30942 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 98 / Friday, May 20, 2022 / Notices
1 12 U.S.C. 4806(a).
2 12 U.S.C. 4806(f)(2).
3 12 U.S.C. 4806(b).
4 60 FR 15923 (Mar. 28, 1995).
5 86 FR 6880 (Jan. 25, 2021).
open captioning over the internet from
the FCC Live web page at www.fcc.gov/
live.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022–10915 Filed 5–19–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–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: On May 17, 2022, the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
adopted revised Guidelines for Appeals
of Material Supervisory Determinations.
The revisions generally restore the
Supervision Appeals Review Committee
as the final level of review in the
supervisory appeals process, consistent
with the agency’s longstanding practice
of providing Board-level review of
material supervisory determinations.
DATES: The revised Guidelines for
Appeals of Material Supervisory
Determinations took effect on May 17,
2022. Written comments must be
received by the FDIC on or before June
21, 2022 for consideration.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties are
invited to submit written comments,
identified by RIN 3064–ZA20, by any of
the following methods:
• Agency website: https://
www.fdic.gov/resources/regulations/
federal-register-publications/. Follow
the instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: comments@FDIC.gov.
Include ‘‘Guidelines for Appeals of
Material Supervisory Determinations—
RIN 3064–ZA20’’ in the subject line of
the message.
• Mail: James P. Sheesley, Assistant
Executive Secretary, Attention:
Comments—RIN 3064–ZA20, Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th
Street NW, Washington, DC 20429.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Guard
station at the rear of the 550 17th Street
NW building (located on F Street NW)
on business days between 7:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m. (EST).
• Public Inspection: Comments
received, including any personal
information provided, may be posted
without change to https://www.fdic.gov/
resources/regulations/federal-register-
publications/. Commenters should
submit only information that the
commenter wishes to make available
publicly. The FDIC may review, redact,
or refrain from posting all or any portion
of any comment that it may deem to be
inappropriate for publication, such as
irrelevant or obscene material. The FDIC
may post only a single representative
example of identical or substantially
identical comments, and in such cases
will generally identify the number of
identical or substantially identical
comments represented by the posted
example. All comments that have been
redacted, as well as those that have not
been posted, that contain comments on
the merits of this notice will be retained
in the public comment file and will be
considered as required under all
applicable laws. All comments may be
accessible under the Freedom of
Information Act.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patricia Colohan, Associate Director,
Division of Risk Management
Supervision, pcolohan@fdic.gov, 202–
898–7283; Tara Oxley, Associate
Director, Division of Depositor and
Consumer Protection, toxley@fdic.gov,
202–898–6722; James Watts, Counsel,
Legal Division, jwatts@fdic.gov, 202–
898–6678.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 309(a) of the Riegle
Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994
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 statute 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
In 1995, the FDIC adopted Guidelines
for Appeals of Material Supervisory
Determinations to implement section
309(a). At that time, the FDIC’s Board of
Directors established the Supervision
Appeals Review Committee (SARC) to
consider and decide appeals of material
supervisory determinations.4 The Board
has modified the composition of the
SARC over the years, but as of 2021, the
SARC included: One inside member of
the FDIC’s Board of Directors (serving as
Chairperson); one deputy or special
assistant to each of the other inside
Board members; and the General
Counsel as a non-voting member.
In January 2021, the FDIC adopted
Guidelines that generally replaced the
SARC as the final level of review in
appellate process with a standalone
office within the FDIC, designated the
Office of Supervisory Appeals (Office).5
This Office was granted delegated
authority to consider and resolve
appeals of material supervisory
determinations, and would be staffed by
reviewing officials with bank
supervisory or examination experience.
After appealing a material supervisory
determination to the relevant Division
Director, an institution would have the
option to appeal to the Office. If a
material supervisory determination was
appealed to the Office, a three- or five-
member panel of reviewing officials
would consider the appeal and issue a
written decision to the institution. The
Guidelines did not provide for
additional review beyond the Office.
Restoring Committee Structure
Prior to the establishment of the
Office, the FDIC’s supervisory appeals
process had always provided for Board-
level review by including a Board
member on the SARC. The FDIC’s
experience suggests that its
longstanding practice of providing
Board-level review of material
supervisory determinations would
better promote independence and
accountability in the appellate process.
Allowing material supervisory
determinations to be appealed to a
Board-level committee underscores the
significance of an independent review
and lends credibility to the process.
Furthermore, Board-level review has
historically ensured that accountability
for the FDIC’s supervisory
determinations ultimately remains with
the agency’s Board of Directors,
consistent with sound corporate
governance principles.
The FDIC also believes that restoring
the SARC as the final level of review for
supervisory appeals will address
staffing concerns that were inherent in
the Office structure and may potentially
threaten to hinder the effectiveness of
the process going forward. The
Guidelines provided that the Office
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 May 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20MYN1.SGM 20MYN1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
1 12 U.S.C. 4806(a).
2 12 U.S.C. 4806(f)(2).
3 12 U.S.C. 4806(b).
4 60 FR 15923 (Mar. 28, 1995).
5 86 FR 6880 (Jan. 25, 2021).
open captioning over the internet from
the FCC Live web page at www.fcc.gov/
live.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022–10915 Filed 5–19–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–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: On May 17, 2022, the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
adopted revised Guidelines for Appeals
of Material Supervisory Determinations.
The revisions generally restore the
Supervision Appeals Review Committee
as the final level of review in the
supervisory appeals process, consistent
with the agency’s longstanding practice
of providing Board-level review of
material supervisory determinations.
DATES: The revised Guidelines for
Appeals of Material Supervisory
Determinations took effect on May 17,
2022. Written comments must be
received by the FDIC on or before June
21, 2022 for consideration.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties are
invited to submit written comments,
identified by RIN 3064–ZA20, by any of
the following methods:
• Agency website: https://
www.fdic.gov/resources/regulations/
federal-register-publications/. Follow
the instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: comments@FDIC.gov.
Include ‘‘Guidelines for Appeals of
Material Supervisory Determinations—
RIN 3064–ZA20’’ in the subject line of
the message.
• Mail: James P. Sheesley, Assistant
Executive Secretary, Attention:
Comments—RIN 3064–ZA20, Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th
Street NW, Washington, DC 20429.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Guard
station at the rear of the 550 17th Street
NW building (located on F Street NW)
on business days between 7:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m. (EST).
• Public Inspection: Comments
received, including any personal
information provided, may be posted
without change to https://www.fdic.gov/
resources/regulations/federal-register-
publications/. Commenters should
submit only information that the
commenter wishes to make available
publicly. The FDIC may review, redact,
or refrain from posting all or any portion
of any comment that it may deem to be
inappropriate for publication, such as
irrelevant or obscene material. The FDIC
may post only a single representative
example of identical or substantially
identical comments, and in such cases
will generally identify the number of
identical or substantially identical
comments represented by the posted
example. All comments that have been
redacted, as well as those that have not
been posted, that contain comments on
the merits of this notice will be retained
in the public comment file and will be
considered as required under all
applicable laws. All comments may be
accessible under the Freedom of
Information Act.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patricia Colohan, Associate Director,
Division of Risk Management
Supervision, pcolohan@fdic.gov, 202–
898–7283; Tara Oxley, Associate
Director, Division of Depositor and
Consumer Protection, toxley@fdic.gov,
202–898–6722; James Watts, Counsel,
Legal Division, jwatts@fdic.gov, 202–
898–6678.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 309(a) of the Riegle
Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994
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 statute 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
In 1995, the FDIC adopted Guidelines
for Appeals of Material Supervisory
Determinations to implement section
309(a). At that time, the FDIC’s Board of
Directors established the Supervision
Appeals Review Committee (SARC) to
consider and decide appeals of material
supervisory determinations.4 The Board
has modified the composition of the
SARC over the years, but as of 2021, the
SARC included: One inside member of
the FDIC’s Board of Directors (serving as
Chairperson); one deputy or special
assistant to each of the other inside
Board members; and the General
Counsel as a non-voting member.
In January 2021, the FDIC adopted
Guidelines that generally replaced the
SARC as the final level of review in
appellate process with a standalone
office within the FDIC, designated the
Office of Supervisory Appeals (Office).5
This Office was granted delegated
authority to consider and resolve
appeals of material supervisory
determinations, and would be staffed by
reviewing officials with bank
supervisory or examination experience.
After appealing a material supervisory
determination to the relevant Division
Director, an institution would have the
option to appeal to the Office. If a
material supervisory determination was
appealed to the Office, a three- or five-
member panel of reviewing officials
would consider the appeal and issue a
written decision to the institution. The
Guidelines did not provide for
additional review beyond the Office.
Restoring Committee Structure
Prior to the establishment of the
Office, the FDIC’s supervisory appeals
process had always provided for Board-
level review by including a Board
member on the SARC. The FDIC’s
experience suggests that its
longstanding practice of providing
Board-level review of material
supervisory determinations would
better promote independence and
accountability in the appellate process.
Allowing material supervisory
determinations to be appealed to a
Board-level committee underscores the
significance of an independent review
and lends credibility to the process.
Furthermore, Board-level review has
historically ensured that accountability
for the FDIC’s supervisory
determinations ultimately remains with
the agency’s Board of Directors,
consistent with sound corporate
governance principles.
The FDIC also believes that restoring
the SARC as the final level of review for
supervisory appeals will address
staffing concerns that were inherent in
the Office structure and may potentially
threaten to hinder the effectiveness of
the process going forward. The
Guidelines provided that the Office
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 May 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20MYN1.SGM 20MYN1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
30943Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 98 / Friday, May 20, 2022 / Notices
6 85 FR 54377, 54378 (Sep. 1, 2020).
7 In the fifteen years prior to the establishment of
the Office, 51 appeals were submitted to the SARC
out of 113,448 examinations. Some of these appeals
were withdrawn prior to a decision, raised issues
that were not reviewable under the Guidelines, or
became moot because the institution had failed.
8 While the FDIC has periodically amended the
Guidelines through the notice and comment process
that generally applies to rulemakings, soliciting
comment is not required. 9 See 85 FR 54377, 54380 (Sep. 1, 2020).
would be staffed with reviewing
officials hired for terms, and current
government officials were ineligible to
serve as reviewing officials. The FDIC
also noted that it expected to employ
reviewing officials on a part-time,
intermittent basis.6 Given these
constraints, experience suggests that it
may be challenging to recruit and retain
individuals with sufficient expertise
and judgment to make final supervisory
decisions on behalf of the agency.
Inability to adequately staff the Office
on an ongoing basis would prevent the
agency from satisfying its statutory
mandate to expeditiously hear and
decide appeals of material supervisory
determinations. By contrast, vacancies
on the SARC can be filled more
promptly through existing routine
internal processes, minimizing potential
impact on the administration of appeals.
Reliance on existing staff rather than
employees dedicated solely to the
appeals function (even on a part-time
basis) is also a more cost-effective use of
the Deposit Insurance Fund, given the
historically infrequent nature of
supervisory appeals.7
For these reasons, the FDIC has
reconstituted the SARC and adopted
revised Guidelines that restore the
SARC as the final level of review of
material supervisory determinations
made by the FDIC.8 Consistent with the
composition of the SARC as it stood in
2021, the SARC will include: One inside
member of the FDIC’s Board of Directors
(serving as Chairperson); a deputy or
special assistant to each of the other
inside Board members; and the General
Counsel as a non-voting member. Also
consistent with the prior structure of the
SARC, the Chairperson of the FDIC’s
Board of Directors will have the
authority to designate alternate
members in the event of vacancies.
The revised Guidelines also include
changes to certain procedural provisions
that are intended to reflect the
restoration of the SARC structure in the
appeals process. For example, the SARC
Chairperson will have the authority to
extend the timeframes where
supervisory appeal rights are suspended
while a formal enforcement action is
being pursued, and to approve an
institution’s submission of evidence that
was not previously submitted to the
Division Director for review. The SARC
Chairperson also may provide guidance
to Division Directors in response to
procedural questions relating to appeals.
These authorities are consistent with the
SARC Chairperson’s authorities under
the Guidelines that were in effect until
December 2021.
Communications With Supervisory
Staff
The revised Guidelines also eliminate
a provision that was added in 2021
specifically to accommodate an
independent Office of Supervisory
Appeals. This provision required that
any communications between the Office
and supervisory staff be in writing and
shared with an appealing bank. As a
conforming change, and given the broad
responsibilities that SARC members
have in their normal duties, the FDIC
believes that a provision limiting
communications with supervisory staff
is no longer appropriate.
Formal Enforcement-Related Decisions
In the revised Guidelines, the FDIC is
retaining the provisions for considering
formal enforcement-related decisions
(and their underlying facts and
circumstances) that were adopted in
2021 to clarify the intersection of the
supervisory appeals process and the
administrative enforcement process.
The revised Guidelines include one
enhancement to these provisions.
Specifically, the Guidelines previously
stated that if the FDIC provided written
notice to an institution that it is
determining whether a formal
enforcement action is merited, the FDIC
would have 120 days from the date of
the notice to issue an Order of
Investigation, a Notice of Charges, or to
provide the institution with a draft
consent order; if the FDIC failed to do
so, supervisory appeal rights would be
made available under the Guidelines. In
some instances, however, when the
FDIC provides notice that it is
determining whether a formal
enforcement action is merited, it invites
the institution to provide additional
information. This can serve as an
important channel of communication
between institutions and supervisory
staff, but the timeframes contained in
the Guidelines did not account for the
possibility of an institution providing
information in response to the FDIC’s
notice. The FDIC believes that the
process should provide ample
opportunity to review information
provided by the institution before taking
enforcement action. Accordingly, the
revised Guidelines provide that the
FDIC has 120 days to take action from
the date of its notice to the institution
or the date of the most recent
submission of information from the
institution, whichever is later.
Other Aspects of the Appeals Process
Aside from the substitution of the
SARC for the Office as the final level of
review, most aspects of the supervisory
appeals process remain unchanged. The
revised Guidelines continue to
encourage institutions to make good-
faith efforts to resolve disputes with the
on-site examiner and/or the appropriate
Regional Office. While such efforts are
not required under the process, the
FDIC’s experience suggests that they
may narrow the matters in dispute or
eliminate the need for an appeal in
some instances.
The revised Guidelines also continue
to provide for review by the appropriate
Division Director before an appeal to the
SARC may be submitted. The Division
Director will have 45 days to consider
the appeal and issue a written decision
on the supervisory matters at issue.
In addition, the revised Guidelines
continue to include provisions for
considering formal enforcement-related
decisions (and their underlying facts
and circumstances) that were adopted in
2021 to clarify the intersection of the
supervisory appeals process and the
administrative enforcement process.
These provisions were intended to
allow sufficient time to review the facts
and circumstances that lead to formal
enforcement actions and ensure that
such actions were not brought
prematurely, and to allow sufficient
time for institutions to consider and
execute consent orders.9 The FDIC
believes these clarifying provisions have
been beneficial and should be retained.
Effective Date
These revised Guidelines took effect
on May 17, 2022. The FDIC believes that
taking action quickly in this instance
minimizes the potential for confusion
among insured depository institutions
with respect to the process they must
follow in the event they wish to appeal
a material supervisory determination.
Request for Comment
The FDIC invites comment on all
aspects of the revised Guidelines. In
particular, the FDIC is considering how
it may further enhance the supervisory
appeals process to include the
Ombudsman’s perspective. When the
FDIC amended the Guidelines in 2021,
it formalized its process for including
the Ombudsman’s views in the
consideration of appeals. Specifically,
copies of appeals to the Office were also
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 May 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20MYN1.SGM 20MYN1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
6 85 FR 54377, 54378 (Sep. 1, 2020).
7 In the fifteen years prior to the establishment of
the Office, 51 appeals were submitted to the SARC
out of 113,448 examinations. Some of these appeals
were withdrawn prior to a decision, raised issues
that were not reviewable under the Guidelines, or
became moot because the institution had failed.
8 While the FDIC has periodically amended the
Guidelines through the notice and comment process
that generally applies to rulemakings, soliciting
comment is not required. 9 See 85 FR 54377, 54380 (Sep. 1, 2020).
would be staffed with reviewing
officials hired for terms, and current
government officials were ineligible to
serve as reviewing officials. The FDIC
also noted that it expected to employ
reviewing officials on a part-time,
intermittent basis.6 Given these
constraints, experience suggests that it
may be challenging to recruit and retain
individuals with sufficient expertise
and judgment to make final supervisory
decisions on behalf of the agency.
Inability to adequately staff the Office
on an ongoing basis would prevent the
agency from satisfying its statutory
mandate to expeditiously hear and
decide appeals of material supervisory
determinations. By contrast, vacancies
on the SARC can be filled more
promptly through existing routine
internal processes, minimizing potential
impact on the administration of appeals.
Reliance on existing staff rather than
employees dedicated solely to the
appeals function (even on a part-time
basis) is also a more cost-effective use of
the Deposit Insurance Fund, given the
historically infrequent nature of
supervisory appeals.7
For these reasons, the FDIC has
reconstituted the SARC and adopted
revised Guidelines that restore the
SARC as the final level of review of
material supervisory determinations
made by the FDIC.8 Consistent with the
composition of the SARC as it stood in
2021, the SARC will include: One inside
member of the FDIC’s Board of Directors
(serving as Chairperson); a deputy or
special assistant to each of the other
inside Board members; and the General
Counsel as a non-voting member. Also
consistent with the prior structure of the
SARC, the Chairperson of the FDIC’s
Board of Directors will have the
authority to designate alternate
members in the event of vacancies.
The revised Guidelines also include
changes to certain procedural provisions
that are intended to reflect the
restoration of the SARC structure in the
appeals process. For example, the SARC
Chairperson will have the authority to
extend the timeframes where
supervisory appeal rights are suspended
while a formal enforcement action is
being pursued, and to approve an
institution’s submission of evidence that
was not previously submitted to the
Division Director for review. The SARC
Chairperson also may provide guidance
to Division Directors in response to
procedural questions relating to appeals.
These authorities are consistent with the
SARC Chairperson’s authorities under
the Guidelines that were in effect until
December 2021.
Communications With Supervisory
Staff
The revised Guidelines also eliminate
a provision that was added in 2021
specifically to accommodate an
independent Office of Supervisory
Appeals. This provision required that
any communications between the Office
and supervisory staff be in writing and
shared with an appealing bank. As a
conforming change, and given the broad
responsibilities that SARC members
have in their normal duties, the FDIC
believes that a provision limiting
communications with supervisory staff
is no longer appropriate.
Formal Enforcement-Related Decisions
In the revised Guidelines, the FDIC is
retaining the provisions for considering
formal enforcement-related decisions
(and their underlying facts and
circumstances) that were adopted in
2021 to clarify the intersection of the
supervisory appeals process and the
administrative enforcement process.
The revised Guidelines include one
enhancement to these provisions.
Specifically, the Guidelines previously
stated that if the FDIC provided written
notice to an institution that it is
determining whether a formal
enforcement action is merited, the FDIC
would have 120 days from the date of
the notice to issue an Order of
Investigation, a Notice of Charges, or to
provide the institution with a draft
consent order; if the FDIC failed to do
so, supervisory appeal rights would be
made available under the Guidelines. In
some instances, however, when the
FDIC provides notice that it is
determining whether a formal
enforcement action is merited, it invites
the institution to provide additional
information. This can serve as an
important channel of communication
between institutions and supervisory
staff, but the timeframes contained in
the Guidelines did not account for the
possibility of an institution providing
information in response to the FDIC’s
notice. The FDIC believes that the
process should provide ample
opportunity to review information
provided by the institution before taking
enforcement action. Accordingly, the
revised Guidelines provide that the
FDIC has 120 days to take action from
the date of its notice to the institution
or the date of the most recent
submission of information from the
institution, whichever is later.
Other Aspects of the Appeals Process
Aside from the substitution of the
SARC for the Office as the final level of
review, most aspects of the supervisory
appeals process remain unchanged. The
revised Guidelines continue to
encourage institutions to make good-
faith efforts to resolve disputes with the
on-site examiner and/or the appropriate
Regional Office. While such efforts are
not required under the process, the
FDIC’s experience suggests that they
may narrow the matters in dispute or
eliminate the need for an appeal in
some instances.
The revised Guidelines also continue
to provide for review by the appropriate
Division Director before an appeal to the
SARC may be submitted. The Division
Director will have 45 days to consider
the appeal and issue a written decision
on the supervisory matters at issue.
In addition, the revised Guidelines
continue to include provisions for
considering formal enforcement-related
decisions (and their underlying facts
and circumstances) that were adopted in
2021 to clarify the intersection of the
supervisory appeals process and the
administrative enforcement process.
These provisions were intended to
allow sufficient time to review the facts
and circumstances that lead to formal
enforcement actions and ensure that
such actions were not brought
prematurely, and to allow sufficient
time for institutions to consider and
execute consent orders.9 The FDIC
believes these clarifying provisions have
been beneficial and should be retained.
Effective Date
These revised Guidelines took effect
on May 17, 2022. The FDIC believes that
taking action quickly in this instance
minimizes the potential for confusion
among insured depository institutions
with respect to the process they must
follow in the event they wish to appeal
a material supervisory determination.
Request for Comment
The FDIC invites comment on all
aspects of the revised Guidelines. In
particular, the FDIC is considering how
it may further enhance the supervisory
appeals process to include the
Ombudsman’s perspective. When the
FDIC amended the Guidelines in 2021,
it formalized its process for including
the Ombudsman’s views in the
consideration of appeals. Specifically,
copies of appeals to the Office were also
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 May 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20MYN1.SGM 20MYN1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES