30393Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 27, 2008 / Notices
removed potentially burdensome
paperwork requirements by encouraging
carriers to comply with the reporting
requirements through electronic means.
We believe that the clarifications
adopted in the Order on
Reconsideration significantly decrease
the paperwork burden on carriers.
Specifically, the Commission: (1)
Clarified that Completing Carriers must
provide the Payphone Service Provider
(PSP) with adequate notice of an
alternative compensation arrangement
(ACA) prior to its effective date with
sufficient time for the PSP to object to
an ACA, and also prior to the
termination of an ACA; (2) clarified any
paperwork burdens imposed on carriers
and allowed Completing Carriers to
provide notice of ACAs on a
clearinghouse’s Web site; (3) required
Completing Carriers to report only
completed calls in their quarterly
reports; and (4) extended the time
period from 18 to 27 months for
Completing Carriers and Intermediate
Carriers to retain certain payphone
records.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8–11777 Filed 5–23–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712 –01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
[Report No. 2867]
Petition for Reconsideration of Action
in Rulemaking Proceeding
May 16, 2008.
A Petition for Reconsideration has
been filed in the Commission’s
Rulemaking proceeding listed in this
Public Notice and published pursuant to
47 CFR section 1.429(e). The full text of
this document is available for viewing
and copying in Room CY–B402, 445
12th Street, SW., Washington, DC or
may be purchased from the
Commission’s copy contractor, Best
Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1–800–
378–3160). Oppositions to this petition
must be filed by June 11, 2008. See
section 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission’s
rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an
opposition must be filed within 10 days
after the time for filing oppositions has
expired.
Subject: In the Matter of: Federal-State
Joint Board on Universal Service (CC
Docket No. 96–45); Access Charge
Reform (CC Docket No. 96–262) (WC
Docket No. 06–122).
Number of Petitions Filed: 1.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8–11775 Filed 5–23–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712 –01–P
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION
Guidelines for Appeals of Material
Supervisory Determinations
AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation.
ACTION: Notice and request for comment.
SUMMARY: The Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (FDIC) proposes
to amend its Guidelines for Appeals of
Material Supervisory Determinations to
better align the FDIC’s Supervisory
Appeals Review Committee (SARC)
process with the material supervisory
determinations appeals procedures at
the other Federal banking agencies. The
proposed amendments would modify
the supervisory determinations eligible
for appeal to eliminate the ability of an
FDIC-supervised institution to file an
appeal with the SARC with respect to
determinations or the facts and
circumstances underlying a formal
enforcement-related action or decision,
including the initiation of an
investigation. The proposed
amendments also include limited
technical amendments.
DATES: Written comments on the
Proposal must be received by the FDIC
on or before July 28, 2008 for
consideration.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties are
invited to submit written comments to
the FDIC by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Agency Web Site: http://
www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/
propose.html. Follow the instructions
for submitting comments.
• E-mail: comments@fdic.gov.
Include ‘‘Guidelines for Appeals of
Material Supervisory Determinations’’
in the subject line of the message.
• Mail: Robert E. Feldman, Executive
Secretary, Attention: Comments/Legal
ESS, Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, 550 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20429.
• Hand Delivery: Comments may be
hand-delivered to the guard station
located at the rear of the FDIC’s 550
17th Street building (accessible from F
Street) on business days between 7 a.m.
and 5 p.m.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and use
the title ‘‘Guidelines for Appeals of
Material Supervisory Determinations.’’
All comments received will be posted
without change to, http://www.fdic.gov/
regulations/laws/federal/propose.html,
including any personal information
provided.
Comments may be inspected and
photocopied in the FDIC Public
Information Center, Room E–1002, 3501
North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA
22226 between 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on
business days.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Frank Gray, Section Chief, FDIC, 550
17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20429
[F–4054]; telephone: (202) 898–3508; or
electronic mail: fgray@fdic.gov; or
Richard Bogue, Counsel, FDIC, 550 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20429
[MB–3014]; telephone: (202) 898–3726;
facsimile: (202) 898–3658; or electronic
mail: rbogue@fdic.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FDIC
is publishing for notice and comment
proposed amendments to the Guidelines
for Appeals of Material Supervisory
Determinations. The FDIC considers it
desirable in this instance to garner
comments regarding these amendments
to the guidelines, although notice and
comment is not required and may not be
employed in any future amendments.
The proposed amendments would be
effective upon adoption and are
intended to more closely align the
FDIC’s Guidelines for Appeals of
Material Supervisory Determinations to
the material supervisory determination
appeals processes of the other Federal
banking agencies.
Background
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 FDIC (as well as the
other Federal banking agencies and the
National Credit Union Administration
Board (NCUA)) to establish an
independent intra-agency appellate
process to review material supervisory
determinations. 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. In the
appeals process, the FDIC is required to
ensure that (1) an appeal of a material
supervisory determination by an
insured depository institution is heard
and decided expeditiously; and (2)
appropriate safeguards exist for
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:22 May 23, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27MYN1.SGM 27MYN1
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
removed potentially burdensome
paperwork requirements by encouraging
carriers to comply with the reporting
requirements through electronic means.
We believe that the clarifications
adopted in the Order on
Reconsideration significantly decrease
the paperwork burden on carriers.
Specifically, the Commission: (1)
Clarified that Completing Carriers must
provide the Payphone Service Provider
(PSP) with adequate notice of an
alternative compensation arrangement
(ACA) prior to its effective date with
sufficient time for the PSP to object to
an ACA, and also prior to the
termination of an ACA; (2) clarified any
paperwork burdens imposed on carriers
and allowed Completing Carriers to
provide notice of ACAs on a
clearinghouse’s Web site; (3) required
Completing Carriers to report only
completed calls in their quarterly
reports; and (4) extended the time
period from 18 to 27 months for
Completing Carriers and Intermediate
Carriers to retain certain payphone
records.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8–11777 Filed 5–23–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712 –01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
[Report No. 2867]
Petition for Reconsideration of Action
in Rulemaking Proceeding
May 16, 2008.
A Petition for Reconsideration has
been filed in the Commission’s
Rulemaking proceeding listed in this
Public Notice and published pursuant to
47 CFR section 1.429(e). The full text of
this document is available for viewing
and copying in Room CY–B402, 445
12th Street, SW., Washington, DC or
may be purchased from the
Commission’s copy contractor, Best
Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1–800–
378–3160). Oppositions to this petition
must be filed by June 11, 2008. See
section 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission’s
rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an
opposition must be filed within 10 days
after the time for filing oppositions has
expired.
Subject: In the Matter of: Federal-State
Joint Board on Universal Service (CC
Docket No. 96–45); Access Charge
Reform (CC Docket No. 96–262) (WC
Docket No. 06–122).
Number of Petitions Filed: 1.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8–11775 Filed 5–23–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712 –01–P
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION
Guidelines for Appeals of Material
Supervisory Determinations
AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation.
ACTION: Notice and request for comment.
SUMMARY: The Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (FDIC) proposes
to amend its Guidelines for Appeals of
Material Supervisory Determinations to
better align the FDIC’s Supervisory
Appeals Review Committee (SARC)
process with the material supervisory
determinations appeals procedures at
the other Federal banking agencies. The
proposed amendments would modify
the supervisory determinations eligible
for appeal to eliminate the ability of an
FDIC-supervised institution to file an
appeal with the SARC with respect to
determinations or the facts and
circumstances underlying a formal
enforcement-related action or decision,
including the initiation of an
investigation. The proposed
amendments also include limited
technical amendments.
DATES: Written comments on the
Proposal must be received by the FDIC
on or before July 28, 2008 for
consideration.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties are
invited to submit written comments to
the FDIC by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Agency Web Site: http://
www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/
propose.html. Follow the instructions
for submitting comments.
• E-mail: comments@fdic.gov.
Include ‘‘Guidelines for Appeals of
Material Supervisory Determinations’’
in the subject line of the message.
• Mail: Robert E. Feldman, Executive
Secretary, Attention: Comments/Legal
ESS, Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, 550 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20429.
• Hand Delivery: Comments may be
hand-delivered to the guard station
located at the rear of the FDIC’s 550
17th Street building (accessible from F
Street) on business days between 7 a.m.
and 5 p.m.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and use
the title ‘‘Guidelines for Appeals of
Material Supervisory Determinations.’’
All comments received will be posted
without change to, http://www.fdic.gov/
regulations/laws/federal/propose.html,
including any personal information
provided.
Comments may be inspected and
photocopied in the FDIC Public
Information Center, Room E–1002, 3501
North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA
22226 between 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on
business days.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Frank Gray, Section Chief, FDIC, 550
17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20429
[F–4054]; telephone: (202) 898–3508; or
electronic mail: fgray@fdic.gov; or
Richard Bogue, Counsel, FDIC, 550 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20429
[MB–3014]; telephone: (202) 898–3726;
facsimile: (202) 898–3658; or electronic
mail: rbogue@fdic.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FDIC
is publishing for notice and comment
proposed amendments to the Guidelines
for Appeals of Material Supervisory
Determinations. The FDIC considers it
desirable in this instance to garner
comments regarding these amendments
to the guidelines, although notice and
comment is not required and may not be
employed in any future amendments.
The proposed amendments would be
effective upon adoption and are
intended to more closely align the
FDIC’s Guidelines for Appeals of
Material Supervisory Determinations to
the material supervisory determination
appeals processes of the other Federal
banking agencies.
Background
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 FDIC (as well as the
other Federal banking agencies and the
National Credit Union Administration
Board (NCUA)) to establish an
independent intra-agency appellate
process to review material supervisory
determinations. 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. In the
appeals process, the FDIC is required to
ensure that (1) an appeal of a material
supervisory determination by an
insured depository institution is heard
and decided expeditiously; and (2)
appropriate safeguards exist for
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:22 May 23, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27MYN1.SGM 27MYN1
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
30394 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 27, 2008 / Notices
protecting appellants from retaliation by
agency examiners.
The term ‘‘material supervisory
determinations’’ is defined in the Riegle
Act 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. The Riegle Act specifically
excludes from the definition of
‘‘material supervisory determinations’’ a
decision to appoint a conservator or
receiver for an insured depository
institution or to take prompt corrective
action pursuant to section 38 of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Act (‘‘FDI
Act’’), 12 U.S.C. 1831o. Finally, Section
309(g) (12 U.S.C. 4806(g)) expressly
provides that the Riegle Act’s
requirement to establish an appeals
process shall not affect the authority of
the Federal banking agencies to take
enforcement or supervisory actions
against an institution.
On December 28, 1994, the FDIC
published in the Federal Register, for a
30-day comment period, a notice of and
request for comments on proposed
Guidelines for Appeals of Material
Supervisory Determinations
(‘‘Guidelines’’) (59 FR 66965). In the
proposed Guidelines, the FDIC
proposed that the term ‘‘material
supervisory determinations,’’ in
addition to the statutory exclusions
noted above, also should not include:
(1) Determinations for which other
appeals procedures exist (such as
determinations relating to deposit
insurance assessment risk
classifications); (2) decisions to initiate
formal enforcement actions under
section 8 of the FDI Act; (3) decisions
to initiate informal enforcement actions
(such as memoranda of understanding);
(4) determinations relating to a violation
of a statute or regulation; and (5) any
other determinations not specified in
the Riegle Act as being eligible for
appeal.
Commenters to the proposed
Guidelines suggested that the proposed
limitations on determinations eligible
for appeal were too restrictive. In
response to comments received, the
FDIC modified the proposed Guidelines.
The FDIC added a final clarifying
sentence to the listing of
‘‘Determinations Not Eligible for
Appeal’’ in the Guidelines as follows:
‘‘The FDIC recognizes that, although
determinations to take prompt
corrective action or initiate formal or
informal enforcement actions are not
appealable, the determinations upon
which such actions may be based (e.g.,
loan classifications) are appealable
provided they otherwise qualify.’’ (60
FR 15929, March 28, 1995). On March
21, 1995, the FDIC’s Board of Directors
adopted the proposed Guidelines. (60
FR 15923).
On March 18, 2004, the FDIC
published in the Federal Register, for a
30-day comment period, a notice and
request for comments respecting
proposed revisions to the Guidelines.
(69 FR 12855). On July 9, 2004, the FDIC
published in the Federal Register a
notice of guidelines which, effective
June 28, 2004, adopted the revised
Guidelines changing the composition
and procedures of the SARC. (69 FR
41479). The revised Guidelines were
disseminated to FDIC-supervised
financial institutions through a
Financial Institution Letter, FIL–113–
2004, issued October 13, 2004.
Proposed Amendments
I. Amendment of Determinations
Eligible for Review
Determinations underlying
enforcement actions, such as the
citation of apparent violations of law or
regulation, have been appealable under
the FDIC’s Guidelines since their
enactment in 1995. Recent SARC
appeals by FDIC-supervised institutions
have, however, highlighted a situation
where an appeal to the SARC is
inconsistent with the intent of the
Riegle Act that ‘‘the appeals process not
impair, in any way, the agencies’
litigation or enforcement authority.’’
(Senate Report No. 103–169).
Accordingly, the proposed amendments
to the Guidelines would eliminate the
ability of an FDIC-supervised institution
to file an appeal with the SARC with
respect to determinations or the facts
and circumstances underlying formal
enforcement-related actions or
decisions, including the initiation of a
formal investigation. The proposed
amendments to the Guidelines satisfy
the requirements of the Riegle Act and
better align the FDIC’s material
supervisory determination appeals
procedures with those of the other
Federal banking agencies.
A. Independent Review Requirement
Section 309(a) of the Riegle Act
required the FDIC to establish an
appellate process to review material
supervisory determinations. The SARC
must make its decision based on ‘‘facts
of record,’’ which are limited to the
Report of Examination, the FDIC-
supervised institution’s appeal, an FDIC
staff response, and, in some cases, a
brief oral presentation before the SARC.
The SARC appeals process does not
involve any further factual development
through investigation or discovery.
Decisions to proceed with a formal
enforcement action, on the other hand,
must be supported by facts
demonstrating both the existence of the
violation at issue as well as facts that
satisfy all of the required elements of
the enforcement action to be pursued.
All FDIC formal enforcement actions are
reviewed by a number of high-level
FDIC officials both prior and subsequent
to their initiation. The ability to initiate
(through issuance of a notice or
stipulated order) routine cease-and-
desist actions under section 8(b) of the
FDI Act has for more than a decade been
delegated to FDIC Regional Directors.
Decisions to initiate enforcement
actions pursuant to section 8(b) of the
FDI Act must be made at the Deputy
Regional Director or Regional Director
level, following review and concurrence
by the Regional Counsel.
All other, non-routine formal
enforcement actions are generally
reviewed at the highest levels of the
FDIC before issuance. Ultimately, the
FDIC Board of Directors (the Board)
decides the outcome of any contested
enforcement action and that decision is
fully supported by a factual record
compiled through investigation,
discovery, and an administrative
hearing held before an impartial
administrative law judge who makes
findings of facts, conclusions of law and
recommends a decision to the Board.
The FDIC’s current procedures for
initiating formal enforcement actions
ensure review of material supervisory
determinations by high level FDIC
officials. Thus, there is no need for
determinations underlying formal
enforcement actions to be separately
reviewable by the SARC.
B. Parity With Other Federal Agencies
As previously noted, the Riegle Act
required all of the Federal banking
agencies and the NCUA to establish
appellate processes to review material
supervisory determinations. While the
various appellate processes adopted by
the Federal banking agencies differ in
substance and procedure, no Federal
bank agency, other than the FDIC,
expressly allows review of
determinations that underlie formal
enforcement actions.
OCC Bulletin 2002–9, National Bank
Appeals Procedures (February 25, 2002)
(OCC Guidelines), which governs the
appeals procedure adopted at the OCC,
exempts from its definition of
appealable matters ‘‘any formal
enforcement-related actions or
decisions, including decisions to: (a)
Seek the issuance of a formal agreement
or cease and desist order, or the
assessment of a civil money penalty
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:22 May 23, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27MYN1.SGM 27MYN1
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
protecting appellants from retaliation by
agency examiners.
The term ‘‘material supervisory
determinations’’ is defined in the Riegle
Act 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. The Riegle Act specifically
excludes from the definition of
‘‘material supervisory determinations’’ a
decision to appoint a conservator or
receiver for an insured depository
institution or to take prompt corrective
action pursuant to section 38 of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Act (‘‘FDI
Act’’), 12 U.S.C. 1831o. Finally, Section
309(g) (12 U.S.C. 4806(g)) expressly
provides that the Riegle Act’s
requirement to establish an appeals
process shall not affect the authority of
the Federal banking agencies to take
enforcement or supervisory actions
against an institution.
On December 28, 1994, the FDIC
published in the Federal Register, for a
30-day comment period, a notice of and
request for comments on proposed
Guidelines for Appeals of Material
Supervisory Determinations
(‘‘Guidelines’’) (59 FR 66965). In the
proposed Guidelines, the FDIC
proposed that the term ‘‘material
supervisory determinations,’’ in
addition to the statutory exclusions
noted above, also should not include:
(1) Determinations for which other
appeals procedures exist (such as
determinations relating to deposit
insurance assessment risk
classifications); (2) decisions to initiate
formal enforcement actions under
section 8 of the FDI Act; (3) decisions
to initiate informal enforcement actions
(such as memoranda of understanding);
(4) determinations relating to a violation
of a statute or regulation; and (5) any
other determinations not specified in
the Riegle Act as being eligible for
appeal.
Commenters to the proposed
Guidelines suggested that the proposed
limitations on determinations eligible
for appeal were too restrictive. In
response to comments received, the
FDIC modified the proposed Guidelines.
The FDIC added a final clarifying
sentence to the listing of
‘‘Determinations Not Eligible for
Appeal’’ in the Guidelines as follows:
‘‘The FDIC recognizes that, although
determinations to take prompt
corrective action or initiate formal or
informal enforcement actions are not
appealable, the determinations upon
which such actions may be based (e.g.,
loan classifications) are appealable
provided they otherwise qualify.’’ (60
FR 15929, March 28, 1995). On March
21, 1995, the FDIC’s Board of Directors
adopted the proposed Guidelines. (60
FR 15923).
On March 18, 2004, the FDIC
published in the Federal Register, for a
30-day comment period, a notice and
request for comments respecting
proposed revisions to the Guidelines.
(69 FR 12855). On July 9, 2004, the FDIC
published in the Federal Register a
notice of guidelines which, effective
June 28, 2004, adopted the revised
Guidelines changing the composition
and procedures of the SARC. (69 FR
41479). The revised Guidelines were
disseminated to FDIC-supervised
financial institutions through a
Financial Institution Letter, FIL–113–
2004, issued October 13, 2004.
Proposed Amendments
I. Amendment of Determinations
Eligible for Review
Determinations underlying
enforcement actions, such as the
citation of apparent violations of law or
regulation, have been appealable under
the FDIC’s Guidelines since their
enactment in 1995. Recent SARC
appeals by FDIC-supervised institutions
have, however, highlighted a situation
where an appeal to the SARC is
inconsistent with the intent of the
Riegle Act that ‘‘the appeals process not
impair, in any way, the agencies’
litigation or enforcement authority.’’
(Senate Report No. 103–169).
Accordingly, the proposed amendments
to the Guidelines would eliminate the
ability of an FDIC-supervised institution
to file an appeal with the SARC with
respect to determinations or the facts
and circumstances underlying formal
enforcement-related actions or
decisions, including the initiation of a
formal investigation. The proposed
amendments to the Guidelines satisfy
the requirements of the Riegle Act and
better align the FDIC’s material
supervisory determination appeals
procedures with those of the other
Federal banking agencies.
A. Independent Review Requirement
Section 309(a) of the Riegle Act
required the FDIC to establish an
appellate process to review material
supervisory determinations. The SARC
must make its decision based on ‘‘facts
of record,’’ which are limited to the
Report of Examination, the FDIC-
supervised institution’s appeal, an FDIC
staff response, and, in some cases, a
brief oral presentation before the SARC.
The SARC appeals process does not
involve any further factual development
through investigation or discovery.
Decisions to proceed with a formal
enforcement action, on the other hand,
must be supported by facts
demonstrating both the existence of the
violation at issue as well as facts that
satisfy all of the required elements of
the enforcement action to be pursued.
All FDIC formal enforcement actions are
reviewed by a number of high-level
FDIC officials both prior and subsequent
to their initiation. The ability to initiate
(through issuance of a notice or
stipulated order) routine cease-and-
desist actions under section 8(b) of the
FDI Act has for more than a decade been
delegated to FDIC Regional Directors.
Decisions to initiate enforcement
actions pursuant to section 8(b) of the
FDI Act must be made at the Deputy
Regional Director or Regional Director
level, following review and concurrence
by the Regional Counsel.
All other, non-routine formal
enforcement actions are generally
reviewed at the highest levels of the
FDIC before issuance. Ultimately, the
FDIC Board of Directors (the Board)
decides the outcome of any contested
enforcement action and that decision is
fully supported by a factual record
compiled through investigation,
discovery, and an administrative
hearing held before an impartial
administrative law judge who makes
findings of facts, conclusions of law and
recommends a decision to the Board.
The FDIC’s current procedures for
initiating formal enforcement actions
ensure review of material supervisory
determinations by high level FDIC
officials. Thus, there is no need for
determinations underlying formal
enforcement actions to be separately
reviewable by the SARC.
B. Parity With Other Federal Agencies
As previously noted, the Riegle Act
required all of the Federal banking
agencies and the NCUA to establish
appellate processes to review material
supervisory determinations. While the
various appellate processes adopted by
the Federal banking agencies differ in
substance and procedure, no Federal
bank agency, other than the FDIC,
expressly allows review of
determinations that underlie formal
enforcement actions.
OCC Bulletin 2002–9, National Bank
Appeals Procedures (February 25, 2002)
(OCC Guidelines), which governs the
appeals procedure adopted at the OCC,
exempts from its definition of
appealable matters ‘‘any formal
enforcement-related actions or
decisions, including decisions to: (a)
Seek the issuance of a formal agreement
or cease and desist order, or the
assessment of a civil money penalty
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:22 May 23, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27MYN1.SGM 27MYN1
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES