Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 28, 1995 / Notices 15923

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 intraagency 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 28, 1995 / Notices 15925

loan loss reserve provisions; and (3)

loan classifications on loans that are

significant to an institution. The 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, 12

U.S.C. 1831o.

1. Examination Ratings

The FDIC proposed to construe the

reference to ‘‘examination ratings’’ to

mean: (a) CAMEL ratings under the

Uniform Financial Institutions Rating

System; (b) EDP ratings under the

Uniform Interagency Rating System for

Data Processing Operations; (c) trust

ratings under the Uniform Interagency

Trust Rating System; (d) CRA ratings

under the Revised Uniform Interagency

Community Reinvestment Act

Assessment Rating System; (e)

consumer compliance ratings under the

Uniform Interagency Consumer

Compliance Rating System; (f) registered

transfer agent examination ratings; (g)

government securities dealer

examination ratings; and (h) municipal

securities dealer examination ratings.

One commenter suggested that the

proposed guidelines should be clarified

to specifically reference the composite

CAMEL rating (which is the rating

revealed to an institution) as the rating

eligible for appeal since component

CAMEL ratings are not revealed to an

institution. The FDIC believes that no

change to this provision of the proposed

guidelines is necessary. Since

component ratings are not revealed to

an institution, such ratings cannot be

appealed regardless of whether there is

a specific reference in the guidelines to

composite ratings. The FDIC believes

that the language of this provision is

consistent with its intent to permit any

examination rating revealed to an

institution to be appealed.

2. Adequacy of Loan Loss Reserve

Provisions

Since the Act defines material

supervisory determinations to include

the adequacy of loan loss reserve

provisions, the FDIC proposed that such

determinations be eligible for appeal.

No commenters addressed this aspect of

the proposal. The FDIC therefore

believes that no change to this provision

is necessary.

3. Loan Classifications

The Act defines material supervisory

determinations to include

determinations relating to loan

classifications on loans that are

significant to an institution. The FDIC

proposed that classifications of other

assets that are significant to an

institution should also be eligible for

appeal. In addition, the FDIC proposed

that a classified loan or other asset

could be regarded as significant to an

institution if the amount of the loan or

asset, individually or together with

other classified loans or assets, equals or

exceeds 10 percent of the institution’s

capital or 1 percent of its total assets.

A number of commenters suggested

that the proposed guidelines were not

clear as to how the 10 percent of capital

or 1 percent of assets threshold may be

reached on an aggregated basis. A few

commenters noted that, while a

particular percentage may be significant

for one institution, it may not be

significant for another institution

depending on the totality of the

circumstances. Another commenter

suggested that there should be an ability

to appeal not merely where there is a

specified percentage of the portfolio

classified, but where any classification

has an adverse impact on the

institution. In consideration of the

concerns expressed with respect to this

aspect of the proposal, the proposal has

been revised to eliminate the 1 percent

of assets threshold and clarify that loan

or other asset classifications in dispute,

individually or together with other

classified loans or assets in dispute, that

exceed 10 percent of an institution’s

total capital may be appealed. The FDIC

believes that capital is the more

sensitive and critical measure and that

such measure should enable an

institution to appeal classifications that

materially affect the institution. The

FDIC further believes that limiting loan

and other asset classification appeals to

those that involve a significant level of

classification (i.e., enough to be

material) is necessary not only to

discourage insignificant or unnecessary

appeals but also to carry out the Act’s

intent that classifications that have a

significant impact on an institution be

eligible for appeal.

4. Determinations Not Eligible for

Appeal

As provided in the Act, the term

‘‘material supervisory determinations’’

does not include 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, 12

U.S.C. 1831o. The FDIC proposed that

the term ‘‘material supervisory

determinations’’ also should not

include: (a) determinations for which

other appeals procedures exist (such as

determinations relating to deposit

insurance assessment risk

classifications); (b) decisions to initiate

formal enforcement actions under

section 8 of the Federal Deposit

Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1818

(including assessment of civil money

penalties); (c) decisions to initiate

informal enforcement actions (such as

memoranda of understanding); (d)

determinations relating to a violation of

a statute or regulation; and (e) any other

determinations not specified in the Act

as being eligible for appeal.

A number of commenters suggested

that these limitations were too

restrictive and pointed out that the

statutory listing of material supervisory

determinations was merely illustrative

and not intended to be exhaustive. They

also noted that the proposals of the

other banking agencies were not as

restrictive as the FDIC’s proposal. Upon

further consideration of the relevant

statutory language, the FDIC now

believes that the proposal was

unnecessarily restrictive as to the scope

of determinations eligible for appeal.

Consequently, the FDIC has expanded

the scope of determinations that are

eligible for appeal in two significant

respects.

First, determinations relating to a

violation of a statute or regulation that

may impact the capital, earnings, or

operating flexibility of an institution, or

otherwise affect the nature and level of

supervisory oversight accorded an

institution are eligible for appeal. The

FDIC recognizes that interpretations of

statutes or regulations frequently are the

subject of differing views between

examiners and the institution involved

and such matters can have a material

effect on the institution and the

supervisory treatment accorded it.

Review of such determinations is

therefore consistent with the Act’s goal

of ensuring review of material

supervisory determinations.

Second, instead of specifically

excluding determinations not specified

in the Act as being ineligible for appeal,

the FDIC has created a catch-all category

of other material supervisory

determinations that may be appealed.

Such category includes any

determination (unless otherwise not

eligible for appeal) that may impact the

capital, earnings, operating flexibility,

or capital category for prompt corrective

action purposes of an institution, or

otherwise affect the nature and level of

supervisory oversight accorded an

institution.

A number of commenters questioned

the exclusion of decisions to initiate

formal or informal enforcement actions

from the scope of appealable

determinations. A few commenters
15926 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 28, 1995 / Notices

recommended that at least decisions to

initiate informal enforcement actions

should be appealable. One commenter

argued that, if a determination to initiate

an informal enforcement action was

eligible for appeal, an institution could

avoid the cost and burden associated

with such action while an appeal is

pending that could be resolved in the

institution’s favor. While there is some

merit to this view, the FDIC believes

that the possible abuse of the appeals

process to delay or otherwise impede

well-founded enforcement actions

outweighs the concerns expressed.

Moreover, appeals will be processed

and decided expeditiously which the

FDIC believes should minimize any

costs or other burdens to the institution

associated with an informal

enforcement action.

One commenter questioned the

exclusion of determinations relating to

deposit insurance assessment risk

classifications. The FDIC recognizes that

such determinations may have a

material impact on an institution but

points out that it has procedures in

place (which are set forth as an

attachment to FIL–27–94, dated April

26, 1994) for requesting review of

deposit insurance assessment risk

classifications. Since the FDIC’s role as

deposit insurer is separate and distinct

from its role as supervisor, it believes

that review of determinations relating to

deposit insurance assessment risk

classifications should be kept separate

from review of supervisory

determinations. The FDIC believes that

the current procedures for requesting

review of deposit insurance assessment

risk classifications are sufficient and

that allowing parallel rights of appeal

for such determinations would be

confusing, duplicative, and wasteful.

One commenter recommended that

examiner criticisms of insider related

matters should be eligible for appeal,

even in those instances where small or

no dollar amounts are involved. Since

the appeals process is designed to allow

institutions to appeal material

supervisory determinations, the FDIC

believes that insider related matters that

qualify as material supervisory

determinations should be eligible for

appeal while those matters that do not

qualify should not be eligible for appeal.

A few commenters suggested that the

provision in the proposed guidelines

regarding determinations not eligible for

appeal be revised to clarify that the

underlying basis for a determination to

take prompt corrective action or initiate

a formal or informal enforcement action

is appealable so long as it otherwise

qualifies. The FDIC does not intend to

exclude from the appeals process such

underlying determinations so long as

they are eligible for appeal. Based on

these comments, the FDIC has revised

the proposal to clarify this issue.

D. Authority To Initiate Appeal

The FDIC proposed that an institution

should not be permitted to initiate an

appeal of a material supervisory

determination unless its board of

directors considered the merits of the

appeal and authorized that it be filed.

This requirement was intended to

assure that an institution’s board of

directors not only had knowledge of a

possible appeal but also had an

opportunity to consider its merits. The

FDIC noted in the proposed guidelines

that such involvement by the board of

directors in the decision to initiate an

appeal is consistent with its

responsibility to oversee the

institution’s management and may

discourage insignificant or unnecessary

appeals. No commenters were critical of

this requirement. However, one

commenter expressly stated that such

requirement should eliminate any

frivolous appeals brought because of a

personality conflict between a senior

officer and an examiner. The FDIC

therefore believes that no change to this

aspect of the proposal is necessary.

E. Effect on Supervisory or Enforcement

Actions

Section 309(g) of the Act provides that

‘‘[n]othing in ... section [309] shall affect

the authority of an appropriate Federal

banking agency or the National Credit

Administration Board to take

enforcement or supervisory action.’’ To

reiterate this mandate as well as to

discourage any possible abuse of the

appeals process, the FDIC proposed that

use of the appeals process by any

institution should not affect, delay, or

impede any formal or informal

supervisory or enforcement action in

progress or affect the FDIC’s authority to

take any supervisory or enforcement

action against an institution.

No commenters directly addressed

this aspect of the proposal. However,

one commenter questioned whether

there would be any adverse or

prejudicial effect on an institution

involved in a formal enforcement

proceeding for failure to file an appeal

of a related matter. That commenter also

questioned the extent to which a final

decision made by the Supervision

Appeals Review Committee may be

subject to collateral attack or review by

an administrative law judge in an

administrative enforcement action. The

FDIC believes that the appeal process is

not intended to affect the rights of

parties in connection with enforcement

proceedings.

F. Effect on Applications or Requests for

Approval

The FDIC proposed that any

application or request for approval

made to the FDIC by an institution that

has appealed a material supervisory

determination which relates to or could

affect the approval of the application or

request would not be considered until a

final decision concerning the appeal

was made unless otherwise requested by

the institution. No commenters

addressed this aspect of the proposal.

The FDIC therefore believes that no

change to this provision is necessary.

G. Scope of Review

The FDIC proposed that the

appropriate scope of review of any

material supervisory determination

should be limited to the facts and

circumstances as they existed prior to or

at the time the material supervisory

determination was made and that

consideration should not be given to

any facts or circumstances that occur or

corrective action taken after the

determination was made. No

commenters questioned this limitation,

although one commenter requested that

the proposed guidelines be clarified to

provide that the FDIC will consider facts

and circumstances that existed at the

time the determination was made but

that may have been discovered or come

to the attention of the FDIC or the

institution after such determination.

The FDIC believes that this is a useful

clarification and has revised the

proposed guidelines accordingly.

However, the FDIC cautions institutions

not to introduce or present information

or arguments for the first time on appeal

which could have been introduced or

presented to the on-site examiner and/

or appropriate Regional Office. While

such information or arguments will be

considered on appeal, the introduction

of such information or arguments at a

late date could impede the prompt and

expeditious resolution of disputes.

H. Review Procedures

The FDIC proposed that an institution

could appeal any material supervisory

determination but it first should make a

good faith effort to resolve the dispute

concerning the determination with the

on-site examiner and/or the appropriate

Regional Office. The proposed

guidelines would have required that the

on-site examiner and the Regional

Office promptly respond to any

concerns raised by an institution

regarding a material supervisory

determination. Several commenters
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 28, 1995 / Notices 15927

incorrectly understood this provision to

mean that an institution must first

attempt to resolve any disputed

determination with the on-site examiner

and/or the appropriate Regional Office

before it may file an appeal. While the

proposed guidelines would have

encouraged informal resolution of

disputes, it was not intended to make

informal resolution a condition to the

filing of an appeal with the Washington

Office. The FDIC therefore has revised

the proposed guidelines to make this

clear.

The FDIC reiterated in the proposed

guidelines that codification of this

appeals process was not intended to

affect its longstanding practice of

affording institutions opportunities to

express their views and concerns

throughout the examination/supervisory

process. Institutions are encouraged to

discuss examination findings, loan loss

reserve provisions and classifications on

loans and other assets during on-site

examinations as well as express any

concerns to senior staff of the

appropriate Regional Office if a matter

has not been resolved by the on-site

examiner. The FDIC continues to

believe that an institution is best served

by raising questions or objections

concerning an examination when they

arise through these informal processes

rather than after the close of an

examination and the filing of an appeal.

The proposed guidelines would have

required all appeals to the Washington

Office to be initiated within 60 days

following the institution’s receipt of a

report of examination containing a

material supervisory determination or

other written communication of a

material supervisory determination. A

few commenters suggested that the time

period in which an institution could file

an appeal should be shortened, while

others suggested a longer period.

However, one commenter stated that the

proposed time period was appropriate.

The FDIC has reconsidered this issue

but, given the time necessary for an

institution to review findings, prepare a

written appeal and obtain board

approval, continues to believe that the

proposed time period is appropriate.

To initiate an appeal, the FDIC

proposed that the institution would

have to submit, in writing, to the

Director of the Division of Supervision,

if the dispute was with a Division of

Supervision on-site examiner or

Regional Office, or to the Director of the

Division of Compliance and Consumer

Affairs, if the dispute was with a

Division of Compliance and Consumer

Affairs on-site examiner or Regional

Office, a request for review. The request

for review would have been required to

include: (a) a detailed description of the

issues in dispute, the surrounding

circumstances, the institution’s position

regarding the dispute and any

arguments to support that position, and

any good faith effort to resolve the

dispute with the on-site examiner and

the Regional Office and the results of

that effort; and (b) a statement that the

institution’s board of directors has

considered the merits of the appeal and

authorized that it be filed. No

commenters addressed this aspect of the

proposal. The FDIC therefore believes

that no change to this provision is

necessary, other than to require that the

request for review include (in addition

to the information listed in the proposed

guidelines) citation of any relevant

statute, regulation, policy statement or

other authority to support the

institution’s position regarding the

dispute and how resolution of the

dispute would impact the institution

and why such impact would be

material.

The FDIC further proposed that the

appropriate Division Director could, in

his or her discretion, promptly resolve

the appeal in favor of the institution or,

if he or she could not resolve the appeal

in favor of the institution, must refer the

appeal to the Supervision Appeals

Review Committee, together with the

institution’s request for review and any

other relevant information concerning

the dispute. The Supervision Appeals

Review Committee (which was

proposed to be comprised of the Vice

Chairperson, 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))

would have reviewed the appeal for

consistency with the policies, practices

and mission of the FDIC, including

those of the Division of Supervision or

the Division of Compliance and

Consumer Affairs, as appropriate, and

the overall reasonableness of and

support offered for the respective

positions advanced, and notify the

institution, in writing, of its decision

concerning the disputed material

supervisory determination within 60

days of receipt by the appropriate

Division Director of the institution’s

request for review. The proposed

guidelines would have required that the

notice of decision contain at a minimum

an explanation of the factual basis as

well as the reason(s) for the decision

and a statement that the decision

constitutes the final supervisory

decision of the FDIC.

A few commenters suggested that the

time period in which the FDIC must

consider and decide an appeal should

be shortened. However, given the time

necessary to fully and fairly review an

appeal and convene a meeting of the

Supervision Review Appeals

Committee, the FDIC continues to

believe that the proposed time period is

appropriate. One commenter suggested

that the proposal be revised to provide

an institution with the right to request

an appearance before the Supervision

Appeals Review Committee to present

evidence or otherwise support its

position. The FDIC agrees that an

institution should have the right to

request an appearance before the

Committee to present evidence or

otherwise support its position but

believes that the Committee should have

the discretion, depending on the facts

and circumstances of the determination

under appeal and whether such

appearance would be productive, to

determine whether to allow such

appearance.

The proposed guidelines would have

required that, if sufficient information

was not provided to enable the

Supervision Appeals Review Committee

to make a decision concerning the

disputed material supervisory

determination, the 60-day period within

which the Committee must notify the

institution of its decision would be

extended upon agreement of the

institution for such additional time as it

would take the institution to provide the

information requested by the

Committee. If the institution failed to

provide the requested information, the

Committee could (but would not have

been required to) consider and decide

the appeal on the information available.

One commenter suggested that this

provision was unclear. The FDIC

believes that this provision is

straightforward but explains that it was

intended to allow the Committee to

extend the time in which it must issue

a decision in order to request and

receive additional information from the

institution. Under the proposal, the

institution could refuse to agree to the

delay or to provide the additional

information, in which case the

Committee could decide the appeal on

the existing record or consider the

appeal abandoned.

The FDIC proposed that the decision

of the Supervision Appeals Review

Committee would constitute the final

supervisory decision of the FDIC and

would not be eligible for further appeal

pursuant to the FDIC’s appeals process

unless new information was submitted.

In such case, the Committee could, in its

discretion, reconsider the decision

concerning the disputed material

supervisory determination if good cause

was shown why such new information
15928 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 28, 1995 / Notices

was material to the dispute. No

commenters directly addressed this

aspect of the proposal.

A few commenters suggested that an

institution’s position with respect to a

determination under review should

prevail if the FDIC fails to notify the

institution of its decision within 60 days

of receipt by the appropriate Division

Director of the institution’s request for

review. The FDIC believes that appeals

should be decided on their merits and

not as a result of a failure to meet a time

deadline. Nevertheless, the FDIC

pledges to make every effort to decide

an appeal and notify the institution of

its decision within the 60-day time

period. If, however, the institution

believes that the FDIC has not acted in

good faith to decide an appeal and

notify the institution of its decision

within this time period, it may request

that the Ombudsman investigate or

otherwise intervene in the matter.

One commenter suggested that the

proposed guidelines be revised to

address how records are to be expunged

when a determination (that is part of an

examination report or other written

communication) is subsequently

reversed through the appeals process.

The FDIC is not convinced that a

determination which is reversed

through the appeals process needs to be

expunged from the record. The FDIC

believes that there is little risk that a

subsequent reviewer of the institution’s

record will overlook the reversal and

consider the determination as part of the

record in its dealings with the

institution.

I. Limitation of Use of Agency

Ombudsman

Section 309(d) of the Act requires the

FDIC to appoint an Ombudsman to act

as a liaison with respect to any problem

that any person may have in dealing

with the FDIC resulting from its

regulatory activities. The FDIC proposed

that, in order to preserve the integrity of

the appeals process, the merits of any

material supervisory determination for

which an appeal had been initiated or

a final decision made should not be

eligible for consideration by the

Ombudsman. The FDIC also proposed,

however, that the Ombudsman should

not be prohibited from considering any

other problems that an institution may

have in dealing with the FDIC in

connection with its appeals process,

including consideration of the overall

fairness, efficiency or effectiveness of

the process.

A few commenters suggested that the

Ombudsman should have the

opportunity to consider and decide

appeals outside the structure of the

Supervision Appeals Review

Committee. The FDIC believes that a

committee approach, which brings

together the experience and judgment of

a variety of individuals from different

disciplines (including the Ombudsman),

is more likely to produce fair and sound

results for both the institution involved

and the FDIC than a process in which

a single individual (such as the

Ombudsman) alone considers and

decides appeals. Moreover, as a member

of the Supervision Appeals Review

Committee, the Ombudsman will

consider and participate in all appeals.

J. Coordination With State Regulatory

Authorities

Two commenters suggested that the

proposed guidelines should be revised

to require that the FDIC coordinate with

the appropriate State regulatory

authority with respect to the appeal of

a material supervisory determination

that is the joint product of the FDIC and

the State regulatory authority. These

commenters also suggested that a

representative of the appropriate State

regulatory authority should sit on the

Supervision Appeals Review

Committee. The FDIC believes that such

coordination is necessary but does not

believe that a representative of the

appropriate State regulatory authority

should sit on the Committee. The FDIC

believes that the inclusion of a

representative of a State regulatory

authority on the Committee would not

be consistent with the statutory mandate

to establish an ‘‘intra-agency’’ appeals

process. However, to provide for

coordination with State regulatory

authorities with respect to the appeal of

a joint material supervisory

determination, the FDIC has revised the

proposal to specifically require that the

appropriate Division Director promptly

notify the appropriate State regulatory

authority of any appeal of a joint

supervisory determination as well as to

provide the regulatory authority with a

copy of the institution’s request for

review and any other related materials

and solicit the regulatory authority’s

views regarding the merits of the appeal

before making a final decision. That

Director will present the views of the

regulatory authority (as well as his or

her own views) before the Committee

and attempt to reconcile the views of

the regulatory authority with the views

of the Committee. The Committee will

notify the institution and the State

regulatory authority of its decision and

any differences remaining between the

institution and the State authority will

be left to those parties to resolve.

K. Prohibition on Examiner Retaliation

The FDIC proposed that any

retaliation, abuse, or retribution by an

agency examiner against an institution

that appeals a material supervisory

determination would constitute

unprofessional conduct and should

subject the examiner to appropriate

disciplinary or remedial action by the

appropriate Division Director. Under the

proposed guidelines, such disciplinary

or remedial action could have included

oral or written warning or

admonishment, reprimand, or

suspension, or change in assigned

duties or disqualification from a

particular assignment or a particular

matter, including prohibition from

participating in any examination of the

institution that was the subject of the

retaliation, abuse, or retribution.

A few commenters suggested that the

proposed guidelines be clarified to

provide who an institution may contact

in the event it believes or has any

evidence that it has been subject to

examiner retaliation. Other commenters

suggested that the role of the

Ombudsman should be expanded to

include receiving, monitoring, and

investigating complaints of examiner

retaliation. The FDIC believes that the

Ombudsman should be permitted to

receive and investigate complaints of

examiner retaliation as well as make

recommendations to the appropriate

Division Director for corrective action.

The FDIC therefore has revised the

proposed guidelines to provide that any

institution that believes or has any

evidence that it has been subject to

examiner retaliation may file a

complaint with the Ombudsman and/or

the appropriate Division Director,

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,

550 17th Street, Washington, D.C.

20429, explaining the circumstances

and the basis for such belief or evidence

and requesting that the complaint be

investigated and appropriate

disciplinary or remedial action taken.

Other commenters suggested that the

FDIC should contact every institution

that files an appeal at various intervals

after the appeal to inquire as to whether

the institution believes or has any

evidence that it has been subject to

examiner retaliation. The FDIC does not

believe that routine follow-up inquiries

would be useful or productive in every

case in which an institution has filed an

appeal. Consequently, the FDIC will rely

on complaints of examiner retaliation

that it receives from institutions to

monitor and investigate such activity.

One commenter suggested that the

prohibition against examiner retaliation

should be extended to cover all Regional
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 28, 1995 / Notices 15929

Office personnel. The FDIC believes that

retaliation by any employee at any level

constitutes unprofessional conduct and

should subject the employee to

appropriate disciplinary or remedial

action. Accordingly, the FDIC has

revised the proposed guidelines to make

clear that the prohibition on retaliation

extends to all personnel, including

Regional and Washington Office

personnel.

For the reasons set out in the

Preamble, the Board has adopted the

Guidelines for Review of Material

Supervisory Determinations as set forth

below.

Guidelines for Appeals of Material

Supervisory Determinations

A. Introduction

Section 309(a) of the Riegle

Community Development and

Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994

(Pub. L. 103–325, 108 Stat. 2160) (Act)

requires the Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation (FDIC) to establish an

independent intra-agency appellate

process to review material supervisory

determinations made at insured

depository institutions that it

supervises. The FDIC has adopted these

Guidelines for Appeals of Material

Supervisory Determinations

(Guidelines) in accordance with the Act.

The Guidelines describe the types of

determinations that are eligible for

review and the process by which

appeals will be considered and decided.

B. Independent Appellate Process

The procedures set forth in these

Guidelines establish an appeals process

for the review of material supervisory

determinations by a supervisory appeals

review committee consisting of the Vice

Chairperson, 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).

C. Institutions Eligible to Appeal

These Guidelines apply not only to

the insured depository institutions that

the FDIC 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 the FDIC makes material

supervisory determinations.

D. Material Supervisory Determinations

1. Determinations Eligible for Appeal

An institution may appeal any

material supervisory determination

pursuant to the procedures set forth in

these Guidelines. Material supervisory

determinations mean:

(a) CAMEL ratings under the Uniform

Financial Institutions Rating System;

(b) EDP ratings under the Uniform

Interagency Rating System for Data

Processing Operations;

(c) trust ratings under the Uniform

Interagency Trust Rating System;

(d) CRA ratings under the Revised

Uniform Interagency Community

Reinvestment Act Assessment Rating

System;

(e) consumer compliance ratings

under the Uniform Interagency

Consumer Compliance Rating System;

(f) registered transfer agent

examination ratings;

(g) government securities dealer

examination ratings;

(h) municipal securities dealer

examination ratings;

(i) determinations relating to the

adequacy of loan loss reserve

provisions;

(j) classifications of loans and other

assets in dispute the amount of which,

individually or in the aggregate, exceed

10 percent of an institution’s total

capital;

(k) determinations relating to

violations of a statute or regulation that

may impact the capital, earnings, or

operating flexibility of an institution, or

otherwise affect the nature and level of

supervisory oversight accorded an

institution; and

(l) any other supervisory

determination (unless otherwise not

eligible for appeal) that may impact the

capital, earnings, operating flexibility,

or capital category for prompt corrective

action purposes of an institution, or

otherwise affect the nature and level of

supervisory oversight accorded an

institution.

2. Determinations Not Eligible for

Appeal

Material supervisory determinations

do not include: (a) decisions to appoint

a conservator or receiver for an insured

depository institution; (b) decisions to

take prompt corrective action pursuant

to section 38 of the Federal Deposit

Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1831o; (c)

determinations for which other appeals

procedures exist (such as

determinations relating to deposit

insurance assessment risk

classifications); (d) decisions to initiate

formal enforcement actions under

section 8 of the Federal Deposit

Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1818

(including assessment of civil money

penalties) or under any other provisions

of law or regulation; and (e) decisions to

initiate informal enforcement actions

(such as memoranda of understanding).

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.

E. Authority to Initiate Appeals

An institution may not initiate an

appeal of a material supervisory

determination pursuant to the

procedures set forth in these Guidelines

unless its board of directors has

considered the merits of the appeal and

authorized that it be filed.

F. Effect on Supervisory or Enforcement

Actions

The use of the procedures set forth in

these Guidelines by any institution will

not affect, delay, or impede any formal

or informal supervisory or enforcement

action in progress or affect the FDIC’s

authority to take any supervisory or

enforcement action against that

institution.

G. Effect on Applications or Requests for

Approval

Any application or request for

approval made to the FDIC by an

institution that has appealed a material

supervisory determination which relates

to or could affect the approval of the

application or request will not be

considered until a final decision

concerning the appeal is made unless

otherwise requested by the institution.

H. Scope of Review

The scope of review of any material

supervisory determination pursuant to

the procedures set forth in these

Guidelines is limited to the facts and

circumstances as they existed prior to or

at the time the material supervisory

determination was made and no

consideration will be given to any facts

or circumstances that occur or

corrective action taken after the

determination was made. However, the

FDIC will consider any facts or

circumstances that existed prior to or at

the time the determination was made

but that may have been discovered or

come to the attention of the FDIC or the

institution after such determination.

I. Review Procedures

An institution may appeal any

material supervisory determination but

it first should make a good faith effort

to resolve the dispute concerning the

determination with the on-site examiner

and/or the appropriate Regional Office.

The on-site examiner and the Regional

Office are expected to promptly respond
15930 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 28, 1995 / Notices

to any concerns raised by an institution

regarding a material supervisory

determination. If an institution is unable

to resolve the dispute with the on-site

examiner or the Regional Office, it may

appeal the determination to the

Washington Office. While informal

resolution of disputes is encouraged, it

is not a condition to the filing of an

appeal with the Washington Office.

All appeals to the Washington Office

must be initiated within 60 days

following the institution’s receipt of a

report of examination containing a

material supervisory determination or

other written communication of a

material supervisory determination. To

initiate an appeal, the institution must

submit, in writing, to the Director of the

Division of Supervision, if the

institution was unable to resolve the

dispute with a Division of Supervision

on-site examiner or Regional Office, or

to the Director of the Division of

Compliance and Consumer Affairs, if

the institution was unable to resolve the

dispute with a Division of Compliance

and Consumer Affairs on-site examiner

or Regional Office, a request for review.

The request for review should include:

(a) a detailed description of the issues

in dispute, the surrounding

circumstances, the institution’s position

regarding the dispute and any

arguments to support that position

(including citation of any relevant

statute, regulation, policy statement or

other authority), how resolution of the

dispute would impact the institution

and why such impact would be

material, and the good faith effort to

resolve the dispute with the on-site

examiner and the Regional Office and

the results of that effort; and (b) a

statement that the institution’s board of

directors has considered the merits of

the appeal and authorized that it be

filed.

The appropriate Division Director

may, in his or her discretion, promptly

resolve the appeal in favor of the

institution or, if he or she cannot resolve

the appeal in favor of the institution,

will refer the appeal to the Supervision

Appeals Review Committee, together

with the institution’s request for review

and any other relevant information

concerning the dispute. The

Supervision Appeals Review Committee

(which is comprised of the Vice

Chairperson, 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))

will review the appeal for consistency

with the policies, practices and mission

of the FDIC, including those of the

Division of Supervision or the Division

of Compliance and Consumer Affairs, as

appropriate, and the overall

reasonableness of and the support

offered for the respective positions

advanced, and notify the institution, in

writing, of its decision concerning the

disputed material supervisory

determination within 60 days of receipt

by the appropriate Division Director of

the institution’s request for review. The

notice of decision must contain at a

minimum an explanation of the factual

basis as well as the reason(s) for the

decision and a statement that the

decision constitutes the final

supervisory decision of the FDIC.

The institution may request an

appearance before the Supervision

Appeals Review Committee to present

evidence or otherwise support its

position. The Committee may in its

discretion, depending on the facts and

circumstances of the determination

under appeal and whether such

appearance would be productive,

determine whether to allow such

appearance.

If sufficient information is not

provided to enable the Supervision

Appeals Review Committee to make a

decision concerning the disputed

material supervisory determination, the

60-day period within which the

Committee must notify the institution of

the decision will be extended upon

agreement of the institution for such

additional time as it takes the institution

to provide the information requested by

the Committee. If the institution fails to

provide the requested information, the

Committee may but will not be required

to consider and decide the appeal.

Moreover, if the FDIC fails to notify the

institution of its decision within 60 days

of receipt by the appropriate Division

Director of the institution’s request for

review, the institution may request that

the Ombudsman investigate or

otherwise intervene in the matter.

The decision of the Supervision

Appeals Review Committee will

constitute the final supervisory decision

of the FDIC and will not be eligible for

further appeal pursuant to the

procedures set forth in these Guidelines

unless new information is submitted. In

such case, the Committee may, in its

discretion, reconsider the decision

concerning the disputed material

supervisory determination if good cause

is shown why such new information is

material to the dispute.

J. Limitation on Use of Agency

Ombudsman

The merits of any material

supervisory determination for which an

appeal has been initiated or a final

decision made will not be eligible for

consideration by the Ombudsman

(except in his or her capacity as a

member of the Supervision Appeals

Review Committee). Any other

problems, however, that an institution

may have in dealing with the FDIC in

connection with the procedures set forth

in these Guidelines are eligible for

consideration by the Ombudsman,

including consideration of the overall

fairness, efficiency or effectiveness of

the process.

K. Coordination With State Regulatory

Authorities

In the event that a material

supervisory determination under appeal

is the joint product of the FDIC and a

State regulatory authority, the

appropriate Division Director will

promptly notify the appropriate State

regulatory authority of the appeal,

provide to the regulatory authority a

copy of the institution’s request for

review and any other related materials,

and solicit the regulatory authority’s

views regarding the merits of the appeal

before making a final decision. That

Director will present the views of the

regulatory authority (as well as his or

her own views) before the Supervision

Appeals Review Committee and attempt

to reconcile the views of the regulatory

authority with the views of the

Supervision Appeals Review

Committee. The Supervision Appeals

Review Committee will notify the

institution and the State regulatory

authority of its decision and any

differences remaining between the

institution and the State authority will

be left to those parties to resolve.

L. Prohibition on Examiner Retaliation

Any retaliation, abuse, or retribution

by an agency examiner or any FDIC

personnel against an institution that

appeals a material supervisory

determination constitutes

unprofessional conduct and will subject

the examiner or other personnel to

appropriate disciplinary or remedial

action by the appropriate Division

Director. Such disciplinary or remedial

action may include oral or written

warning or admonishment, reprimand,

or suspension, or change in assigned

duties or disqualification from a

particular assignment or a particular

matter, including prohibition from

participating in any examination of the

institution that was the subject of the

retaliation, abuse, or retribution. Any

institution that believes or has any

evidence that it has been subject to

retaliation may file a complaint with the

Ombudsman and/or the appropriate

Division Director, Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 28, 1995 / Notices 15931

Washington, D.C. 20429, explaining the

circumstances and the basis for such

belief or evidence and requesting that

the complaint be investigated and

appropriate disciplinary or remedial

action taken.

By order of the Board of Directors.

Dated at Washington, D.C. this 21st day of

March, 1995.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,

Acting Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–7523 Filed 3–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6714–01–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Availability of FEMA-REP–11, Revision

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: FEMA announces the

availability of the document ‘‘A Guide

to Preparing Public Information

Materials and Emergency Alert System

Instructions for Radiological

Emergencies,’’ FEMA-REP–11, Revision,

and requests comments on the

document.

DATES: Comments and responses should

be sent no later than June 26, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Comments on ‘‘FEMA-REP–

11, Revision’’ should be sent to the

Rules Docket Clerk, Office of the

General Counsel, room 840, Federal

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C

Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,

(facsimile) (202) 646–4536.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William F. McNutt, Senior Policy

Advisor, Preparedness and Policy

Branch, Preparedness, Training and

Exercises Directorate, Federal

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C

Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,

(202) 646–2857.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMAREP–11 was first published in June

1987. This document provided

assistance to State and local

governments and Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) licensees in the

development of emergency public

information materials. This revision

continues to provide such assistance,

and provides additional guidance on the

development, review, and evaluation of

emergency broadcast messages for the

public. Our intent is to help responsible

organizations to alert the public and to

provide emergency instructions and

information on the classification of an

emergency, the populations and areas

potentially affected, and the protective

measures that may be necessary. We

welcome your comments on this

document.

Dated: March 20, 1995.

Kay C. Goss,

Associate Director for Preparedness, Training,

and Exercises.

[FR Doc. 95–7578 Filed 3–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–20–P

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Agreement(s) Filed

The Federal Maritime Commission

hereby gives notice of the filing of the

following agreement(s) pursuant to

section 5 of the Shipping Act of 1984.

Interested parties may inspect and

obtain a copy of each agreement at the

Washington, DC Office of the Federal

Maritime Commission, 800 North

Capitol Street, NW., 9th Floor.

Interested parties may submit comments

on each agreement to the Secretary,

Federal Maritime Commission,

Washington, DC 20573, within 10 days

after the date of the Federal Register in

which this notice appears. The

requirements for comments are found in

§ 572.603 of Title 46 of the Code of

Federal Regulations. Interested persons

should consult this section before

communicating with the Commission

regarding a pending agreement.

Agreement No.: 202–009648A–068

Title: Inter-American Freight Conference

Parties:

A.P. Moller-Maersk Line

Empresa de Navegacao Alianca, S.A.

Frota Amazonica S.A.

Columbus Line

Transroll/Sea-Land Joint Service

Crowley American Transport, Inc.

A/S Ivarans Rederi d/b/a Ivaran Lines

Companhia Maritima Nacional

Companhia de Navegacao Lloyd

Brasileiro

Empresa Lineas Maritimas Argentinas

Synopsis: The proposed amendment

adds a new Article 14.04—Service

Contracts, which establishes rules for

any new member that joins the

conference with respect to that

member’s independent service

contracts.

Agreement No.: 203–011492

Title: TWRA/8900 Discussion

Agreement

Parties:

American President Lines, Ltd.

Transpacific Westbound Rate

Agreement

Croatia Line

Hapag Lloyd AG

The ‘‘8900’’ Lines Agreement

A.P. Moller-Maersk Line

DSR-Senator Joint Service

Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd.

Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd.

Nippon Yusen Kaisha, Ltd.

P&O Containers, Ltd.

United Arab Shipping Company

(S.A.G.)

Neptune Orient Lines, Ltd.

Orient Overseas Container Line, Inc.

Sea-Land Service, Inc.

The National Shipping Company of

Saudi Arabia

Synopsis: The proposed Agreement

authorizes the parties to meet and

discuss tariffs, service contracts,

service items, rates, charges,

classifications, practices, terms,

conditions, rules, regulations, and

other matters of mutual concern in the

trade from U.S. ports and points to

ports and points in India, Pakistan,

Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Myanmar.

Adherence to any agreement reached

is voluntary.

Agreement No.: 203–011493

Title: Cool Carriers AB/Dammers

Chartering NV Discussion Agreement

Parties:

Cool Carriers AB

Dammers Chartering NV

Synopsis: The proposed Agreement

authorizes the parties to meet and

discuss, tariffs, service contracts,

service items, general rate levels

(including general rate increases and

decreases), specific rates, charges,

classifications, practices, terms,

conditions, rules, regulations, and

other matters of mutual concern in the

trade between ports and points in

Australia to ports and points in the

U.S. Adherence to any agreement

reached is voluntary.

Dated: March 22, 1995.

By Order of the Federal Maritime

Commission.

Joseph C. Polking,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–7529 Filed 3–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730–01–M

Ocean Freight Forwarder License;

Revocations

Notice is hereby given that the

following ocean freight forwarder

licenses have been revoked by the

Federal Maritime Commission pursuant

to section 19 of the Shipping Act of

1984 (46 U.S.C. app. 1718) and the

regulations of the Commission

pertaining to the licensing of ocean

freight forwarders, 46 CFR 510.

License Number: 3599

Name: Fari International, Inc.

Address: 8550 N.W. 66th Street, Miami,

FL 33166