15923Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 28, 1995 / Notices
would be disclosed, as available, to
System institutions and to the general
public 90 days after the end of a quarter
or a fiscal year. For purposes of this
policy, nonexempt CRS Reports are
defined as reports produced from the
CRS containing information that has
been routinely disclosed in Farm Credit
System (System) institutions’ quarterly
and annual financial reports and filed
with the FCA.
Objectives: The FCA’s mission is to
facilitate the competitive delivery of
financial services to agriculture while
protecting the public, the taxpayer, and
the investor. Consistent with that
mission, the FCA endeavors to provide
information to System institutions and
to the public. Call Reports and other
nonexempt CRS Reports contain
information of value to the agency, the
System, and the public that enables an
evaluation of the financial condition of
a System institution in comparison to its
peers. Release of this information will
provide institutions with a succinct
assessment of performance, in addition
to that provided in the examination
process. The FCA believes that
implementation of this policy statement
will enhance the FCA’s information
management activities in an efficient,
effective, and economical manner
consistent with the objectives of OMB
Circular A–130.
Operating Principles: Certain
information reported to the agency in
compliance with Call Report
instructions, such as asset and liability
repricing schedules or loan specific
data, will continue to be exempt from
disclosure and will not be made
available under this policy statement.
Nonexempt CRS Reports will be
disclosed under a pricing schedule to be
subsequently determined.
Certain nonexempt CRS Reports (such
as the UPR and the UPPR) that contain
Call Report information will be
routinely forwarded free of charge to the
institution that submitted the
information or will be made available,
upon request, to the general public for
a fee. Upon request by a System
institution, the FCA will make available
free of charge any other nonexempt CRS
Reports that contain Call Report
information submitted by that
institution, or, for a fee, will make
available a copy of a nonexempt CRS
Report containing Call Report
information of another institution or
computer diskettes containing
nonexempt Call Report information of
all System institutions. A determination
on a special request (i.e., ad hoc report)
for nonexempt CRS information and any
fees assessed from any System
institution or the general public will be
made on a case-by-case basis. Special
requests will be granted only when the
benefit to the FCA significantly
outweighs the burden to the agency in
complying with the request. All requests
for release of CRS information should be
directed to the Office of Resources
Management, Information Resources
Division, Customer Planning Team.
Any fees assessed under this policy
for disclosing routine nonexempt CRS
Reports will be sufficient to recover the
cost of dissemination. Special requests
will be subject to fees to recover the
agency’s cost of complying with the
request, which will include the cost of
collecting and processing, as well as
disseminating the information. Requests
for fee waivers may be granted to
educational institutions, researchers,
Governmental agencies, newspapers,
and other parties, only when the agency
determines that the benefit derived from
releasing the information exceeds the
fees being waived.
Delegated Authority: The Director,
Office of Resources Management, in
concurrence with the Director, Office of
Examination, Director, Office of Special
Supervision and Corporate Affairs, and
General Counsel is responsible for
implementing this policy statement,
developing operating procedures,
developing a pricing schedule for the
fees to be charged for the reports, and
developing specific guidelines for fee
waivers when releasing reports to
educational institutions, researchers,
Governmental agencies, newspapers,
and other parties, as determined to be
appropriate. Any of these
responsibilities may be delegated.
Reporting Requirements: The
Director, Office of Resources
Management, shall make a report
annually concerning nonexempt CRS
Report releases and the number of
requests and fees received to the Chief
Operating Officer.
Adopted this 20th day of March, 1995
by order of the Board.
Dated: March 22, 1995.
Floyd Fithian,
Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
[FR Doc. 95–7554 Filed 3–27–95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6705–01–P
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION
Intra-Agency Appellate Process
AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation.
ACTION: Notice of guidelines.
SUMMARY: On March 21, 1995, the Board
of Directors (Board) of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
adopted guidelines for the
establishment of an independent intra-
agency appellate process to review
material supervisory determinations as
required by the Riegle Community
Development and Regulatory
Improvement Act of 1994. The
guidelines were effective upon adoption
and supersede the FDIC’s procedures for
requesting review of supervisory
determinations set forth in FIL–11–92,
dated February 7, 1992. The guidelines
are intended to clarify the types of
determinations that are eligible for
review and establish the process by
which appeals will be considered and
decided.
DATES: The guidelines were effective on
March 21, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William G. Hrindac, Examination
Specialist (202/898–6892), Division of
Supervision; Ken A. Quincy, Section
Chief (202/942–3088), Division of
Compliance and Consumer Affairs;
Gwen E. Factor, Counsel (202/898–
8522), Legal Division, Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20429.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 309(a) of the Riegle
Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994
(Pub. L. 103–325, 108 Stat. 2160) (Act)
requires the FDIC (as well as the other
Federal banking agencies and the
National Credit Union Administration
Board) to establish an independent
intra-agency appellate process to review
material supervisory determinations.
The process is to be established within
180 days after enactment of the Act (i.e.,
by March 22, 1995). The 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 establishing the
appeals process, the FDIC must ensure
that: (1) any appeal of a material
supervisory determination by an
insured depository institution is heard
and decided expeditiously; and (2)
appropriate safeguards exist for
protecting the appellant from retaliation
by agency examiners.
Section 309(c) of the Act requires
public notice and opportunity for
comment on proposed guidelines for the
establishment of the independent
appellate process. 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
would be disclosed, as available, to
System institutions and to the general
public 90 days after the end of a quarter
or a fiscal year. For purposes of this
policy, nonexempt CRS Reports are
defined as reports produced from the
CRS containing information that has
been routinely disclosed in Farm Credit
System (System) institutions’ quarterly
and annual financial reports and filed
with the FCA.
Objectives: The FCA’s mission is to
facilitate the competitive delivery of
financial services to agriculture while
protecting the public, the taxpayer, and
the investor. Consistent with that
mission, the FCA endeavors to provide
information to System institutions and
to the public. Call Reports and other
nonexempt CRS Reports contain
information of value to the agency, the
System, and the public that enables an
evaluation of the financial condition of
a System institution in comparison to its
peers. Release of this information will
provide institutions with a succinct
assessment of performance, in addition
to that provided in the examination
process. The FCA believes that
implementation of this policy statement
will enhance the FCA’s information
management activities in an efficient,
effective, and economical manner
consistent with the objectives of OMB
Circular A–130.
Operating Principles: Certain
information reported to the agency in
compliance with Call Report
instructions, such as asset and liability
repricing schedules or loan specific
data, will continue to be exempt from
disclosure and will not be made
available under this policy statement.
Nonexempt CRS Reports will be
disclosed under a pricing schedule to be
subsequently determined.
Certain nonexempt CRS Reports (such
as the UPR and the UPPR) that contain
Call Report information will be
routinely forwarded free of charge to the
institution that submitted the
information or will be made available,
upon request, to the general public for
a fee. Upon request by a System
institution, the FCA will make available
free of charge any other nonexempt CRS
Reports that contain Call Report
information submitted by that
institution, or, for a fee, will make
available a copy of a nonexempt CRS
Report containing Call Report
information of another institution or
computer diskettes containing
nonexempt Call Report information of
all System institutions. A determination
on a special request (i.e., ad hoc report)
for nonexempt CRS information and any
fees assessed from any System
institution or the general public will be
made on a case-by-case basis. Special
requests will be granted only when the
benefit to the FCA significantly
outweighs the burden to the agency in
complying with the request. All requests
for release of CRS information should be
directed to the Office of Resources
Management, Information Resources
Division, Customer Planning Team.
Any fees assessed under this policy
for disclosing routine nonexempt CRS
Reports will be sufficient to recover the
cost of dissemination. Special requests
will be subject to fees to recover the
agency’s cost of complying with the
request, which will include the cost of
collecting and processing, as well as
disseminating the information. Requests
for fee waivers may be granted to
educational institutions, researchers,
Governmental agencies, newspapers,
and other parties, only when the agency
determines that the benefit derived from
releasing the information exceeds the
fees being waived.
Delegated Authority: The Director,
Office of Resources Management, in
concurrence with the Director, Office of
Examination, Director, Office of Special
Supervision and Corporate Affairs, and
General Counsel is responsible for
implementing this policy statement,
developing operating procedures,
developing a pricing schedule for the
fees to be charged for the reports, and
developing specific guidelines for fee
waivers when releasing reports to
educational institutions, researchers,
Governmental agencies, newspapers,
and other parties, as determined to be
appropriate. Any of these
responsibilities may be delegated.
Reporting Requirements: The
Director, Office of Resources
Management, shall make a report
annually concerning nonexempt CRS
Report releases and the number of
requests and fees received to the Chief
Operating Officer.
Adopted this 20th day of March, 1995
by order of the Board.
Dated: March 22, 1995.
Floyd Fithian,
Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
[FR Doc. 95–7554 Filed 3–27–95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6705–01–P
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION
Intra-Agency Appellate Process
AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation.
ACTION: Notice of guidelines.
SUMMARY: On March 21, 1995, the Board
of Directors (Board) of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
adopted guidelines for the
establishment of an independent intra-
agency appellate process to review
material supervisory determinations as
required by the Riegle Community
Development and Regulatory
Improvement Act of 1994. The
guidelines were effective upon adoption
and supersede the FDIC’s procedures for
requesting review of supervisory
determinations set forth in FIL–11–92,
dated February 7, 1992. The guidelines
are intended to clarify the types of
determinations that are eligible for
review and establish the process by
which appeals will be considered and
decided.
DATES: The guidelines were effective on
March 21, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William G. Hrindac, Examination
Specialist (202/898–6892), Division of
Supervision; Ken A. Quincy, Section
Chief (202/942–3088), Division of
Compliance and Consumer Affairs;
Gwen E. Factor, Counsel (202/898–
8522), Legal Division, Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20429.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 309(a) of the Riegle
Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994
(Pub. L. 103–325, 108 Stat. 2160) (Act)
requires the FDIC (as well as the other
Federal banking agencies and the
National Credit Union Administration
Board) to establish an independent
intra-agency appellate process to review
material supervisory determinations.
The process is to be established within
180 days after enactment of the Act (i.e.,
by March 22, 1995). The 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 establishing the
appeals process, the FDIC must ensure
that: (1) any appeal of a material
supervisory determination by an
insured depository institution is heard
and decided expeditiously; and (2)
appropriate safeguards exist for
protecting the appellant from retaliation
by agency examiners.
Section 309(c) of the Act requires
public notice and opportunity for
comment on proposed guidelines for the
establishment of the independent
appellate process. 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
15924 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 28, 1995 / Notices
proposed guidelines (59 Fed. Reg.
66965). The comment period closed on
January 27, 1995.
Discussion of Comments on Proposed
Guidelines
The FDIC received 24 comment letters
on the proposed guidelines, including
some after the close of the comment
period. Fourteen were from depository
institutions, four from trade
associations, one from a State banking
department, and five from other
interested parties. The comments
generally supported the proposed
guidelines, although various suggestions
and recommendations were made to
revise the proposal. The following is a
discussion of the comments received on
the proposal, including those received
after the close of the comment period.
A. Independent Appellate Process
The Act requires the FDIC to establish
an independent appellate process for
the review of material supervisory
determinations by an agency official
who does not directly or indirectly
report to the agency official who made
the material supervisory determination
under review. To satisfy this
requirement, the FDIC proposed to
establish a Supervision Appeals Review
Committee consisting of the Vice
Chairperson as chair of the Committee,
the Director of the Division of
Supervision, the Director of the Division
of Compliance and Consumer Affairs,
the Ombudsman, and the General
Counsel (or their designees) to consider
and decide appeals of material
supervisory determinations.
Several commenters expressed
concern regarding the composition of
the Committee, suggesting that a
committee composed only of senior
regulators lacks balance and cannot be
fair and unbiased. The FDIC does not
share this view and points out that a
majority of the members of the
Committee are not directly responsible
for the FDIC’s supervision or
compliance activities and do not report
to the individuals responsible for those
activities. Moreover, the Committee
would include the Ombudsman (who
reports on all matters to the
Chairperson) and the Vice Chairperson.
The FDIC believes, however, that the
inclusion of individuals who are
knowledgeable and experienced in
matters relating to the FDIC’s
supervision and compliance activities—
the Directors of the Division of
Supervision and the Division of
Compliance and Consumer Affairs—
would bring to the Committee the
necessary experience and judgment to
make well-informed decisions
concerning determinations under
review. The FDIC is confident that the
members of the Committee can and will
exercise their authority to review
supervisory determinations in a
responsible and unbiased manner. The
FDIC believes that the long range
interests of both the agency and the
institutions it supervises are best served
by assuring that all supervisory
determinations (including appeals
thereof) are as fair and accurate as
possible.
Several commenters suggested
including on the Committee individuals
from outside the FDIC, such as
representatives of the banking
community and other governmental
agencies. The FDIC believes that the
addition of individuals from outside the
FDIC not only is unnecessary to assure
that the appeals process is fair and
unbiased but also would be
inappropriate. The addition of such
individuals to the Committee would not
be consistent with the statutory mandate
to establish an ‘‘intra-agency’’ appeals
process and could raise questions
regarding the disclosure of records and
other information contained in or
related to examination, operating and
other reports concerning an institution
(which are generally exempt from
public disclosure).
The FDIC requested specific comment
on whether the Vice Chairperson should
be included as a member of the
Committee, even if it would mean that
occasionally he might need to recuse
himself from participation in a related
enforcement action. Specific comment
was also requested on how the
Committee might be structured if the
Vice Chairperson were not included. As
discussed in the notice of proposed
guidelines, the Vice Chairperson may be
involved in the consideration and
disposition of enforcement proceedings
before the Board of Directors which, on
occasion, may involve matters
considered by the Committee. While the
FDIC believes that the inclusion of the
Vice Chairperson on the Committee
should lend credibility, fairness and
balance to the appeals process, it
recognizes that the Vice Chairperson’s
participation in an appeal of certain
material supervisory determinations
could give the Vice Chairperson access
to information which may not be part of
the administrative record of a factually
related enforcement proceeding.
Although such a situation is unlikely to
occur, if it does occur it may be prudent
for the Vice Chairperson to recuse
himself from participation in the related
enforcement proceeding. Of the
commenters that addressed this aspect
of the proposal, all supported including
the Vice Chairperson on the Committee,
even if it would mean that occasionally
he might need to recuse himself from
participation in a related enforcement
action. Commenters generally agreed
that inclusion of the Vice Chairperson
on the Committee would lend
credibility, fairness and balance to the
process.
One commenter suggested that the
Committee has too much ‘‘horsepower’’
and that its members may have other,
more pressing matters to which they
may need to attend. The FDIC is
committed to establishing a fair and
credible review process and believes
that the proposed committee structure
accomplishes that objective. The FDIC
recognizes, however, that at times some
members of the Committee may need to
delegate their responsibility to serve on
the Committee to a senior member of
their staff but believes that this in no
way should diminish the credibility,
balance or fairness of the Committee or
the process.
In addition, many commenters
expressed support for the proposed
composition and structure of the
Committee. After considering all of the
comments on this aspect of the
proposal, the FDIC continues to believe
that the proposed composition and
structure of the Committee not only
satisfies the requirement of the Act to
establish an independent intra-agency
appellate process but also lends
credibility, fairness and balance to the
process. The FDIC therefore believes
that no change to this provision is
necessary.
B. Institutions Eligible To Appeal
The Act requires that the FDIC’s
appeals process be available to review
material supervisory determinations
made at insured depository institutions
that it supervises. The FDIC proposed
that its appeals process be available not
only to the insured depository
institutions that it supervises (i.e.,
insured State nonmember banks (except
District banks) and insured branches of
foreign banks) but also to other insured
depository institutions with respect to
which it makes material supervisory
determinations. No commenters
addressed this aspect of the proposal.
The FDIC therefore believes that no
change to this provision is necessary.
C. Material Supervisory Determinations
The Act requires the FDIC to establish
an appeals process to review material
supervisory determinations. The term
‘‘material supervisory determinations’’
is defined in the Act to include
determinations relating to: (1)
examination ratings; (2) the adequacy of
proposed guidelines (59 Fed. Reg.
66965). The comment period closed on
January 27, 1995.
Discussion of Comments on Proposed
Guidelines
The FDIC received 24 comment letters
on the proposed guidelines, including
some after the close of the comment
period. Fourteen were from depository
institutions, four from trade
associations, one from a State banking
department, and five from other
interested parties. The comments
generally supported the proposed
guidelines, although various suggestions
and recommendations were made to
revise the proposal. The following is a
discussion of the comments received on
the proposal, including those received
after the close of the comment period.
A. Independent Appellate Process
The Act requires the FDIC to establish
an independent appellate process for
the review of material supervisory
determinations by an agency official
who does not directly or indirectly
report to the agency official who made
the material supervisory determination
under review. To satisfy this
requirement, the FDIC proposed to
establish a Supervision Appeals Review
Committee consisting of the Vice
Chairperson as chair of the Committee,
the Director of the Division of
Supervision, the Director of the Division
of Compliance and Consumer Affairs,
the Ombudsman, and the General
Counsel (or their designees) to consider
and decide appeals of material
supervisory determinations.
Several commenters expressed
concern regarding the composition of
the Committee, suggesting that a
committee composed only of senior
regulators lacks balance and cannot be
fair and unbiased. The FDIC does not
share this view and points out that a
majority of the members of the
Committee are not directly responsible
for the FDIC’s supervision or
compliance activities and do not report
to the individuals responsible for those
activities. Moreover, the Committee
would include the Ombudsman (who
reports on all matters to the
Chairperson) and the Vice Chairperson.
The FDIC believes, however, that the
inclusion of individuals who are
knowledgeable and experienced in
matters relating to the FDIC’s
supervision and compliance activities—
the Directors of the Division of
Supervision and the Division of
Compliance and Consumer Affairs—
would bring to the Committee the
necessary experience and judgment to
make well-informed decisions
concerning determinations under
review. The FDIC is confident that the
members of the Committee can and will
exercise their authority to review
supervisory determinations in a
responsible and unbiased manner. The
FDIC believes that the long range
interests of both the agency and the
institutions it supervises are best served
by assuring that all supervisory
determinations (including appeals
thereof) are as fair and accurate as
possible.
Several commenters suggested
including on the Committee individuals
from outside the FDIC, such as
representatives of the banking
community and other governmental
agencies. The FDIC believes that the
addition of individuals from outside the
FDIC not only is unnecessary to assure
that the appeals process is fair and
unbiased but also would be
inappropriate. The addition of such
individuals to the Committee would not
be consistent with the statutory mandate
to establish an ‘‘intra-agency’’ appeals
process and could raise questions
regarding the disclosure of records and
other information contained in or
related to examination, operating and
other reports concerning an institution
(which are generally exempt from
public disclosure).
The FDIC requested specific comment
on whether the Vice Chairperson should
be included as a member of the
Committee, even if it would mean that
occasionally he might need to recuse
himself from participation in a related
enforcement action. Specific comment
was also requested on how the
Committee might be structured if the
Vice Chairperson were not included. As
discussed in the notice of proposed
guidelines, the Vice Chairperson may be
involved in the consideration and
disposition of enforcement proceedings
before the Board of Directors which, on
occasion, may involve matters
considered by the Committee. While the
FDIC believes that the inclusion of the
Vice Chairperson on the Committee
should lend credibility, fairness and
balance to the appeals process, it
recognizes that the Vice Chairperson’s
participation in an appeal of certain
material supervisory determinations
could give the Vice Chairperson access
to information which may not be part of
the administrative record of a factually
related enforcement proceeding.
Although such a situation is unlikely to
occur, if it does occur it may be prudent
for the Vice Chairperson to recuse
himself from participation in the related
enforcement proceeding. Of the
commenters that addressed this aspect
of the proposal, all supported including
the Vice Chairperson on the Committee,
even if it would mean that occasionally
he might need to recuse himself from
participation in a related enforcement
action. Commenters generally agreed
that inclusion of the Vice Chairperson
on the Committee would lend
credibility, fairness and balance to the
process.
One commenter suggested that the
Committee has too much ‘‘horsepower’’
and that its members may have other,
more pressing matters to which they
may need to attend. The FDIC is
committed to establishing a fair and
credible review process and believes
that the proposed committee structure
accomplishes that objective. The FDIC
recognizes, however, that at times some
members of the Committee may need to
delegate their responsibility to serve on
the Committee to a senior member of
their staff but believes that this in no
way should diminish the credibility,
balance or fairness of the Committee or
the process.
In addition, many commenters
expressed support for the proposed
composition and structure of the
Committee. After considering all of the
comments on this aspect of the
proposal, the FDIC continues to believe
that the proposed composition and
structure of the Committee not only
satisfies the requirement of the Act to
establish an independent intra-agency
appellate process but also lends
credibility, fairness and balance to the
process. The FDIC therefore believes
that no change to this provision is
necessary.
B. Institutions Eligible To Appeal
The Act requires that the FDIC’s
appeals process be available to review
material supervisory determinations
made at insured depository institutions
that it supervises. The FDIC proposed
that its appeals process be available not
only to the insured depository
institutions that it supervises (i.e.,
insured State nonmember banks (except
District banks) and insured branches of
foreign banks) but also to other insured
depository institutions with respect to
which it makes material supervisory
determinations. No commenters
addressed this aspect of the proposal.
The FDIC therefore believes that no
change to this provision is necessary.
C. Material Supervisory Determinations
The Act requires the FDIC to establish
an appeals process to review material
supervisory determinations. The term
‘‘material supervisory determinations’’
is defined in the Act to include
determinations relating to: (1)
examination ratings; (2) the adequacy of