impacted entities inclusive of 

subcontractors. 

(2) Based on the short length, limited 

complexity and assumptions it is 

estimated that each entity would spend 

one hour on initial general 

familiarization of the rule. 

(3) For this function we have assigned 

a rate based on the Employer Cost for 

Compensation Table 4 for Office and 

administrative support occupations. 

REVIEW AND MODIFICATION OF

POLICIES

Active SAM Registrants ........ 486,551 

Hours (1) ............................... 2 

Rate (2) ................................. 32.38 

$31,509,043 

(1) Based on the short length, limited 

complexity and assumptions we 

estimate each entity will spend on 

average 2 hours reviewing and 

modifying their existing policies and 

procedures. 

(2) For this function we have assigned 

a rate based on the Employer Cost for 

Compensation Table 4 for the Office and 

administrative support occupations. 

PREPARATION AND TRAINING

Active SAM Registrants ........ 486,551 

Hours (1) ............................... 3 

Rate (2) ................................. 32.38 

$47,263,564 

(1) Based on the short length, limited 

complexity and assumptions we 

estimate each entity will spend on 

average 3 hours for preparation and 

conduction of training. 

(2) For this function we have assigned 

a rate based on the Employer Cost for 

Compensation Table 4 for the Office and 

administrative support occupations. 

V. Request for Public Comment 

Interested parties are invited to 

submit comments on both the proposed 

policy of the OFPP Administrator and 

the proposed implementing rule 

developed by DoD, GSA, and NASA. We 

encourage commenters to identify 

whether their comments are directed to 

the proposed policy, proposed 

implementing rule, or both. 

A. Comments on the Proposed Policy of 

the OFPP Administrator 

The OFPP Administrator requests 

comments on the proposed policy and 

especially welcomes input in response 

to the questions below. Such 

information will be useful for better 

understanding the effect of regulations 

on pay-setting by Federal contractors. 

1. How might states’ experiences with 

salary history bans inform future 

regulatory actions? State pay equity 

statutes often provide workers with 

protections beyond those in Federal 

laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act. 

Many states are updating equal pay 

statutes and increasing access to equal 

pay protections and pay transparency, 

such as limiting salary history questions 

during the job offer stage, requiring 

employers to provide pay ranges on job 

postings, increasing pay reporting 

requirements for employers, or 

expanding the classes protected under 

existing equal pay laws to include 

identities such as gender identity, race, 

age, sexuality, religion, and country of 

origin. For example, some state laws 

require equal pay for ‘‘substantially 

similar’’ work rather than for the 

narrower ‘‘equal work’’ set out in 

Federal law. 

2. What data should the Federal 

Government consider when measuring 

the effects of greater pay equity 

achieved through this rule, including 

effects on worker engagement, turnover, 

and productivity, as well as effects on 

worker equity, dignity, and fairness? 

3. What factors should the OFPP 

Administrator consider for positions of 

high occupational segregation—that is, 

the occupations predominantly held by 

women that are often paid and valued 

less, compared to those predominantly 

held by men at the same level of skill 

or education? 

4. Is there additional literature or 

ongoing research that would inform 

formulation of the final policy? 

B. Proposed FAR Rule 

The FAR Council agencies likewise 

request comments on all aspects of their 

proposed rule to implement the OFPP 

Administrator’s proposed policy, 

including: 

1. Which contractors and 

subcontractors are covered, including 

small businesses; 

2. The scope of contracts included in 

the proposed rule; 

3. The parameters of the prohibition 

on compensation history inquiries; 

4. The parameters of the 

compensation disclosure requirement; 

5. The notice of rights policy for 

employers to provide; 

6. The applicant complaint process; 

and 

7. Additional costs and benefits that 

should be considered, including as it 

relates to workers, Federal contractors, 

including small businesses, and other 

stakeholders. 

VI. Severability 

The OFPP Administrator has 

determined that both the proposed 

compensation history ban and 

compensation disclosure requirement, 

separately and independently, would 

promote economy, efficiency, and 

effectiveness in the procurement of 

property and services by the Federal 

Government. The OFPP Administrator 

accordingly intends that the discrete 

components of the proposed policy 

described in section I, which are 

capable of operating independently, be 

legally severable. Likewise, DoD, GSA, 

and NASA would intend that the 

proposed rule implementing the OFPP 

Administrator’s proposed policy be 

severable. If any portion of the proposed 

policy or implementing rule were held 

to be invalid or unenforceable facially, 

or as applied to any entity or 

circumstance, that portion shall be 

severable from the remainder of the 

policy or rule, and shall not affect the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
5850 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

remainder thereof, or their application 

to entities not similarly situated or to 

other dissimilar circumstances. 

VII. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 (as 

amended by E.O. 14094) and 13563 

direct agencies to assess the costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. This is a significant 

regulatory action and, therefore, was 

subject to review under section 6(b) of 

E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and 

Review, dated September 30, 1993. 

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule, if finalized, may 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

within the meaning of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 5 U.S.C. 601–612. The 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(IRFA) is summarized as follows: 

DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to 

amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation 

(FAR) to implement the Administrator for 

Federal Procurement Policy’s proposed pay 

equity policy, which would require that 

Government agencies, in order to promote 

economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in 

Federal procurement, enhance pay equity 

and transparency for job applicants and 

employees of contractors and subcontractors. 

The objective of the rule is to implement 

the acquisition policy established by the 

Administrator for Federal Procurement 

Policy, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1121(b), to 

promote pay equity for any recruitment and 

hiring for work on or in connection with a 

Government contract, which prohibits 

contractors and subcontractors from seeking 

and considering information about job 

applicants’ current or past compensation 

when making employment decisions. In 

addition, businesses awarded a contract or 

subcontract containing the new clause will 

be required in all advertisements for job 

openings placed by or on behalf of the 

contractor or subcontractor to disclose the 

compensation to be offered to the hired 

applicant, for any position to perform work 

on or in connection with the contract. The 

disclosure must indicate the salary or wages, 

or range thereof, that the contractor or 

subcontractor in good faith believes that it 

will pay for the advertised position, and may 

reflect, as applicable: the contractor’s or 

subcontractor’s pay scale for that position, 

the range of compensation for those currently 

working in similar jobs, or the amount 

budgeted for the position. The disclosure 

must also include a general description of the 

benefits and other forms of compensation 

applicable to the job opportunity. Where at 

least half of the expected compensation for 

the advertised position is derived from 

commissions, bonuses, and/or overtime pay, 

the contractor must specify the percentage of 

overall compensation or dollar amount, or 

ranges thereof, for each form of 

compensation, as applicable, that it in good 

faith believes will be paid for the advertised 

position. 

The proposed rule also provides guidance 

on appropriate accountability measures 

associated with the prohibition and 

disclosure requirement. 

Promulgation of this FAR rule is 

authorized by 41 U.S.C. 1121(b); 41 U.S.C. 

1303; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 

and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 legacy provisions 

(see 10 U.S.C. 3016); and 51 U.S.C. 20113. 

The proposed rule may have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities within the meaning of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. 

The proposed rule will apply to both 

contractors and subcontractors and the 

prohibition and disclosure requirement will 

apply to employees or applicants that will be 

performing work on or in connection with 

the contract or subcontract. The proposed 

rule will apply the prohibition and 

disclosure requirement to all contracts over 

the micro-purchase threshold, which is 

generally $10,000. 

Based on data obtained from the Federal 

Procurement Data System, 58,882 unique 

small entities out of the total 76,414 unique 

entities were awarded contracts in fiscal year 

2022. 

With regard to an estimate of the number 

of small entities that will be impacted by the 

rule as a subcontractor, data from the Federal 

Funding Accountability and Transparency 

Act Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) at 

www.USASpending.gov was used. However, 

this system does not distinguish small 

businesses from other than small businesses. 

Data for fiscal year 2022 show there were a 

total of 203,802 subcontracts reported; these 

subcontracts were awarded to 24,190 unique 

entities. For estimating purposes, DoD, GSA, 

and NASA assumed that 20 percent of 

subcontracts have a second-tier 

subcontractor, 10 percent of second-tier 

subcontractors have a third-tier 

subcontractor, and 5 percent of third-tier 

subcontractors have a fourth-tier 

subcontractor. This calculation estimates the 

total number of unique subcontractors is 

29,536. Because the FSRS data does not 

distinguish small businesses from other than 

small businesses, this number is likely an 

overestimate of the small entities to which 

this rule will apply. 

Considering there is no way to determine 

how many of the small entities overlap as 

both a prime contractor and a subcontractor, 

the two figures of 58,882 and 29,536 are not 

added together to estimate the number of 

total small entities to which the rule will 

apply. 

The proposed rule does not include any 

new recordkeeping requirements for small 

businesses. However, the proposed rule does 

create new reporting and compliance 

requirements for contractors and 

subcontractors, including small businesses. 

In terms of reporting, small businesses 

awarded a contract or subcontract containing 

the new clause will be required, in all 

advertisements for job openings placed by or 

on behalf of the contractor or subcontractor, 

to disclose the compensation to be offered to 

the hired applicant, for any position to 

perform work on or in connection with the 

contract. The disclosure must indicate the 

salary or wages, or range thereof, that the 

contractor or subcontractor in good faith 

believes that it will pay for the advertised 

position, and may reflect, as applicable: the 

contractor’s or subcontractor’s pay scale for 

that position; the range of compensation for 

those currently working in similar jobs; or 

the amount budgeted for the position. The 

disclosure must also include a general 

description of the benefits and other forms of 

compensation applicable to the job 

opportunity. Where at least half of the 

expected compensation for the advertised 

position is derived from commissions, 

bonuses, and/or overtime pay, the contractor 

or subcontractor must specify the percentage 

of overall compensation or dollar amount, or 

ranges thereof, for each form of 

compensation, as applicable, that it in good 

faith believes will be paid for the advertised 

position. The proposed rule also requires a 

small business awarded a contract or 

subcontract to provide applicants with notice 

of this requirement as either part of the job 

announcement or application process. Since 

these reporting requirements counts as 

information collections under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), the 

Regulatory Secretariat Division has submitted 

a request for approval of a new information 

collection requirement to the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

In terms of compliance requirements, the 

proposed rule prohibits small businesses 

awarded a contract or subcontract from 

seeking and considering information about 

job applicants’ compensation history when 

making employment decisions. The 

prohibition would apply to the recruitment 

and hiring for any position to perform work 

on or in connection with the contract. This 

compliance requirement is in addition to the 

compliance requirement to disclose 

compensation information listed above. 

While some small businesses may already be 

subjected to a prohibition from seeking and 

considering applicants’ compensation history 

(e.g., small businesses located in states or 

localities that have enacted laws similar to 

the prohibition applied in this proposed rule) 

and some small businesses may already 

disclose compensation information in their 

job announcements, the requirements of this 

proposed rule may be new for other small 

businesses. 

The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with any other Federal rules. 

DoD, GSA, and NASA considered 

minimizing the impact of the rule on small 

entities by— 

• Exempting commercially available offthe-shelf (COTS) contracts or contracts for 

commercial products or commercial services; 

• Exempting subcontracts; 

• Exempting contracts under the 

simplified acquisition threshold (which is 

generally $250,000); 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5851 

• Exempting contracts with small 

businesses; or 

• Not issuing a rule to implement the 

policy established by the Administrator for 

Federal Procurement Policy, pursuant to 41 

U.S.C. 1121(b), to promote pay equity for any 

recruitment and hiring for work on or in 

connection with a Government contract. 

DOD, GSA & NASA did not agree to pursue 

this alternative approach. 

Limiting the application of a compensation 

history ban through any of these alternatives 

could result in employees performing the 

same or similar functions receiving disparate 

treatment during hiring and recruiting for 

work on or in connection with Government 

contracts. This, in turn, increases the risk of 

pay disparity among employees working on 

Government contracts and, for the many 

reasons explained above, deprives the 

Federal marketplace of the economy, 

efficiency, and effectiveness in the 

procurement of property and services by the 

Federal Government when there is pay 

equity. The benefits of the pay equity and 

transparency requirements in this proposed 

rule are equally impactful in commercial and 

noncommercial settings as well as to large or 

small dollar contracts. For this reason, an 

increasing number of states and localities 

have imposed requirements similar to those 

described in this proposed rulemaking for 

sales of any goods or services in any dollar 

amount, whether business to business, 

business to consumer, or business to 

government. Limiting application would 

forgo the various ways in which pay equity 

promotes economy, efficiency, and 

effectiveness. In addition, because many 

entities who sell in those states or localities 

also sell in the Federal marketplace, it is 

believed that many Government contractors, 

including small businesses, already have 

incorporated these requirements into their 

existing human capital management 

practices. Moreover, limiting the application 

of the proposed rule could create unintended 

confusion and ambiguity for contractors and 

prospective employees. Many contractors 

who do business with the government have 

contracts below and above the simplified 

acquisition threshold, and provide both 

commercial and government unique products 

and services. Carve-outs to the rule could 

result in contractor employees performing 

the same or similar functions receiving 

disparate treatment during hiring and 

recruiting for work on or in connection with 

Government contracts, which would 

perpetuate inequity and deprive the Federal 

marketplace of economy, efficiency, and 

effectiveness in the procurement of property 

and services. 

DoD, GSA, and NASA have narrowed the 

scope of the rule by only applying it to prime 

contracts and subcontracts with a principal 

place of performance within the United 

States including its outlying areas (see 

22.XX01, 22.XX04, and 52.222–ZZ(g)). 

The FAR Council will consider public 

feedback before making a final determination 

on the scope of the final rule. 

The Regulatory Secretariat Division 

has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. A copy of the 

IRFA may be obtained from the 

Regulatory Secretariat Division. DoD, 

GSA, and NASA invite comments from 

small business concerns and other 

interested parties on the expected 

impact of this rule on small entities. 

DoD, GSA, and NASA will also 

consider comments from small entities 

concerning the existing regulations in 

subparts affected by the rule in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested 

parties must submit such comments 

separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 

(FAR Case 2023–021), in 

correspondence. 

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3521) applies because the 

proposed rule contains information 

collection requirements. Accordingly, 

the Regulatory Secretariat Division has 

submitted a request for approval of a 

new information collection concerning 

‘‘Pay Equity and Transparency in 

Federal Contracting’’ to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). 

A. Public Reporting Burden. Public 

reporting burden for this information 

collection, includes the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. 

1. The annual reporting burden 

estimated for compensation disclosure 

requirements is as follows: 

Respondents ......................... 96,132 

Total annual responses ........ 96,132 

Hours/response .................... ×1 

Total burden hours ............... 96,132 

2. The annual reporting burden 

associated with applicant notification of 

rights is estimated as follows: 

Respondents ......................... 96,132 

Total annual responses ........ 96,132 

Hours/response .................... ×1 

Total burden hours ............... 96,132 

3. The annual reporting burden 

associated with the complaints process 

is estimated as follows: 

Respondents ......................... 753 

Total annual responses ........ 753 

Hours/response .................... ×1 

Total burden hours ............... 753 

B. Request for Comments Regarding 

Paperwork Burden 

Submit comments on this collection 

of information no later than April 1, 

2024 through https://

www.regulations.gov and follow the 

instructions on the site. All items 

submitted must cite OMB Control No. 

9000–XXXX, Pay Equity and 

Transparency in Federal Contracting. 

Comments received generally will be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal and/or business confidential 

information provided. To confirm 

receipt of your comment(s), please 

check https://www.regulations.gov, 

approximately two to three days after 

submission to verify posting. If there are 

difficulties submitting comments, 

contact the GSA Regulatory Secretariat 

Division at 202–501–4755 or 

GSARegSec@gsa.gov. 

Public comments are particularly 

invited on: 

• The necessity of this collection of 

information for the propoer performance 

of the functions of Federal Government 

acquisitions, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

• The accuracy of the estimate of the 

burden of this collection of information; 

• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• Ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of informatiion technology. 

Requesters may obtain a copy of the 

supporting statement from the General 

Services Administration, Regulatory 

Secretariat Division by calling 202–501– 

4755 or emailing GSARegSec@gsa.gov. 

Please cite OMB Control Number 9000– 

XXXX, Pay Equity and Transparency in 

Federal Contracting. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1, 2, 12, 

22, and 52 

Government procurement. 

William F. Clark, 

Director, Office of Government-wide 

Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition 

Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy. 

Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA 

propose amending 48 CFR parts 1, 2, 12, 

22, and 52 as set forth below: 

■ 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

parts 1, 2, 12, 22, and 52 continues to 

read as follows: 

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. 

chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 legacy 

provisions (see 10 U.S.C. 3016); and 51 

U.S.C. 20113. 

PART 1—FEDERAL ACQUISITION 

REGULATIONS SYSTEM 

■ 2. In section 1.106 amend in the table 

following the introductory text by 

adding in numerical order an entry for 

‘‘52.222–ZZ’’ to read as follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
5852 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

1.106 OMB approval under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

* * * * * 

FAR segment OMB control No. 

* * * * * 

52.222–ZZ ........................ 9000–XXXX 

* * * * * 

* * * * * 

PART 2—DEFINITIONS OF WORDS 

AND TERMS 

■ 3. Amend section 2.101, in paragraph 

(b)(2) in the definition of ‘‘United 

States’’, by redesignating paragraphs (9) 

through (12) as paragraphs (10) through 

(13); and adding a new paragraph (9) to 

read as follows: 

2.101 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

United States * * * 

(9) For use in subpart 22.XX, see the 

definition at 22.XX01. 

* * * * * 

PART 12—ACQUISITION OF 

COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND 

COMMERCIAL SERVICES 

■ 4. Amend section 12.301 by 

redesignating paragraphs (d)(11) 

through (14) as paragraphs (d)(12) 

through (15); and adding a new 

paragraph (d)(11) to read as follows: 

12.301 Solicitation provisions and 

contract clauses for the acquisition of 

commercial products and commercial 

services. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(11) Insert the clause at 52.222–ZZ, 

Prohibition on Compensation History 

Inquiries and Requirement for 

Compensation Disclosures by 

Contractors During Recruitment and 

Hiring, as prescribed in 22.XX04. 

* * * * * 

PART 22—APPLICATION OF LABOR 

LAWS TO GOVERNMENT 

ACQUISITIONS 

■ 5. Add subpart 22.XX to read as 

follows: 

Subpart 22.XX—Prohibition on 

Compensation History Inquiries and 

Requirement for Compensation 

Disclosures by Contractors 

Sec. 

22.XX00 Scope of subpart. 

22.XX01 Definitions. 

22.XX02 Policy. 

22.XX03 Applicant complaint procedures. 

22.XX04 Contract clause. 

Subpart 22.XX—Prohibition on 

Compensation History Inquiries and 

Requirement for Compensation 

Disclosures by Contractors 

22.XX00 Scope of subpart. 

This subpart implements the policy 

established by the Administrator for 

Federal Procurement Policy, pursuant to 

41 U.S.C. 1121(b), to promote pay equity 

for any recruitment and hiring for work 

on or in connection with a Government 

contract. 

22.XX01 Definitions. 

As used in this subpart— 

Applicant means a prospective 

employee or current employee applying 

for a position to perform work on or in 

connection with the contract. 

Compensation means any payments 

made to, or on behalf of, an employee 

or offered to an applicant as 

remuneration for employment, 

including but not limited to salary, 

wages, overtime pay, shift differentials, 

bonuses, commissions, vacation and 

holiday pay, allowances, insurance and 

other benefits, stock options and 

awards, profit sharing, and retirement. 

Compensation history means the 

compensation an applicant is currently 

receiving or the compensation the 

applicant has been paid in a previous 

job. 

United States means the 50 States, the 

District of Columbia, and outlying areas. 

Work on or in connection with the 

contract means work called for by the 

contract or work activities necessary to 

the performance of the contract but not 

specifically called for by the contract. 

22.XX02 Policy. 

(a) Pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1121(b) the 

Administrator for OFPP has established 

that it is the policy of the Federal 

Government to eliminate pay practices 

that inhibit the economy, efficiency, and 

effectiveness of the procurement of 

property and services. 

(b) Contractors and subcontractors are 

prohibited from seeking and considering 

information about job applicants’ 

compensation history when making 

employment decisions. The prohibition 

applies to the recruitment and hiring for 

any position to perform work on or in 

connection with the contract. 

(c) Contractors and subcontractors are 

required to disclose, in all 

advertisements for job openings placed 

by or on behalf of the contractor or 

subcontractor, the compensation to be 

offered to the hired applicant, for any 

position to perform work on or in 

connection with the contract. The 

disclosure must indicate the salary or 

wages, or range thereof, the contractor 

or subcontractor in good faith believes 

that it will pay for the advertised 

position. The disclosure must also 

include a general description of the 

benefits and other forms of 

compensation applicable to the job 

opportunity. Where at least half of the 

expected compensation for the 

advertised position is derived from 

commissions, bonuses, and/or overtime 

pay, the contractor or subcontractor 

must specify the percentage of overall 

compensation or dollar amount, or 

ranges thereof, for each form of 

compensation, as applicable, that it in 

good faith believes will be paid for the 

advertised position. 

(d) Contractors and subcontractors are 

required to provide applicants with 

notice of these requirements as either 

part of the job announcement or 

application process. 

22.XX03 Applicant complaint procedures. 

(a) Applicants alleging violations of 

the requirements in the clause at 

52.222–ZZ may submit a complaint to 

the central collection point of the 

agency that issued the solicitation or 

awarded the contract or order, as 

identified at www.dol.gov/general/laboradvisors. The complaint must be 

submitted within 180 days of the date 

the alleged violation occurred. 

(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph 

(2), the contracting agency will review 

the complaint, consult with the 

complainant as necessary to confirm the 

complainant is a covered applicant, and 

take action as appropriate. 

(2) Applicants who wish to submit 

complaints that allege discrimination 

prohibited by Executive Order 11246, 

Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973, and the Vietnam Era Veterans’ 

Readjustment Assistance Act should 

submit such complaints directly to the 

Department of Labor’s Office of Federal 

Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) 

at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/ 

contact/file-complaint. If complaints 

alleging discrimination are submitted to 

an agency central collection point rather 

than directly with OFCCP, the 

complaints will be forwarded to OFCCP. 

22.XX04 Contract clause. 

The contracting officer shall insert the 

clause at 52.222–ZZ, Prohibition on 

Compensation History Inquiries and 

Requirement for Compensation 

Disclosures by Contractors During 

Recruitment and Hiring, in all 

solicitations and contracts where the 

principal place of performance is within 

the United States. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5853 

PART 52—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS 

AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 

■ 6. Amend section 52.213–4 by— 

■ a. Revising the date of the clause and 

revising paragraph (a)(2)(vii); 

■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(2)(iv) 

and (v) as paragraphs (b)(2)(v) and (vi); 

and 

■ c. Adding a new paragraph (b)(2)(iv) 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

52.213–4 Terms and Conditions— 

Simplified Acquisitions (Other Than 

Commercial Products and Commercial 

Services). 

* * * * * 

Terms and Conditions—Simplified 

Acquisitions (Other Than Commercial 

Products and Commercial Services) 

(DATE) 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(vii) 52.244–6, Subcontracts for 

Commercial Products and Commercial 

Services (DATE). 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iv) 52.222–ZZ, Prohibition on 

Compensation History Inquiries and 

Requirement for Compensation 

Disclosures by Contractors During 

Recruitment and Hiring (DATE) 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Add section 52.222–ZZ to read as 

follows: 

52.222–ZZ Prohibition on Compensation 

History Inquiries and Requirement for 

Compensation Disclosures by Contractors 

During Recruitment and Hiring. 

As prescribed in 22.XX04, insert the 

following clause: 

Prohibition on Compensation History 

Inquiries and Requirements for 

Compensation Disclosures by 

Contractors During Recruitment and 

Hiring (DATE) 

(a) Definitions. As used in this 

clause— 

Applicant means a prospective 

employee or current employee applying 

for a position to perform work on or in 

connection with the contract. 

Compensation means any payments 

made to, or on behalf of, an employee 

or offered to an applicant as 

remuneration for employment, 

including but not limited to salary, 

wages, overtime pay, shift differentials, 

bonuses, commissions, vacation and 

holiday pay, allowances, insurance and 

other benefits, stock options and 

awards, profit sharing, and retirement. 

Compensation history means the 

compensation an applicant is currently 

receiving or the compensation the 

applicant has been paid in a previous 

job. 

Work on or in connection with the 

contract means work called for by the 

contract or work activities necessary to 

the performance of the contract but not 

specifically called for by the contract. 

(b) Applicability. The prohibition on 

compensation history inquiries and 

requirement to disclose compensation 

described in this clause apply to the 

recruitment and hiring for any position 

to perform work on or in connection 

with the contract. Contractors are also 

encouraged to apply the prohibitions 

and requirements in paragraphs (c) and 

(d) of this clause, respectively, to other 

positions, including to the recruitment 

and hiring for any position that the 

Contractor reasonably believes could 

eventually perform work on or in 

connection with the contract. 

(c) Prohibitions. For any recruitment 

and hiring under paragraph (b) of this 

clause the Contractor shall not— 

(1) Seek an applicant’s compensation 

history, either orally or in writing, 

directly from any person, including the 

applicant or the applicant’s current or 

former employer or through an agent; 

(2) Require disclosure of 

compensation history as a condition of 

an applicant’s candidacy; 

(3) Retaliate against or refuse to 

interview or otherwise consider, hire, or 

employ any applicant for failing to 

respond to an inquiry regarding their 

compensation history; 

(4) Rely on an applicant’s 

compensation history— 

(i) As a criterion in screening or 

considering the applicant for 

employment or 

(ii) In determining the compensation 

for such individual at any stage in the 

selection process; and 

(5) Violate the prohibitions of (c)(1) 

through (4) even if an applicant for 

employment volunteers their 

compensation history without 

prompting at any stage in the 

recruitment and hiring process. 

(d) Compensation disclosure 

requirements. (1) The Contractor shall, 

in all advertisements for job openings 

placed by or on behalf of the Contractor 

for any position to perform work on or 

in connection with the contract, 

disclose the compensation to be offered 

to the hired applicant. 

(2) The disclosure must indicate the 

salary or wages, or range thereof, the 

Contractor in good faith believes that it 

will pay for the advertised position, and 

may reflect, as applicable: the 

Contractor’s pay scale for that position, 

the range of compensation for those 

currently working in similar jobs, or the 

amount budgeted for the position. 

(3) The disclosure must also include 

a general description of the benefits and 

other forms of compensation applicable 

to the job opportunity. Where at least 

half of the expected compensation for 

the advertised position is derived from 

commissions, bonuses, and/or overtime 

pay, the Contractor must specify the 

percentage of overall compensation or 

dollar amount, or ranges thereof, for 

each form of compensation, as 

applicable, that it in good faith believes 

will be paid for the advertised position. 

(e) Applicant notification of rights 

requirements. The Contractor shall 

ensure that any applicants that are 

covered by the prohibitions in 

paragraph (c) and the disclosure 

requirements in paragraph (d) of this 

clause are provided with notice of these 

requirements as either part of the job 

announcement or application process 

and provided with the following 

information in writing: 

‘‘This employer is a Federal 

contractor or subcontractor. Under 48 

CFR (FAR) 52.222–ZZ, Prohibition on 

Compensation History Inquiries and 

Requirement for Compensation 

Disclosures by Contractors During 

Recruitment and Hiring, Federal 

contractors and subcontractors may not 

inquire about or rely on an applicant’s 

compensation history to screen an 

applicant for employment or to 

determine the applicant’s pay for a 

position on or in connection with a 

Federal contract or subcontract, even 

when the information is offered without 

prompting. The employer must also 

disclose the compensation for the 

position in all advertisements for the job 

opening. 

Applicants alleging Federal contractor 

or subcontractor violations of these 

requirements: 

These applicants may submit a 

complaint to the central collection point 

of the agency that issued the solicitation 

for the Federal contract or awarded the 

Federal contract or order, as identified 

at www.dol.gov/general/labor-advisors. 

The complaint must be submitted 

within 180 days of the date the violation 

occurred. 

The agency that issued the solicitation 

or awarded the contract or order on 

which this applicant would primarily 

work is llllll. [Contractor to fill 

in with appropriate agency name] For 

applicants supporting multiple 

agencies, complaints should copy the 

central collection point of all known 

agencies to be supported by the 

applicant’s position. 

Applicants alleging discrimination on 

the basis of race, color, religion, sex, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
5854 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

sexual orientation, gender identity, 

national origin, disability, or protected 

veteran status should file a complaint 

with the Office of Federal Contract 

Compliance Programs (OFCCP). If 

complaints alleging discrimination are 

submitted to an agency central 

collection point rather than directly 

with OFCCP, the complaints will be 

forwarded to OFCCP. Information on the 

process for filing a formal complaint of 

discrimination with OFCCP can be 

found at the following website: https:// 

www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/contact/ 

file-complaint.’’ 

(f) Relationship to other 

compensation data reporting 

requirements. Nothing in this clause 

alleviates the Contractor from 

responsibilities that may be imposed by 

other clauses, such as for providing the 

contracting officer with employee 

compensation data required for the 

evaluation of proposals or claims. 

(g) Subcontracts. The Contractor shall 

include the substance of this clause, 

including this paragraph (g) in all 

subcontracts at any tier, with a principal 

place of performance within the United 

States including its outlying areas. 

(End of clause) 

■ 8. Amend section 52.244–6 by— 

■ a. Revising the date of the clause; 

■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(1)(xx) 

through (xxiii) as paragraphs (c)(1)(xxi) 

through (xxiv); and 

■ c. Adding a new paragraph (c)(1)(xx). 

The revision and addition read as 

follows: 

52.222–6 Subcontracts for Commercial 

Products and Commercial Services. 

* * * * * 

Subcontracts for Commercial Products 

and Commercial Services (DATE) 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(xx) 52.222–ZZ, Prohibition on 

Compensation History Inquiries and 

Requirement for Compensation 

Disclosures by Contractors During 

Recruitment and Hiring (DATE). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2024–01343 Filed 1–29–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS