# FDIC FIL-79-2020: FDIC Proposes Changes to Its Supervisory Appeals Process

> Federal · Agency guidance · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL20079

## Section

- **Citation:** FDIC FIL-79-2020
- **Heading:** FDIC Proposes Changes to Its Supervisory Appeals Process
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Agency guidance
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** FDIC Financial Institution Letters / FDIC Proposes Changes to Its Supervisory Appeals Process

## Text

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

## Nearby sections

- [FDIC FIL-1-2002 FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL ACT](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL02001.md)
- [FDIC FIL-1-2010 Employee Compensation Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL10001.md)
- [FDIC FIL-1-2024 Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income for Fourth Quarter 2023](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL24001.md)
- [FDIC FIL-2-2004 Foreign Assets Control Act](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL04002.md)
- [FDIC FIL-2-2020 Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income for Fourth Quarter 2019](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL20002.md)
- [FDIC FIL-3-2003 FILING PROCEDURES](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL03003.md)
- [FDIC FIL-4-2006 Commercial Real Estate Lending Proposed Interagency Guidance](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL06004.md)
- [FDIC FIL-4-2021 Revised Guidelines for Appeals of Material Supervisory Determinations](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL21004.md)
- [FDIC FIL-4-2023 Guidance to Help Financial Institutions and Facilitate Recovery in Areas of California Affected by Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Landslides and Mudslides](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL23004.md)
- [FDIC FIL-4-2025 FDIC Statement of Policy on Bank Merger Transactions](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL25004.md)
- [FDIC FIL-5-2000 Consumer Credit Reporting Practices](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL00005.md)
- [FDIC FIL-5-2003 LETTER TO STAKEHOLDERS](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL03005.md)
- [FDIC FIL-5-2021 Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Suspicious Activity Reporting and Other Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Considerations](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL21005.md)
- [FDIC FIL-6-2000 Special Alert](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL00006.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL20079. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.