54377Federal 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.
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.
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.
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. 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
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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
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.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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