FDIC Proposes Changes to Its Supervisory Appeals Process

54377

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 1, 2020 / Notices

1 12 U.S.C. 4806(a).

2 12 U.S.C. 4806(f)(2).

3 12 U.S.C. 4806(b).

4 12 U.S.C. 4806(f)(1)(A).

5 12 U.S.C. 4806(f)(1)(B).

6 12 U.S.C. 4806(g).

7 60 FR 15923 (Mar. 28, 1995).

8 60 FR 15923, 15930. Committee members could

also designate another person to serve on their

behalf.

effective when EPA notifies Somerville

that the public comment period has

closed and that such comments, if any,

do not require that EPA modify or

withdraw from consent to Section XIV

(Payment of Response Costs) of this

Agreement. The United States will

consider all comments received and

may seek to modify or withdraw

consent from the cost compromise

contained in the proposed settlement if

comments received disclose facts or

considerations which indicate that the

cost compromise contained in the

settlement is inappropriate, improper,

or inadequate. The Agency’s response to

any comments received will be available

for public inspection at the

Environmental Protection Agency—

Region I, 5 Post Office Square, Suite

100, Boston, MA 02109–3912.

Bryan Olson,

Director, Superfund and Emergency

Management Division.

[FR Doc. 2020–19197 Filed 8–31–20; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION

RIN 3064–ZA20]

Guidelines for Appeals of Material

Supervisory Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation.

ACTION: Notice and request for comment.

SUMMARY: The Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation proposes to

amend its Guidelines for Appeals of

Material Supervisory Determinations

(Guidelines) to establish an independent

office that would generally replace the

existing Supervision Appeals Review

Committee (SARC) and to modify the

procedures and timeframes for

considering formal enforcement-related

decisions through the supervisory

appeals process.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by the FDIC on or before

October 20, 2020, for consideration

Determinations

(Guidelines) to establish an independent

office that would generally replace the

existing Supervision Appeals Review

Committee (SARC) and to modify the

procedures and timeframes for

considering formal enforcement-related

decisions through the supervisory

appeals process.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by the FDIC on or before

October 20, 2020, for consideration.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are

invited to submit written comments,

identified by RIN 3064–ZA20, by any of

the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the

instructions for submitting comments.

• Agency website: https://

www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/.

Follow the instructions for submitting

comments.

• Email: Comments@FDIC.gov.

Include ‘‘RIN 3064–ZA20’’ in the

subject line of the message.

• Mail: Robert E. Feldman, Executive

Secretary, Attention: Comments, Federal

Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th

Street NW, Washington, DC 20429.

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Guard

station at the rear of the 550 17th Street

building (located on F Street) on

business days between 7:00 a.m. and

5:00 p.m. (EST).

• Public Inspection: All comments

received will be posted without change

to https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/

laws/federal, including any personal

information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Samuel B. Lutz, Counsel, Legal

Division, (202) 898–3773, salutz@

fdic.gov; James Watts, Counsel, Legal

Division, (202) 898–6678, jwatts@

fdic.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation (FDIC) is publishing for

comment proposed amendments to its

Guidelines for Appeals of Material

Supervisory Determinations

(Guidelines). The FDIC is seeking

comments regarding these amendments

to the Guidelines in order to provide the

public an opportunity to provide input

and feedback, although notice and

comment is not required

ARY INFORMATION:

The Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation (FDIC) is publishing for

comment proposed amendments to its

Guidelines for Appeals of Material

Supervisory Determinations

(Guidelines). The FDIC is seeking

comments regarding these amendments

to the Guidelines in order to provide the

public an opportunity to provide input

and feedback, although notice and

comment is not required.

The Guidelines describe the process

by which insured depository

institutions (IDIs) may appeal material

supervisory determinations made by the

FDIC. The current appeals process

provides for two stages of review. First,

an IDI requests review of a material

supervisory determination by the

appropriate Division Director from the

Division of Risk Management

Supervision (RMS), the Division of

Depositor and Consumer Protection

(DCP), or the Division of Complex

Institution Supervision and Resolution

(CISR). If the IDI is not satisfied with the

Division Director’s decision, it may

proceed to the second stage of the

process—an appeal of that decision to

the FDIC’s Supervision Appeals Review

Committee (SARC), a standing

committee of the FDIC’s Board of

Directors (Board).

The proposed amendments would

replace the SARC with a newly

established independent office that

would exclusively consider supervisory

appeals. In addition, the proposal would

modify the procedures and timeframes

related to considering formal

enforcement-related decisions through

the supervisory appeals process

ittee (SARC), a standing

committee of the FDIC’s Board of

Directors (Board).

The proposed amendments would

replace the SARC with a newly

established independent office that

would exclusively consider supervisory

appeals. In addition, the proposal would

modify the procedures and timeframes

related to considering formal

enforcement-related decisions through

the supervisory appeals process.

Background

Section 309(a) of the Riegle

Community Development and

Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994

(Riegle Act) required the FDIC (as well

as the other Federal banking agencies

and the National Credit Union

Administration) to establish an

‘‘independent intra-agency appellate

process’’ to review material supervisory

determinations.1 The Riegle Act defines

the term ‘‘independent appellate

process’’ to mean ‘‘a review by an

agency official who does not directly or

indirectly report to the agency official

who made the material supervisory

determination under review.’’ 2 In the

appeals process, the FDIC is required to

ensure that: (1) An IDI’s appeal of a

material supervisory determination is

heard and decided expeditiously; and

(2) appropriate safeguards exist for

protecting appellants from retaliation by

agency examiners.3

The Riegle Act defines material

supervisory determinations to include

determinations relating to: (1)

Examination ratings; (2) the adequacy of

loan loss reserve provisions; and (3)

classifications on loans that are

significant to an institution.4

Specifically excluded from this

definition are decisions to appoint a

conservator or receiver for an IDI or to

take prompt corrective action pursuant

to Section 38 of the Federal Deposit

Insurance Act (FDI Act), 12 U.S.C.

1831o.5 Finally, Section 309(g) of the

Riegle Act expressly provides that the

requirement to establish an appeals

process shall not affect the authority of

the Federal banking agencies to take

enforcement or supervisory actions

against an IDI.6

A

or or receiver for an IDI or to

take prompt corrective action pursuant

to Section 38 of the Federal Deposit

Insurance Act (FDI Act), 12 U.S.C.

1831o.5 Finally, Section 309(g) of the

Riegle Act expressly provides that the

requirement to establish an appeals

process shall not affect the authority of

the Federal banking agencies to take

enforcement or supervisory actions

against an IDI.6

A. Structure of the Supervisory Appeals

Review Committee

On March 21, 1995, the Board

adopted the Guidelines to implement

Section 309(a). The Board, at that time,

established the SARC to consider and

decide appeals of material supervisory

determinations.7 The SARC was

initially comprised of five members:

The FDIC’s Vice Chairperson (as

Chairperson of the SARC), the Director

of the Division of Supervision (DOS)

(the predecessor to RMS), the Director of

the Division of Compliance and

Consumer Affairs (DCA) (the

predecessor to DCP), the FDIC

Ombudsman, and the General Counsel.8

VerDate Sep<11>2014

20:01 Aug 31, 2020

Jkt 250001

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM

01SEN1

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

54378

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 1, 2020 / Notices

9 60 FR 15923, 15924.

10 60 FR 15923, 15924.

11 69 FR 41479, 41480 (July 9, 2004).

12 69 FR 41479, 41480.

13 69 FR 41479, 41480–81. For example, the

Ombudsman was excluded from the SARC in order

to avoid any possible conflict between the

Ombudsman’s statutory role as a liaison between

the agency and financial institutions on the one

hand, and as a decision maker on the SARC on the

other hand.

14 69 FR 41479, 41480.

15 See FIL–52–2019 (Sep. 24, 2019), https://

www.fdic.gov/news/financial-institution-letters/

2019/fil19052.pdf

mple, the

Ombudsman was excluded from the SARC in order

to avoid any possible conflict between the

Ombudsman’s statutory role as a liaison between

the agency and financial institutions on the one

hand, and as a decision maker on the SARC on the

other hand.

14 69 FR 41479, 41480.

15 See FIL–52–2019 (Sep. 24, 2019), https://

www.fdic.gov/news/financial-institution-letters/

2019/fil19052.pdf.

Consistent with the Riegle Act’s

mandate to create an intra-agency

appeals process, membership in the

SARC was limited to FDIC officials.9 In

order to ‘‘establish[] a fair and credible

review process,’’ the SARC was

comprised of senior officials at the

FDIC, including the Directors of DOS

and DCA, who were expected to ‘‘bring

to the Committee the necessary

experience and judgment to make well-

informed decisions concerning

determinations under review.’’ 10 The

Guidelines were subsequently amended

to add the Director of the Division of

Insurance as a voting member of the

SARC, and to provide formally that the

Directors of DOS and DCA would not

vote on cases brought before the SARC

involving their respective divisions.11

In July 2004, the FDIC revised the

Guidelines to change the structure and

composition of the SARC to its current

form. Specifically, the voting members

of the SARC are now comprised of: One

of the FDIC’s three inside directors (who

serves as the SARC Chairperson), and

one deputy or special assistant to each

of the other two inside directors.12 The

FDIC’s General Counsel also serves as a

non-voting member of the SARC. In the

event of a vacancy, the Guidelines

authorize the FDIC Chairperson to

designate alternate member(s) to the

SARC, so long as the alternate member

was not directly or indirectly involved

in making or affirming the material

supervisory determination under

review

ant to each

of the other two inside directors.12 The

FDIC’s General Counsel also serves as a

non-voting member of the SARC. In the

event of a vacancy, the Guidelines

authorize the FDIC Chairperson to

designate alternate member(s) to the

SARC, so long as the alternate member

was not directly or indirectly involved

in making or affirming the material

supervisory determination under

review. These changes were intended to

avoid the potential conflicts then faced

by the Ombudsman and Division

Directors,13 and to ‘‘further underscore

the perception of the SARC as a fair and

independent high-level body for review

of material supervisory determinations

within the FDIC.’’ 14

B. 2019 Listening Sessions on

Supervisory Appeals and Dispute

Resolution Process

In 2019, the FDIC decided to explore

potential improvements to the

supervisory appeals process. As part of

this process, the FDIC’s Office of the

Ombudsman hosted a Webinar and in-

person listening sessions in each FDIC

Region regarding the agency’s

supervisory appeals and dispute

resolution processes. The sessions

offered bankers and other interested

parties an opportunity to provide

individual input and recommendations

regarding the supervisory appeals

process.15 Participants were encouraged

to comment on various topics, including

perceived barriers to, or concerns about,

resolving disagreements, timeframes

and procedures for pursuing reviews

and appeals, and information publicly

available on appeals and examination

disagreements.

Among other topics, session

participants offered suggestions on the

composition of the SARC. In particular,

participants focused on the composition

of the Committee and opportunities to

further enhance the independence of the

appeals process. Relatedly, participants

emphasized the importance of ensuring

that SARC members have the subject

matter expertise needed to decide

supervisory appeals

ng other topics, session

participants offered suggestions on the

composition of the SARC. In particular,

participants focused on the composition

of the Committee and opportunities to

further enhance the independence of the

appeals process. Relatedly, participants

emphasized the importance of ensuring

that SARC members have the subject

matter expertise needed to decide

supervisory appeals. Participants

offered a range of suggestions on this

topic, including adding an individual

who is not otherwise affiliated with the

FDIC to the Committee, such as a retired

banking attorney or a former Federal or

State bank regulator. Certain challenges

were also discussed with respect to

adding an individual who is not

affiliated with the FDIC, such as

ensuring the confidentiality of

information and the avoidance of

conflicts of interest.

Questions related to the timeframes

for appeals and the types of matters that

may be appealed if the FDIC pursues a

formal enforcement action were also

raised at a number of the listening

sessions. Through these discussions, it

appears that the procedures that apply

when the FDIC has provided notice of

a written or proposed enforcement

action may be a source of confusion to

bankers.

Participants also raised concerns

about bankers’ fear of retaliation by

FDIC examiners, notwithstanding

existing provisions in the Guidelines

prohibiting such retaliation. This

concern was cited as a basis for causing

bankers to be reluctant to fully engage

with the FDIC on material areas of

disagreement. FDIC policy currently

prohibits any retaliation, abuse, or

retribution by an agency examiner or

any FDIC personnel against an

institution, and the FDIC continues to

explore options to reaffirm its

commitment to and ensure compliance

with this policy. In addition, while not

specifically related to the supervisory

appeals process, participants provided a

variety of comments and

recommendations on the examination

process

any retaliation, abuse, or

retribution by an agency examiner or

any FDIC personnel against an

institution, and the FDIC continues to

explore options to reaffirm its

commitment to and ensure compliance

with this policy. In addition, while not

specifically related to the supervisory

appeals process, participants provided a

variety of comments and

recommendations on the examination

process. Participants also shared views

regarding the publicly available

information on SARC decisions and

ideas for improving the transparency of

SARC decisions, such as publishing

aggregate data on the outcomes of

supervisory appeals.

Amendments to the Guidelines

The FDIC’s experience with the

SARC, along with feedback obtained

through the listening sessions, suggests

that there may be opportunities to

improve the FDIC’s supervisory appeals

process, particularly with respect to

enhancing the independence of the

SARC and the procedures and

timeframes that apply to determinations

in the context of formal enforcement-

related decisions. Accordingly, through

this Notice, the FDIC is seeking

comment on amendments to the

supervisory appeals process that would

establish an independent office within

the FDIC that would have as its only

function the review and consideration

of supervisory appeals. The FDIC is also

proposing amendments to improve its

procedures and timeline for the

consideration of certain decisions

related to formal enforcement actions

through the supervisory appeals

process.

Proposed Office of Supervisory Appeals

The FDIC proposes to replace the

SARC with an independent, standalone

office within the FDIC, which would be

known as the Office of Supervisory

Appeals (Office). The Office would

report directly to the FDIC

Chairperson’s Office and would have

delegated authority to independently

consider and resolve intra-agency

supervisory appeals

ppeals

process.

Proposed Office of Supervisory Appeals

The FDIC proposes to replace the

SARC with an independent, standalone

office within the FDIC, which would be

known as the Office of Supervisory

Appeals (Office). The Office would

report directly to the FDIC

Chairperson’s Office and would have

delegated authority to independently

consider and resolve intra-agency

supervisory appeals. The Office would

be fully independent of those FDIC

Divisions with authority to issue

material supervisory determinations

(RMS, DCP, and CISR), while still

operating within the FDIC.

1. Staffing of the Office

The FDIC proposes that the members

of the Office responsible for deciding

appeals have bank supervisory or

examination experience (for example,

such individuals may be retired bank

examiners). Such reviewing officials

would be employees of the FDIC and

may serve on staggered terms. To

promote the independence of the Office,

the FDIC anticipates recruiting

externally and employing reviewing

officials on a part-time or intermittent,

time-limited basis. It is possible that

particular individuals would be selected

from a pool of reviewing officials for an

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:00 Aug 31, 2020

Jkt 250001

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM

01SEN1

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

54379

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 1, 2020 / Notices

16 The Riegle Act defined ‘‘material supervisory

determinations’’ to include determinations relating

to examination ratings, the adequacy of loan loss

reserve provisions, and loan classifications on loans

that are significant to an institution. 12 U.S.C.

4806(f)(1)(A). Section D of the current Guidelines

defines ‘‘material supervisory determinations’’ more

broadly to include seventeen different types of

supervisory determinations.

17 82 FR 34522, 34524 (July 25, 2017).

appeal on a case-by-case basis

ion ratings, the adequacy of loan loss

reserve provisions, and loan classifications on loans

that are significant to an institution. 12 U.S.C.

4806(f)(1)(A). Section D of the current Guidelines

defines ‘‘material supervisory determinations’’ more

broadly to include seventeen different types of

supervisory determinations.

17 82 FR 34522, 34524 (July 25, 2017).

appeal on a case-by-case basis. Members

of the Office, as employees of the FDIC,

would be cleared for potential conflicts

of interest and would be subject to the

FDIC’s normal requirements for

confidentiality. In creating this Office,

the FDIC is not intending to create

unnecessary layers of decision-making.

The Office, as envisioned, would be

devoted to executing the FDIC’s

supervisory appeals functions, which

responsibilities would include

considering and reviewing appeals and

issuing decisions.

2. Appeals Process

IDIs would continue to be encouraged

to make good-faith efforts to resolve

disagreements with examiners and/or

the appropriate Regional Office. If these

efforts are not successful, IDIs would

submit a request for review with the

appropriate Division Director. Upon

receiving a request for review, the

Division Director would have the option

of issuing a written decision or sending

the appeal directly to the Office. For

example, if an IDI appealed a second

material supervisory determination

based on similar facts and

circumstances while its initial appeal is

pending before the Office, the FDIC

expects that the Division Director would

refer the subsequent appeal to the

Office. IDIs that disagree with a decision

made by the Division Director could

submit an appeal to the Office.

A three-member panel of the Office

would consider appeals and would

issue a written decision

tion

based on similar facts and

circumstances while its initial appeal is

pending before the Office, the FDIC

expects that the Division Director would

refer the subsequent appeal to the

Office. IDIs that disagree with a decision

made by the Division Director could

submit an appeal to the Office.

A three-member panel of the Office

would consider appeals and would

issue a written decision. The IDI and the

Division Director would continue to be

permitted to submit views on the appeal

to the Office during this stage of Office’s

review process, and the Ombudsman

also would be authorized to submit

views to the review panel. The Legal

Division would provide counsel to the

Office.

Oral presentation would be permitted

if a request is made by the institution or

by FDIC staff. Under the existing

Guidelines, the SARC has discretion

whether or not to allow oral

presentation, but requests for oral

presentations are generally granted.

The reviewing panel would be an

appellate body that would make

independent supervisory

determinations. The panel would

review appeals for consistency with the

policies, practices, and mission of the

FDIC and the overall reasonableness of,

and the support offered for, the

positions advanced, consistent with the

existing standard of review for the

SARC. The scope of the panel’s review

would be limited to the facts and

circumstances as they existed prior to,

or at the time the material supervisory

determination was made, even if later

discovered, and no consideration would

be given to any facts or circumstances

that occur or corrective action taken

after the determination was made. The

Office’s role would not be to set policy,

which is the province of the Board and

its designees. For that reason, the Office

would not consider aspects of an appeal

that seek to change or modify FDIC

policy or rules

s made, even if later

discovered, and no consideration would

be given to any facts or circumstances

that occur or corrective action taken

after the determination was made. The

Office’s role would not be to set policy,

which is the province of the Board and

its designees. For that reason, the Office

would not consider aspects of an appeal

that seek to change or modify FDIC

policy or rules. As part of its role in

providing counsel to the Office, the

Legal Division would also advise on

existing FDIC policies and rules, and

help ensure no decisions made by the

Office changed or modified FDIC

policies or rules. Additionally, if an

institution has multiple appeals

pending based upon similar facts and

circumstances, those appeals could be

consolidated for expediency.

Consistent with the existing

Guidelines and the Riegle Act, decisions

to appoint a conservator or receiver for

an insured depository institution would

not be considered material supervisory

determinations. Under this proposal, the

Guidelines would further clarify that

decisions made in furtherance of the

resolution or receivership process or

planning (such as decisions made

pursuant to parts 370, 371, and 381, and

§ 360.10 of the FDIC’s rules and

regulations) also would not be

considered material supervisory

determinations. Unlike the ‘‘material

supervisory determinations’’

enumerated in the statute and the

current Guidelines,16 decisions made

under the regulatory provisions

identified above are not focused on

monitoring for and addressing issues

that may affect an institution’s

condition. Instead, these decisions

involve actions related to assessing or

promoting the resolvability of certain

institutions, such as those facilitating

the prompt payment of deposit

insurance to a large number of

depositors or the orderly resolution of

an institution with a portfolio of

qualified financial contracts

onitoring for and addressing issues

that may affect an institution’s

condition. Instead, these decisions

involve actions related to assessing or

promoting the resolvability of certain

institutions, such as those facilitating

the prompt payment of deposit

insurance to a large number of

depositors or the orderly resolution of

an institution with a portfolio of

qualified financial contracts.

The FDIC anticipates that these

combined changes could provide

several advantages over the existing

supervisory appeals process and would

address several of the recommendations

presented during the Webinar and in-

person listening sessions. In particular,

the FDIC anticipates that:

• By creating a standalone office

within the FDIC with authority to

consider and resolve supervisory

appeals, and by staffing that office with

professionals serving term or other non-

permanent appointments, the

supervisory appeals process could

operate more independently, and

without perceived conflicts of interest,

in the FDIC’s organizational structure;

• Establishing the Office within the

FDIC would continue to protect

supervisory and confidential

information, and avoid actual and

perceived conflicts of interest, while

still satisfying the FDIC’s statutory

requirement to have an intra-agency

appeals process;

• Staffing the Office with

professionals who have bank

supervisory or examination experience

would ensure that individuals deciding

on appeals have relevant knowledge and

expertise, and would facilitate a robust

and responsive supervisory appeals

process that will be consistent over

time; and

• The proposed structure would be

scalable in terms of staffing, so the

Office may be in a position to adapt

more quickly to cyclical workload

variations, allowing the FDIC to handle

varying numbers of appeals in shorter

periods of time.

The FDIC anticipates that staffing and

otherwise establishing the Office would

require a period of time following the

adoption of any revised Guidelines

• The proposed structure would be

scalable in terms of staffing, so the

Office may be in a position to adapt

more quickly to cyclical workload

variations, allowing the FDIC to handle

varying numbers of appeals in shorter

periods of time.

The FDIC anticipates that staffing and

otherwise establishing the Office would

require a period of time following the

adoption of any revised Guidelines.

During this time, supervisory appeals

would continue to be heard by the

SARC pursuant to the existing

Guidelines.

Procedures and Timeframes for Formal

Enforcement-Related Decisions

The FDIC also proposes to amend its

procedures for considering formal

enforcement-related decisions through

the supervisory appeals process.

Generally, the FDIC identifies the facts

and circumstances that may give rise to

a formal enforcement action during the

examination process, and these facts

and circumstances are described in a

Report of Examination (ROE) that is

transmitted to the IDI at the conclusion

of the examination.

In July 2017, the FDIC revised its

Guidelines to provide an opportunity

for IDIs to appeal certain material

supervisory determinations underlying

formal enforcement actions through the

supervisory appeals process.17

Specifically, the revised Guidelines

provide that if the FDIC does not

commence a formal enforcement action

within 120 days after giving written

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:00 Aug 31, 2020

Jkt 250001

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM

01SEN1

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

determinations underlying

formal enforcement actions through the

supervisory appeals process.17

Specifically, the revised Guidelines

provide that if the FDIC does not

commence a formal enforcement action

within 120 days after giving written

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:00 Aug 31, 2020

Jkt 250001

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM

01SEN1

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

54380

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 1, 2020 / Notices

18 82 FR 34522, 34526.

notice to an IDI of a recommended or

proposed formal enforcement action, the

IDI may appeal the facts and

circumstances underlying the formal

enforcement action to the SARC, unless

the SARC Chairperson agrees to extend

the 120-day period.18

While the 2017 amendments to the

Guidelines may have been helpful in

addressing some of the issues the FDIC

encountered in administering the

supervisory appeals process, further

changes to the process may be

beneficial. Consistent with feedback

obtained through the 2019 listening

sessions, the FDIC has observed some

confusion as to when determinations

underlying formal enforcement-related

actions become appealable. In addition,

a timeframe longer than 120 days may

be necessary in order to fully review the

facts and circumstances that lead to

enforcement actions and ensure that

such actions are not brought

prematurely, and to allow sufficient

time for an IDI to consider and execute

a consent order.

The proposal clarifies that, for

purposes of the supervisory appeals

process, a formal enforcement-related

action commences—and appeal rights

become temporarily unavailable—when

the FDIC initiates a formal investigation,

issues a notice of charges (or notice of

assessment, as applicable), provides the

IDI with a draft consent order, or

otherwise provides written notice to the

IDI that the FDIC is reviewing the

relevant facts and circumstances to

determine whether a formal

enforcement action is merited

mmences—and appeal rights

become temporarily unavailable—when

the FDIC initiates a formal investigation,

issues a notice of charges (or notice of

assessment, as applicable), provides the

IDI with a draft consent order, or

otherwise provides written notice to the

IDI that the FDIC is reviewing the

relevant facts and circumstances to

determine whether a formal

enforcement action is merited. This

written notification may be provided in

the transmittal letter that accompanies

the ROE.

The proposal would further require

that if the FDIC provides written notice

that the FDIC is determining whether a

formal enforcement action is merited,

the FDIC must provide the IDI with a

draft consent order within 120 days of

the date on which notice was given.

Such a draft consent order could

include a standalone cease and desist

order, an order to pay civil money

penalties, or an order for restitution. If

the FDIC failed to provide the IDI with

a draft consent order within this 120-

day period, the IDI’s supervisory appeal

rights would be made available.

Once the FDIC provides an IDI with

a draft consent order, the parties would

have an opportunity to negotiate the

details of a potential settlement. The

proposal would not impose a fixed time

limit on such negotiations. At any time,

if the IDI believes that further

negotiations would not be productive

and notifies the Division of this decision

in writing, the Division would have 90

days from receiving the institution’s

rejection of the consent order to issue a

notice of charges (or assessment) or to

open an order of investigation, or the

IDI’s supervisory appeal rights would be

made available. In either case, once the

IDI’s supervisory appeal rights are made

available, the IDI would have 60 days to

file an appeal, consistent with the

standard timeline following a material

supervisory determination. If the IDI

agrees to the consent order, then the

matter would be resolved and the need

for an appeal would be obviated

r the

IDI’s supervisory appeal rights would be

made available. In either case, once the

IDI’s supervisory appeal rights are made

available, the IDI would have 60 days to

file an appeal, consistent with the

standard timeline following a material

supervisory determination. If the IDI

agrees to the consent order, then the

matter would be resolved and the need

for an appeal would be obviated.

Request for Comment

Question 1: In contrast to the SARC,

the Office would not provide

representation for Board members in the

review process. Should the FDIC

Chairperson and/or other Board

members have an opportunity to review

decisions before issuance?

Question 2: The FDIC proposes that

the members of the Office have bank

supervisory or examination experience.

Does this constitute the appropriate

qualifications and experience?

Question 3: Are there additional steps

the FDIC should take to promote

independence of the Office?

Question 4: How many reviewing

officials should be included on a panel?

Is three an appropriate number? Are

there situations where more or less

panelists might be appropriate?

Question 5: Should the appellate

process have any additional level(s) of

review before or after the proposed

three-member panel?

Question 6: Do the proposed timelines

properly balance the goals of resolving

appeals as expeditiously as possible and

providing adequate time for preparation

and review?

Question 7: Participants at the

listening sessions commented on the

type and extent of publicly available

information on SARC decisions. What

type of information would be helpful to

publish about the appeals process or

specific appeal decisions to promote

transparency while still maintaining

confidentiality?

Question 8: The FDIC expects the

proposed changes to the procedures and

timeframes applicable to formal

enforcement-related decisions to be

effective for the majority of enforcement

actions

rmation on SARC decisions. What

type of information would be helpful to

publish about the appeals process or

specific appeal decisions to promote

transparency while still maintaining

confidentiality?

Question 8: The FDIC expects the

proposed changes to the procedures and

timeframes applicable to formal

enforcement-related decisions to be

effective for the majority of enforcement

actions. How should the FDIC handle

those unusual cases for which the

proposed timeframes are too restrictive?

Should the parties expect to invoke the

provision(s) allowing for an extension of

the timeframes in these cases?

Proposed Amended Guidelines for

Appeals of Material Supervisory

Determinations

A. Introduction

Section 309(a) of the Riegle

Community Development and

Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994

(Pub. L. 103–325, 108 Stat. 2160) (Riegle

Act) required the Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to

establish an independent intra-agency

appellate process to review material

supervisory determinations made at

insured depository institutions that it

supervises. The Guidelines for Appeals

of Material Supervisory Determinations

(Guidelines) describe the types of

determinations that are eligible for

review and the process by which

appeals will be considered and decided.

The procedures set forth in these

Guidelines establish an appeals process

for the review of material supervisory

determinations by the Office of

Supervisory Appeals (Office).

B. Reviewing Officials

The Office will be staffed with

reviewing officials who have bank

supervisory or examination experience.

Reviewing officials will consider and

decide appeals submitted to the Office.

Each appeal will be reviewed and

decided by a panel of three reviewing

officials who have no conflicts of

interest with respect to the appeal or the

parties to the appeal.

C

Office).

B. Reviewing Officials

The Office will be staffed with

reviewing officials who have bank

supervisory or examination experience.

Reviewing officials will consider and

decide appeals submitted to the Office.

Each appeal will be reviewed and

decided by a panel of three reviewing

officials who have no conflicts of

interest with respect to the appeal or the

parties to the appeal.

C. Institutions Eligible To Appeal

The Guidelines apply to the insured

depository institutions that the FDIC

supervises (i.e., insured State

nonmember banks, insured branches of

foreign banks, and state savings

associations), and to other insured

depository institutions with respect to

which the FDIC makes material

supervisory determinations.

D. Determinations Subject To Appeal

An institution may appeal any

material supervisory determination

pursuant to the procedures set forth in

these Guidelines.

(1) Material supervisory

determinations include:

(a) CAMELS ratings under the

Uniform Financial Institutions Rating

System;

(b) IT ratings under the Uniform

Interagency Rating System for Data

Processing Operations;

(c) Trust ratings under the Uniform

Interagency Trust Rating System;

(d) CRA ratings under the Revised

Uniform Interagency Community

Reinvestment Act Assessment Rating

System;

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:00 Aug 31, 2020

Jkt 250001

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM

01SEN1

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

54381

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 1, 2020 / Notices

(e) Consumer compliance ratings

under the Uniform Interagency

Consumer Compliance Rating System;

(f) Registered transfer agent

examination ratings;

(g) Government securities dealer

examination ratings;

(h) Municipal securities dealer

examination ratings;

(i) Determinations relating to the

adequacy of loan loss reserve

provisions;

Vol. 85, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 1, 2020 / Notices

(e) Consumer compliance ratings

under the Uniform Interagency

Consumer Compliance Rating System;

(f) Registered transfer agent

examination ratings;

(g) Government securities dealer

examination ratings;

(h) Municipal securities dealer

examination ratings;

(i) Determinations relating to the

adequacy of loan loss reserve

provisions;

(j) Classifications of loans and other

assets in dispute the amount of which,

individually or in the aggregate, exceeds

10 percent of an institution’s total

capital;

(k) Determinations relating to

violations of a statute or regulation that

may affect the capital, earnings, or

operating flexibility of an institution, or

otherwise affect the nature and level of

supervisory oversight accorded an

institution;

(l) Truth in Lending Act (Regulation

Z) restitution;

(m) Filings made pursuant to 12 CFR

303.11(f), for which a request for

reconsideration has been granted, other

than denials of a change in bank control,

change in senior executive officer or

board of directors, or denial of an

application pursuant to section 19 of the

Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act),

12 U.S.C. 1829 (which are contained in

12 CFR 308, subparts D, L, and M,

respectively), if the filing was originally

denied by the Director, Deputy Director,

or Associate Director of the Division of

Depositor and Consumer Protection

(DCP) or the Division of Risk

Management Supervision (RMS);

(n) Decisions to initiate informal

enforcement actions (such as

memoranda of understanding);

(o) Determinations regarding the

institution’s level of compliance with a

formal enforcement action; however, if

the FDIC determines that the lack of

compliance with an existing formal

enforcement action requires an

additional formal enforcement action,

the proposed new enforcement action is

not appealable;

(p) Matters requiring board attention;

and

uch as

memoranda of understanding);

(o) Determinations regarding the

institution’s level of compliance with a

formal enforcement action; however, if

the FDIC determines that the lack of

compliance with an existing formal

enforcement action requires an

additional formal enforcement action,

the proposed new enforcement action is

not appealable;

(p) Matters requiring board attention;

and

(q) Any other supervisory

determination (unless otherwise not

eligible for appeal) that may affect the

capital, earnings, operating flexibility,

or capital category for prompt corrective

action purposes of an institution, or that

otherwise affects the nature and level of

supervisory oversight accorded an

institution.

(2) Material supervisory

determinations do not include:

(a) Decisions to appoint a conservator

or receiver for an insured depository

institution, and other decisions made in

furtherance of the resolution or

receivership process, including but not

limited to determinations pursuant to

parts 370, 371, and 381, and § 360.10 of

the FDIC’s rules and regulations;

(b) Decisions to take prompt

corrective action pursuant to section 38

of the FDI Act, 12 U.S.C. 1831o;

(c) Determinations for which other

appeals procedures exist (such as

determinations of deposit insurance

assessment risk classifications and

payment calculations); and

(d) Formal enforcement-related

actions and decisions, including

determinations and the underlying facts

and circumstances that form the basis of

a recommended or pending formal

enforcement action.

I Act, 12 U.S.C. 1831o;

(c) Determinations for which other

appeals procedures exist (such as

determinations of deposit insurance

assessment risk classifications and

payment calculations); and

(d) Formal enforcement-related

actions and decisions, including

determinations and the underlying facts

and circumstances that form the basis of

a recommended or pending formal

enforcement action.

(3) A formal enforcement-related

action or decision commences, and

becomes unappealable, when the FDIC

initiates a formal investigation under 12

U.S.C. 1820(c) (Order of Investigation),

issues a notice of charges or a notice of

assessment under 12 U.S.C. 1818 or

other applicable laws (Notice of

Charges), provides the institution with a

draft consent order, or otherwise

provides written notice to the

institution that the FDIC is reviewing

the facts and circumstances presented to

determine if a formal enforcement

action is merited under applicable

statutes or published enforcement-

related policies of the FDIC, including

written notice of a referral to the

Attorney General pursuant to the Equal

Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) or a

notice to the Secretary of Housing and

Urban Development (HUD) for

violations of ECOA or the Fair Housing

Act (FHA). Such notice may be

provided in the transmittal letter

accompanying a Report of Examination.

For the purposes of these Guidelines,

remarks in a Report of Examination do

not constitute written notice that the

FDIC is reviewing the facts and

circumstances presented to determine if

a proposed enforcement action is

merited. Commencement of a formal

enforcement-related action or decision

will not suspend or otherwise affect a

pending request for review or appeal

that was submitted before the

commencement of the formal

enforcement-related action or decision.

(4) Additional Appeal Rights:

hat the

FDIC is reviewing the facts and

circumstances presented to determine if

a proposed enforcement action is

merited. Commencement of a formal

enforcement-related action or decision

will not suspend or otherwise affect a

pending request for review or appeal

that was submitted before the

commencement of the formal

enforcement-related action or decision.

(4) Additional Appeal Rights:

(a) In the case of any written notice

from the FDIC to the institution that the

FDIC is determining whether a formal

enforcement action is merited, the FDIC

must issue an Order of Investigation,

issue a Notice of Charges, or provide the

institution with a draft consent order

within 120 days of such a notice, or

appeal rights will be made available

pursuant to these Guidelines. If the

FDIC timely provides the institution

with a draft consent order and the

institution rejects the draft consent

order in writing, the FDIC must issue an

Order of Investigation or a Notice of

Charges within 90 days from the date on

which the institution rejects the draft

consent order in writing or appeal rights

will be made available pursuant to these

Guidelines. The FDIC may extend these

periods, with the approval of the

Chairperson’s Office, after the FDIC

notifies the institution that the relevant

Division Director is seeking formal

authority to take an enforcement action.

(b) In the case of a referral to the

Attorney General for violations of the

ECOA, beginning on the date the referral

is returned to the FDIC, the FDIC must

proceed in accordance within paragraph

(a), including within the specified

timeframes, or appeal rights will be

made available pursuant to these

Guidelines.

(c) In the case of providing notice to

HUD for violations of the ECOA or the

FHA, beginning on the date the notice

is provided, the FDIC must proceed in

accordance within paragraph (a),

including within the specified

timeframes, or appeal rights will be

made available pursuant to these

Guidelines.

cified

timeframes, or appeal rights will be

made available pursuant to these

Guidelines.

(c) In the case of providing notice to

HUD for violations of the ECOA or the

FHA, beginning on the date the notice

is provided, the FDIC must proceed in

accordance within paragraph (a),

including within the specified

timeframes, or appeal rights will be

made available pursuant to these

Guidelines.

(d) Written notification will be

provided to the institution within 10

days of a determination that appeal

rights have been made available under

this section.

(e) The relevant FDIC Division and

the institution may mutually agree to

extend the timeframes in paragraphs (a),

(b), and (c) if the parties deem it

appropriate.

E. Good-Faith Resolution

An institution should make a good-

faith effort to resolve any dispute

concerning a material supervisory

determination with the on-site examiner

and/or the appropriate Regional Office.

The on-site examiner and the Regional

Office will promptly respond to any

concerns raised by an institution

regarding a material supervisory

determination. Informal resolution of

disputes with the on-site examiner and

the appropriate Regional Office is

encouraged, but seeking such a

resolution is not a condition to filing a

request for review with the appropriate

Division, either DCP, RMS, or the

Division of Complex Institution

Supervision and Resolution (CISR), or to

filing a subsequent appeal with the

Office under these Guidelines.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:00 Aug 31, 2020

Jkt 250001

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM

01SEN1

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

54382

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 1, 2020 / Notices

F. Filing a Request for Review With the

Appropriate Division

n and Resolution (CISR), or to

filing a subsequent appeal with the

Office under these Guidelines.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:00 Aug 31, 2020

Jkt 250001

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM

01SEN1

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

54382

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 1, 2020 / Notices

F. Filing a Request for Review With the

Appropriate Division

(1) An institution may file a request

for review of a material supervisory

determination with the Division that

made the determination, either the

Director, DCP, the Director, RMS, or the

Director, CISR (Director or Division

Director), 550 17th Street NW, Room F–

4076, Washington, DC 20429, within 60

calendar days following the institution’s

receipt of a report of examination

containing a material supervisory

determination or other written

communication of a material

supervisory determination. A request for

review must be in writing and must

include:

(a) A detailed description of the issues

in dispute, the surrounding

circumstances, the institution’s position

regarding the dispute and any

arguments to support that position

(including citation of any relevant

statute, regulation, policy statement, or

other authority), how resolution of the

dispute would materially affect the

institution, and whether a good-faith

effort was made to resolve the dispute

with the on-site examiner and the

Regional Office; and

(b) A statement that the institution’s

board of directors has considered the

merits of the request and has authorized

that it be filed.

(2) Within 45 calendar days of

receiving a request for review described

in paragraph (1), the Division Director

will:

(a) Review the appeal for consistency

with the policies, practices, and mission

of the FDIC and the overall

reasonableness of, and the support

offered for, the positions advanced, and

issue a written determination on the

request for review, setting forth the

grounds for that determination; or

days of

receiving a request for review described

in paragraph (1), the Division Director

will:

(a) Review the appeal for consistency

with the policies, practices, and mission

of the FDIC and the overall

reasonableness of, and the support

offered for, the positions advanced, and

issue a written determination on the

request for review, setting forth the

grounds for that determination; or

(b) refer the request for review to the

Office for consideration as an appeal

under Section G and provide written

notice to the institution that the request

for review has been referred to the

Office.

(3) No appeal to the Office will be

allowed unless an institution has first

filed a timely request for review with

the appropriate Division Director.

(4) In any decision issued pursuant to

paragraph (2)(a) of this section, the

Director will inform the institution of

the 30-day time period for filing with

the Office and will provide the mailing

address for any appeal the institution

may wish to file.

(5) The Division Director may request

guidance from the Office or the Legal

Division as to procedural or other

questions relating to any request for

review.

G. Appeal to the Office

An institution that does not agree

with the written determination rendered

by the Division Director may appeal that

determination to the Office within 30

calendar days from the date of that

determination. Failure to file within the

30-day time limit may result in denial

of the appeal by the Office.

1. Filing With the Office

An appeal to the Office will be

considered filed if the written appeal is

received by the FDIC within 30 calendar

days from the date of the Division

Director’s written determination or if

the written appeal is placed in the U.S.

mail within that 30-day period. If the

30th day after the date of the Division

Director’s written determination is a

Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal holiday,

filing may be made on the next business

day

red filed if the written appeal is

received by the FDIC within 30 calendar

days from the date of the Division

Director’s written determination or if

the written appeal is placed in the U.S.

mail within that 30-day period. If the

30th day after the date of the Division

Director’s written determination is a

Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal holiday,

filing may be made on the next business

day. The appeal should be sent to the

address indicated on the Division

Director’s determination being

appealed. Upon receiving the appeal,

the Office will send an acknowledgment

to the institution, and will send copies

of the institution’s appeal to the Office

of the Ombudsman and the appropriate

Division Director.

2. Contents of Appeal

The appeal should be labeled to

indicate that it is an appeal to the Office

and should contain the name, address,

and telephone number of the institution

and any representative, as well as a

copy of the Division Director’s

determination being appealed. If oral

presentation is sought, that request

should be included in the appeal. Only

matters submitted to the appropriate

Division Director in a request for review

may be appealed to the Office. Evidence

not presented for review to the Division

Director is generally not permitted; such

evidence may be submitted to the Office

only if approved by the reviewing panel

and with a reasonable time for the

Division Director to review and

respond. The institution should set forth

all of the reasons, legal and factual, why

it disagrees with the Division Director’s

determination. Nothing in the Office

administrative process shall create any

discovery or other such rights.

3. Burden of Proof

The burden of proof as to all matters

at issue in the appeal, including

timeliness of the appeal if timeliness is

at issue, rests with the institution.

4

ution should set forth

all of the reasons, legal and factual, why

it disagrees with the Division Director’s

determination. Nothing in the Office

administrative process shall create any

discovery or other such rights.

3. Burden of Proof

The burden of proof as to all matters

at issue in the appeal, including

timeliness of the appeal if timeliness is

at issue, rests with the institution.

4. Submissions From the Ombudsman

and the Division Director

The Ombudsman and the Division

Director each may submit views

regarding the appeal to the Office within

30 calendar days of the date on which

the appeal is received by the Office.

5. Oral Presentation

The Office will, if a request is made

by the institution or by FDIC staff, allow

an oral presentation. The Office may

hear oral presentations in person,

telephonically, or through other means

agreed upon by the parties. If an oral

presentation is held, the institution and

FDIC staff will be allowed to present

their positions on the issues raised in

the appeal and to respond to any

questions from the Office.

6. Consolidation, Dismissal, and

Rejection

Appeals based upon similar facts and

circumstances may be consolidated for

expediency. An appeal may be

dismissed by the Office if it is not

timely filed, if the basis for the appeal

is not discernable from the appeal, or if

the institution moves to withdraw the

appeal. The Office will decline to

consider an appeal if the institution’s

right to appeal is not yet available under

Section D(4), above.

7. Scope of Review and Decision

The Office will be an appellate body

and will make independent supervisory

determinations. The Office will review

the appeal for consistency with the

policies, practices, and mission of the

FDIC and the overall reasonableness of,

and the support offered for, the

positions advanced

stitution’s

right to appeal is not yet available under

Section D(4), above.

7. Scope of Review and Decision

The Office will be an appellate body

and will make independent supervisory

determinations. The Office will review

the appeal for consistency with the

policies, practices, and mission of the

FDIC and the overall reasonableness of,

and the support offered for, the

positions advanced. The Office’s review

will be limited to the facts and

circumstances as they existed prior to,

or at the time the material supervisory

determination was made, even if later

discovered, and no consideration will

be given to any facts or circumstances

that occur or corrective action taken

after the determination was made. The

Office will not consider any aspect of an

appeal that seeks to change or modify

existing FDIC rules or policy. The

Office, with consultation from the Legal

Division, will refer any appeals that

raise policy matters of first impression

to the Board for its consideration. The

Office will notify the institution, in

writing, of its decision concerning the

disputed material supervisory

determination(s) within 45 days from

the date the Office meets to consider the

appeal, which meeting will be held

within 90 days from the date of the

filing of the appeal or from the date that

the Division Director refers the appeal to

the Office.

H. Publication of Decisions

Decisions of the Office will be

published as soon as practicable, and

the published decisions will be redacted

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:00 Aug 31, 2020

Jkt 250001

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM

01SEN1

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

he

filing of the appeal or from the date that

the Division Director refers the appeal to

the Office.

H. Publication of Decisions

Decisions of the Office will be

published as soon as practicable, and

the published decisions will be redacted

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:00 Aug 31, 2020

Jkt 250001

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM

01SEN1

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

54383

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 1, 2020 / Notices

to avoid disclosure of the name of the

appealing institution and exempt

information. In cases in which redaction

is deemed insufficient to prevent

improper disclosure, published

decisions may be presented in summary

form. Published Office decisions may be

cited as precedent in appeals to the

Office. Annual reports on Division

Directors’ decisions with respect to

institutions’ requests for review of

material supervisory determinations

also will be published.

I. Appeal Guidelines Generally

Appeals to the Office will be governed

by these Guidelines. The Office, with

the concurrence of the Legal Division,

will retain discretion to waive any

provision of the Guidelines for good

cause. Supplemental rules governing the

Office’s operations may be adopted.

J. Limitation on Agency Ombudsman

The subject matter of a material

supervisory determination for which

either an appeal to the Office has been

filed, or a final Office decision issued,

is not eligible for consideration by the

Ombudsman. However, pursuant to

Section (G)(4) of these Guidelines, the

Ombudsman may submit views to the

Office for its consideration in

connection with any pending appeal.

K

n on Agency Ombudsman

The subject matter of a material

supervisory determination for which

either an appeal to the Office has been

filed, or a final Office decision issued,

is not eligible for consideration by the

Ombudsman. However, pursuant to

Section (G)(4) of these Guidelines, the

Ombudsman may submit views to the

Office for its consideration in

connection with any pending appeal.

K. Coordination With State Regulatory

Authorities

In the event that a material

supervisory determination subject to a

request for review is the joint product of

the FDIC and a State regulatory

authority, the Director, DCP, the

Director, RMS, or the Director, CISR, as

appropriate, will promptly notify the

appropriate State regulatory authority of

the request, provide the regulatory

authority with a copy of the institution’s

request for review and any other related

materials, and solicit the regulatory

authority’s views regarding the merits of

the request before making a

determination. In the event that an

appeal is subsequently filed with the

Office, the Office will notify the

institution and the State regulatory

authority of its decision. Once the Office

has issued its determination, any other

issues that may remain between the

institution and the State authority will

be left to those parties to resolve.

L. Effect on Supervisory or Enforcement

Actions

The use of the procedures set forth in

these Guidelines by any institution will

not affect, delay, or impede any formal

or informal supervisory or enforcement

action in progress during the appeal or

affect the FDIC’s authority to take any

supervisory or enforcement action

against that institution.

M

ll

be left to those parties to resolve.

L. Effect on Supervisory or Enforcement

Actions

The use of the procedures set forth in

these Guidelines by any institution will

not affect, delay, or impede any formal

or informal supervisory or enforcement

action in progress during the appeal or

affect the FDIC’s authority to take any

supervisory or enforcement action

against that institution.

M. Effect on Applications or Requests

for Approval

Any application or request for

approval made to the FDIC by an

institution that has appealed a material

supervisory determination that relates

to, or could affect the approval of, the

application or request will not be

considered until a final decision

concerning the appeal is made unless

otherwise requested by the institution.

N. Prohibition on Examiner Retaliation

The FDIC has an experienced

examination workforce and is proud of

its professionalism and dedication.

FDIC policy prohibits any retaliation,

abuse, or retribution by an agency

examiner or any FDIC personnel against

an institution. Such behavior against an

institution that appeals a material

supervisory determination constitutes

unprofessional conduct and will subject

the examiner or other personnel to

appropriate disciplinary or remedial

action. Institutions that believe they

have been retaliated against are

encouraged to contact the Regional

Director for the appropriate FDIC region.

Any institution that believes or has any

evidence that it has been subject to

retaliation may file a complaint with the

Director, Office of the Ombudsman,

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,

3501 Fairfax Drive, Suite E–2022,

Arlington, VA 22226, explaining the

circumstances and the basis for such

belief or evidence and requesting that

the complaint be investigated and

appropriate disciplinary or remedial

action taken. The Office of the

Ombudsman will work with the

appropriate Division Director to resolve

the allegation of retaliation.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

,

3501 Fairfax Drive, Suite E–2022,

Arlington, VA 22226, explaining the

circumstances and the basis for such

belief or evidence and requesting that

the complaint be investigated and

appropriate disciplinary or remedial

action taken. The Office of the

Ombudsman will work with the

appropriate Division Director to resolve

the allegation of retaliation.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

By order of the Board of Directors.

Dated at Washington, DC, on August 21,

2020.

James P. Sheesley,

Acting Assistant Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2020–19276 Filed 8–31–20; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6714–01–P

FEDERAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

EXAMINATION COUNCIL

[Docket No. AS20–09]

Appraisal Subcommittee Notice of

Meeting

AGENCY: Appraisal Subcommittee of the

Federal Financial Institutions

Examination Council.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

Description: In accordance with

Section 1104 (b) of Title XI of the

Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery,

and Enforcement Act of 1989, as

amended, notice is hereby given that the

Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) will

meet in open session for its regular

meeting:

Location: Due to the COVID–19

Pandemic, the meeting will be open to

the public via live webcast only. Visit

the agency’s homepage (www.asc.gov)

and access the provided registration link

in the What’s New box. You MUST

register in advance to attend this

Meeting.

Date: September 9, 2020.

Time: 10:00 a.m. ET.

Status: Open.

Reports

Chairman

Executive Director

Delegated State Compliance Reviews

Grants Director

Financial Manager

Notation Vote

Action and Discussion Items

Approval of Minutes

May 13, 2020 Open Session

July 29, 2020 Special Meeting

Notice of Funding Availability;

development of training for State

Appraiser and AMC Regulatory

Programs

FY21 ASC Budget Proposal

How To Attend and Observe an ASC

Meeting

Due to the COVID–19 Pandemic, the

meeting will be open to the public via

live webcast only

anager

Notation Vote

Action and Discussion Items

Approval of Minutes

May 13, 2020 Open Session

July 29, 2020 Special Meeting

Notice of Funding Availability;

development of training for State

Appraiser and AMC Regulatory

Programs

FY21 ASC Budget Proposal

How To Attend and Observe an ASC

Meeting

Due to the COVID–19 Pandemic, the

meeting will be open to the public via

live webcast only. Visit the agency’s

homepage (www.asc.gov) and access the

provided registration link in the What’s

New box. The meeting space is intended

to accommodate public attendees.

However, if the space will not

accommodate all requests, the ASC may

refuse attendance on that reasonable

basis. The use of any video or audio

tape recording device, photographing

device, or any other electronic or

mechanical device designed for similar

purposes is prohibited at ASC Meetings.

James R. Park,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 2020–19184 Filed 8–31–20; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6700–01–P

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and

Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

The companies listed in this notice

have applied to the Board for approval,

pursuant to the Bank Holding Company

VerDate Sep<11>2014

20:01 Aug 31, 2020

Jkt 250001

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM

01SEN1

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES