Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Notices 14795

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary

H. Lefkowitz of the Department,

telephone (202) 219–8881. (This is not

a toll-free number.)

General Information

The attention of interested persons is

directed to the following:

(1) The fact that a transaction is the

subject of an exemption under section

408(a) of the Act and/or section

4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve

a fiduciary or other party in interest of

disqualified person from certain other

provisions of the Act and/or the Code,

including any prohibited transaction

provisions to which the exemption does

not apply and the general fiduciary

responsibility provisions of section 404

of the Act, which among other things

require a fiduciary to discharge his

duties respecting the plan solely in the

interest of the participants and

beneficiaries of the plan and in a

prudent fashion in accordance with

section 404(a)(1)(b) of the act; nor does

it affect the requirement of section

401(a) of the Code that the plan must

operate for the exclusive benefit of the

employees of the employer maintaining

the plan and their beneficiaries;

(2) Before an exemption may be

granted under section 408(a) of the Act

and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code,

the Department must find that the

exemption is administratively feasible,

in the interests of the plan and of its

participants and beneficiaries and

protective of the rights of participants

and beneficiaries of the plan;

(3) The proposed exemptions, if

granted, will be supplemental to, and

not in derogation of, any other

provisions of the Act and/or the Code,

including statutory or administrative

exemptions and transitional rules.

Furthermore, the fact that a transaction

is subject to an administrative or

statutory exemption is not dispositive of

whether the transaction is in fact a

prohibited transaction; and

(4) The proposed exemptions, if

granted, will be subject to the express

condition that the material facts and

representations contained in each

application are true and complete, and

that each application accurately

describes all material terms of the

transaction which is the subject of the

exemption.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of

March, 1995.

Ivan Strasfeld,

Director of Exemption Determinations

Pension and Welfare BenefitsAdministration,

U.S. Department of Labor.

[FR Doc. 95–6728 Filed 3–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–29–P

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION

ADMINISTRATION

Guidelines for the Supervisory Review

Committee

AGENCY: National Credit Union

Administration (NCUA).

ACTION: Final Interpretive Ruling and

Policy Statement 95–1—Supervisory

Review Committee (IRPS 95–1).

SUMMARY: The Riegle Community

Development and Regulatory

Improvement of Act (Act) of 1994 was

signed into law on September 23, 1994.

Section 309 of the Act requires that

NCUA establish an independent

appellate process to review material

supervisory determinations. This

process must be established within 180

days of the Act’s passage or by March

22, 1995. The Act also requires that the

public be entitled to comment on the

proposed process. The NCUA Board

issued proposed IRPS 94–2 on

November 10, 1994. The proposed IRPS

would have established a Supervisory

Review Committee (Committee)

consisting of five senior staff members

to hear appeals of material supervisory

determinations. Material supervisory

determinations were defined in the

proposal to include composite CAMEL

ratings of 4 and 5, significant loan

classifications and adequacy of loan loss

reserves. The Board has expanded the

determinations subject to review in the

final IRPS to include composite CAMEL

ratings of 3, 4 and 5 and all component

ratings of those composite ratings. The

final IRPS reduces Committee

membership from five to three and

shortens the time-frames for Committee

action. Additional procedural and

technical changes are made in the final

IRPS as described in the Supplementary

Information.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 22, 1995.

ADDRESSES: National Credit Union

Administration, 1775 Duke Street,

Alexandria, VA 22314–3428.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Hattie M. Ulan, Special Counsel to the

General Counsel, at the above address or

telephone 703–518–6540.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Riegle Community Development

and Regulatory Improvement Act of

1994, Public Law 103–325 (the Act) was

signed into law on September 23, 1994.

Section 309 of the Act requires, among

other things, that NCUA and the federal

banking agencies each establish an

independent appellate process to review

material supervisory determinations.

The Act requires that the agencies

provide the public with notice and

opportunity to comment on the

proposed guidelines for the appellate

process within 90 days of the Act’s

passage. The NCUA Board issued

proposed guidelines establishing a

Supervisory Review Committee

(Committee) (Interpretive Ruling and

Policy Statement (IRPS) 94–2) on

November 10, 1994 (59 FR 59437, 11/

17/94.) The guidelines were issued with

a 30-day comment period ending on

December 19, 1994. The NCUA Board

then extended the comment period until

January 18, 1995. (See 59 FR 61003, 11/

29/94.) The Act requires that each

agency’s appellate process be

established not later than 180 days after

the Act’s passage (by March 22, 1995).

Forty-nine commenters responded to

the proposed guidelines. The public

commenters consisted of 26 federally

chartered credit unions, 7 state

chartered, federally-insured credit

unions and 1 unidentified credit union,

8 state credit union leagues, 1 state

credit union regulator, 3 national trade

associations, 2 individual auditors and

one credit union manager. The

commenters generally approved of the

proposed Supervisory Review

Committee, however, there were several

areas where many of the commenters

suggested changes. The Board has

considered the public comments and

suggestions of NCUA staff as well as the

proposed guidelines of the federal

banking agencies (Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation, Office of Thrift

Supervision, Office of Comptroller of

the Currency, and Federal Reserve

Board) in devising its final guidelines.

An explanation of the comments

received and the resolution of the issues

in the final IRPS follows.

Format—IRPS or Regulation

The Board specifically requested

comment on whether an IRPS was the

appropriate method to establish the

appeals process or whether the process

should be established through a

regulation. Sixteen commenters

addressed this issue and the response

was split 50/50. Several of the

commenters supporting use of a

regulation believe it would have greater

force of law. The Board believes that the

IRPS format is more appropriate since it

provides the Board with some

flexibility. The Board does not believe

enforceability of the IRPS will be a

problem since notice and comment

requirements of the Administrative

Procedure Act have been followed in its

promulgation.
14796 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Notices

Committee Composition

According to the proposed IRPS, the

Committee was to be composed of five

senior staff members: the Executive

Director, the Director of the Office of

Examination and Insurance, the General

Counsel, one Regional Director, and one

additional senior staff or Board staff

member. The Executive Director was to

serve as Committee chairperson. The

proposed composition generated

response from 32 commenters. Twentytwo of these commenters suggested

adding (or completely substituting) nonNCUA staff to the Committee to ensure

that the Committee would exercise

independent judgment. The Board does

not have the authority to place nonNCUA staff on the Committee. The Act

requires that NCUA establish an

‘‘independent intra-agency appellate

process.’’ (Emphasis added.) Non-NCUA

staff presence on the Committee would

not fulfill the statutory requirement of

‘‘intra-agency.’’ Several commenters

(including ten who agreed that no nonNCUA staff should be on the

Committee) suggested eliminating the

Regional Director and alternate Regional

Director from the Committee.

Commenters believed that the Regional

Director members would find it difficult

not to support one another, even though

they would not hear appeals occurring

in their own Regions. The Board does

not wish to place the Regional Directors

in this position and has eliminated the

Regional Director and alternate Regional

Director from the Committee. In

addition, the Board believes that neither

the Executive Director nor the Executive

Assistants to the Board Members should

serve on the Committee. The persons

serving in these positions report to and

represent the interests of Board

members. In order to ensure a separate

and meaningful final right of appeal to

the Board, as discussed below, these

individuals should not serve on the

Committee.

A few commenters noted that a

Committee composed of fewer

individuals may be better able to handle

the appellate process. These

commenters noted that it may be

difficult to accommodate all members’

schedules given their senior status and

multiple job demands. The Board agrees

and has reduced the Committee from

five to three. The Committee will be

composed of three senior staff members,

none of whom are currently serving as

a Regional Director or Associate

Regional Director, the Executive

Director or Executive Assistant to a

Board Member. One Committee member

will be designated as chairperson. All

three members will serve for one year

terms and can be reappointed for

additional terms. The NCUA Chairman

will appoint the Committee members

and designate one member as

Committee chairperson.

The proposed IRPS required that three

of the five Committee members be

present at each Committee meeting and

that a majority vote be required for

action on an appeal. The number of

Committee members has been reduced

from five to three and a quorum of two

must be present for each meeting. A

majority vote of the entire Committee (at

least two) is required for action on an

appeal.

The proposed IRPS stated that regular

Committee meetings would be held

quarterly with flexibility given to the

Committee chairperson to cancel

meetings and call additional meetings,

as needed. Many commenters believed

that more regular meetings should be

scheduled. The final IRPS retains the

requirement for regular quarterly

meetings, again with flexibility given to

the Committee chairperson to change

this schedule. It is the Board’s intention

that adequate meetings be scheduled

and held to complete action on all

appeals within the time frames set forth

below. Time frames for Committee

action have been shortened as requested

by many commenters. See discussion

below.

Appealable Issues

The Act requires that material

supervisory determinations, including

determinations relating to examination

ratings, adequacy of loan loss reserve

provisions and loan classifications on

loans that are significant to the credit

union, be subject to the appellate

process. The Board noted in the

proposed IRPS that it understood the

reference to ‘‘examination’’ rating to

mean a credit union’s CAMEL rating.

The Board proposed that only a credit

union’s composite CAMEL rating of 4 or

5 be appealable; component ratings

were not appealable to the Committee.

In addition, the Board noted adequacy

of loan loss reserve provisions and loan

classifications on loans that are

significant to the credit union as

appealable issues. The Board requested

comment on how it should define

‘‘significant’’ for purposes of identifying

classified loans subject to the appeals

process.

A total of 30 commenters addressed

the appealability of certain CAMEL

ratings. Most commenters thought the

ratings subject to the appeals process

should be expanded. Thirteen

commenters believed all CAMEL ratings

(or CAMELs 2–5) should be appealable.

They stated that credit unions with

CAMEL ratings other than 4 and 5 have

significant objections to ratings and that

their appealability would give credit

unions the ability to discuss ratings

with their examiners. Ten commenters

thought that CAMEL 3s should be

appealable. They noted that a rating of

3 affects field of membership

expansions and some CAMEL 3 credit

unions get increased examinations and

supervisory contacts and are placed

under letters of understanding and

agreement. One commenter stated that a

CAMEL rating of 3 is perceived as

unsatisfactory in the credit union

community. Fifteen commenters

requested that at least some component

ratings should be appealable. It was

stated that composite ratings are made

up of components, and if a component

rating could not be appealed, a

composite rating could never be

changed. The Board has decided to

expand the appealability of CAMEL

ratings. Credit unions may appeal

composite ratings of 3, 4, and 5 as well

of as all component ratings of those

composite ratings.

Eleven commenters addressed the

issue of how to define ‘‘significant’’ for

purposes of appealing the classification

of a significant loan. Seven of these

commenters believe that each credit

union should determine which loans are

significant. Two commenters suggested

significant be defined as a percentage of

reserves, one suggested a percentage of

reserve plus dollar amount of the loan

and one suggested that significant loans

be linked to reserve adequacy. The

Board has determined that each credit

union may determine whether a

classified loan is ‘‘significant’’ for

purposes of its appealability to the

Committee.

Several commenters believed

additional disputes should also be

subject to the Supervisory Review

Committee. Included are disputes

relating to fixed assets, credit union

service organizations, field of

membership, mergers and letters of

understanding and agreement. It was

also suggested that the Act requires that

material supervisory decisions ‘‘relating

to examinations’’ are appealable and the

Board’s interpretation of the Act as set

forth in the proposed IRPS was too

narrow. The Board has determined not

to further expand the types of disputes

covered by the review process initially.

The Board may expand the disputes

covered after some experience is gained

with the process. In addition, disputes

over field of membership, mergers, and

other material issues are already

appealable to the NCUA Board by credit

unions not satisfied with the decisions

of the Regional Director.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Notices 14797

Resolution by Region and Timing Issues

The proposed IRPS stated that a

dispute is ripe for review by the

Committee only when the credit union

establishes that it has been unsuccessful

in attempting to resolve the matter with

the Regional Office. No time frames

were set for resolving issues at the

regional level. Fourteen commenters

believed that some time limit should be

imposed on the Region to make a

decision. Suggestions ranged from 30 -

120 days, with most commenters

favoring 30 days. The Board agrees and

believes that the Regions should

respond to these disputes within 30

days. The proposed IRPS stated that

appeals should be submitted within 30

days of the Regional Office’s decision.

Seven commenters suggested that 30

days would not always provide

adequate time for a credit union to

prepare an appeal. Some of these

commenters suggested the 30 days be

expanded to 45 - 60 days. The Board

believes that 30 days is adequate time

for a credit union to make a decision on

whether to submit an appeal and in an

effort to complete the appeal process

expeditiously, will not increase the 30

days. In the event the Region does not

respond, the dispute becomes

appealable to the Committee after the

first 30 days and within another 30 days

(30 days for Region to respond, 30 days

for credit union to submit appeal to

Committee). The Board also believes

that credit unions should be timely in

their attempt to resolve the dispute with

the Region. Therefore the final IRPS

states that the credit union must contact

the Regional Office within 30 days of

the examiner’s final determination.

Sixteen commenters addressed the

proposed time frames for the Committee

to act on an appeal. Most agreed that the

time frames set forth would not result in

an expeditious appeal as required by the

Act. It was proposed that an appeal be

submitted by a credit union within 30

days of regional action and that the

Committee would make a decision on

the appeal within 90 days. If additional

information was needed, the Committee

would request it within 30 days of

receipt of the appeal and the

information would be submitted by the

credit union and/or Regional Office

within 15 days. Seven commenters

specifically suggested shorter time

frames for the Committee to decide an

appeal, several others just noted that the

time frame was too long. One

commenter suggested reducing the 90

days to 30 days, three others suggested

reducing it to 60 days. Three additional

commenters stated the whole process

should be limited to 90 days. The Board

agrees that the time for Committee

deliberation should be reduced. The

final IRPS reduces the time the

Committee has to request additional

information from 30 to 15 days and the

time for Committee action on the appeal

from 90 to 30 days.

Appeals by Federally-Insured, State

Chartered Credit Unions

The Act requires that the appellate

process be available at insured

institutions that NCUA supervises. It

was noted in the preamble of the

proposed IRPS that in cases of material

supervisory determinations made by

NCUA, the Committee would consider

appeals from all federally insured

institutions and that NCUA would

consult with the state supervisory

authority in appropriate cases. Six

commenters addressed the issue of

appeals made by federally-insured, state

chartered credit unions (FISCUs). One

commenter agreed with the proposal,

one stated that NCUA does not

supervise FISCUs and believed the

review process should not be available

to them and several commenters asked

how the FISCU review process would be

implemented.

NCUA has clear responsibilities with

respect to the safety and soundness of

all federally insured credit unions.

NCUA works closely with the various

state supervisory authorities in both

joint and independent examination of

FISCUs. There are two basic types of

FISCU examinations in which NCUA

examiners are involved: a joint

examination with the state examiner;

and an NCUA insurance review.

Normally in a joint examination, the

state examiner is the examiner-in-charge

and there will be concurrence between

the state and NCUA examiner on all

substantive exceptions noted in the

examination report. Results of joint

examinations will normally be within

the purview of the state since the state

examiner is the examiner-in-charge.

Disputes arising from these

examinations would not normally be

subject to NCUA’s review process. An

insurance review, on the other hand, is

done by NCUA examiners; it does not

involve state examiners. Disputes

concerning material supervisory

determinations arising from insurance

reviews would normally be subject to

the review process. The final IRPS states

that FISCU appeals of material

supervisory determinations made by

NCUA examiners should first be

pursued with the appropriate NCUA

Regional Office and then, if not

safisfactorily resolved, submitted to the

Committee. The Committee chairperson

will reverify that an NCUA examiner

rather than a state examiner made the

disputed determination, and the appeal

will then be subject to review by the

Committee. Regional staff and the

Committee will consult with the state

supervisor’s office in appropriate cases.

Corporate Credit Union Appeals

The proposed IRPS did not

specifically address appeals of corporate

credit unions. The corporate credit

union program is managed by the Office

of Corporate Credit Unions located in

NCUA’s central office. NCUA examiners

(rather than state credit union

examiners) normally serve as the

examiner-in-charge for examinations of

corporate FISCUs. All federally insured

corporate credit unions (both FCUs and

FISCUs) should contact the Office of

Corporate Credit Unions rather than the

regional office concerning material

supervisory determinations made by

NCUA examiners. The same time frames

and procedures apply. Staff from the

Office of Corporate Credit Unions and

the Committee will consult with the

state supervisor’s office in appropriate

cases.

Written Appeal and Authorization by

Board of Directors

Most commenters did not address

whether the appeal should be submitted

in writing. Of the few that did address

the issue, only one commenter was

opposed. The final IRPS reflects the

requirement that the appeal be

submitted in writing. A related issue

that the Board did not specifically

request comment on is whether the

board of directors of the appealing

credit union be required to authorize the

appeal. The NCUA believes this to be a

fair requirement. The board of directors

should be made aware of and authorize

any appeal made to the Committee. This

requirement will eliminate the decision

to appeal being made by one credit

union official.

Personal Appearance

The preamble to the proposed IRPS

noted that personal appearances would

not be a regular part of the appellate

process; that personal appearances may

be requested, but the final decision

would be made by the Committee.

Twenty-nine commenters addressed

personal appearance of the appealing

party and all agreed that the credit

union should be given the opportunity

to make a personal appearance before

the Committee. The NCUA Board has

reconsidered this issue and determined

that the decision on whether to make a

personal appearance should be up to the

appealing credit union. Appealing

credit unions will be responsible for all
14798 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Notices

of their costs associated with a personal

appearance. In an attempt to save

resources of both appealing credit

unions and the NCUA, the Committee

chairperson reserves the right to first

attempt to work out the dispute via

teleconference.

Stay of Decision Pending Review

Three commenters requested that any

material supervisory determination

appealed be stayed pending the

outcome of the appellate process. This

issue was not specifically addressed in

the proposed IRPS. The NCUA Board

does not believe it appropriate to stay

examination findings pending appeal.

Safety and soundness concerns require

that examination findings remain in

place and that any action that the NCUA

deems appropriate based on these

findings be taken.

Role of NCUA Board

The proposed IRPS required that all

Committee decisions be submitted to

the NCUA Board. The Board would then

have 7 days to review the decision. If a

majority of the Board members agreed,

the decision would become final. If a

majority did not agree, the decision

would be considered by the Board on

final appeal. Six commenters addressed

this issue. One agreed with the proposal

and four stated that the decision should

not go to the Board, but that the

appealing credit union should have a

right to appeal the Committee decision

to the Board. One commenter suggested

that only Committee decisions opposed

to the appealing credit union should go

to the Board. The Board has

reconsidered this issue and determined

that all appealing credit unions as well

as the NCUA offices involved should

have a right to appeal to the Board. The

Committee decision is appealable to the

NCUA Board within 30 days of receipt

by the parties.

Other Appeals

One commenter requested that the

Board include in the IRPS other types of

appealable issues that are available to

credit unions and credit union

members. A section has been added to

the final IRPS setting forth provisions of

the NCUA Rules and Regulations which

address various formal and informal

appeals processes. Also noted in this

section are other types of disputes

(chartering, insurance applications, field

of membership expansions, merger, etc.)

which are appealable to the NCUA

Board.

Retaliation

The Act requires that NCUA ensure

that safeguards exist for protecting the

appellant from retaliation by agency

examiners. The proposed IRPS stated

that credit unions could seek redress

from alleged retaliation through NCUA’s

Office of Inspector General. Seven

commenters addressed this issue, with

five suggesting rotation of examiners if

retaliation is found to exist. The final

IRPS sets forth the types of actions that

may be taken against an NCUA

employee, including rotation of

examiners, when retaliation is found to

exist.

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Two commenters asked whether a

credit union would have to use the

appellate process before proceeding to

court on a dispute subject to the

Committee’s jurisdiction. Since the

appellate procedure is part of NCUA’s

administrative process, it appears that if

a credit union did not pursue the

process and filed directly in court, it

would not have exhausted its

administrative remedies. Unless

otherwise noted, this would be true for

any of NCUA’s appeal procedures. The

Board has determined not to address

this issue in the IRPS, as it is a principle

of general administrative law.

Regulatory Procedures

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The NCUA Board certifies that the

final rule will not have a significant

economic impact on small credit unions

(those under $1 million in assets). The

appeal procedures set forth apply

equally to all credit unions. The

procedures are not mandatory. Only

those credit unions wishing to appeal

are subject to its provisions. It is not

anticipated that small credit unions will

use the appeal procedures any more or

less than large credit unions.

Accordingly, the NCUA Board has

determined that a Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis is not required.

Executive Order 12612

Executive Order 12612 requires

NCUA to consider the effect of its

actions on state interests. The IRPS

applies to all federally insured credit

unions (both federally chartered credit

unions and federally-insured, state

chartered credit unions (FISCUs)), as

required by the Act. It may have a direct

effect on the states, on the relationship

between the national government and

the states, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government. However,

the Act requires that the process apply

to FISCUs.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Although it was noted in the proposal

that the IRPS would impose paperwork

requirements subject to the Paperwork

Reduction Act, upon further

consideration, including consultation

with the Office of Management and

Budget, the Board has concluded that

the IRPS is exempt from the Paperwork

Reduction Act pursuant to 44 U.S.C.

3518(c)(1)(B)(ii). According to this

section, the Paperwork Reduction Act

does not apply to an administrative

action or investigation involving an

agency against specific individuals or

entities.

By the National Credit Union

Administration Board on March 13, 1995.

Becky Baker,

Secretary of the Board.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth

in the preamble, IRPS 95–1 is

established as follows:

[Note: The following ruling will not appear

in the Code of Federal Regulations.]

1. Authority: Section 309 of the Riegle

Community Development and Regulatory

Improvement Act of 1994, Public Law 103–

325.

2. IRPS 95–1 is established as follows:

Interpretive Ruling and Policy

Statement 95–1—Supervisory Review

Committee

Section 309 of the Riegle Community

Development and Regulatory

Improvement Act of 1994 requires that

NCUA establish an independent intraagency appellate process to review

material supervisory determinations.

The NCUA Board hereby establishes a

Supervisory Review Committee

(Committee) to implement Section 309.

It is NCUA policy to maintain good

communication with all credit unions it

supervises. Credit unions, examiners

and regional and central office staff are

encouraged to resolve disagreements

informally and expeditiously. The

NCUA Board expects that most disputes

will be handled in that manner. The

Supervisory Review Committee and

other appeals processes are available for

certain disputes that cannot be resolved

informally.

A—Committee Structure, Scope and

Procedures

The Supervisory Review Committee

shall consist of three regular members of

the NCUA’s senior staff as appointed by

the NCUA Chairman. None of the

members shall be currently serving as a

Regional Director, Associate Regional

Director, Executive Director or

Executive Assistant to a Board Member.

One member shall be designated by the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Notices 14799

NCUA Chairman as chairperson. All

three Committee members shall serve

for one year terms and may be

reappointed for additional terms. Each

member of the Committee shall have

one vote and a quorum (two members)

shall be present at each Committee

meeting. Meetings may be held in

person or via teleconference. A majority

vote of the full Committee (two votes) is

required for action on an appeal.

Regular Committee meetings shall

generally be held quarterly. Additional

meetings will be scheduled or regular

meetings canceled, as appropriate, by

the chairperson on an as needed basis.

Appeals of material supervisory

determinations made by NCUA may be

made by all federally insured credit

unions (federal credit unions (FCUs)

and federally-insured, state chartered

credit unions (FISCUs)).

Material supervisory determinations

are limited to: (1) Composite CAMEL

ratings of 3, 4, and 5 and all component

ratings of those composite ratings; (2)

adequacy of loan loss reserve

provisions; and (3) loan classifications

on loans that are significant as

determined by the appealing credit

union.

An FCU, other than a corporate FCU,

must contact the regional office

regarding the examiner’s decision

within 30 days of the examiner’s final

determination. The decision must be

appealed to (postmarked or received by)

the Committee either 30 days after a

regional determination or 60 days after

the regional office has been contacted if

it has not made a determination.

A FISCU, other than a corporate

FISCU, must contact the Regional Office

within 30 days of the NCUA examiner’s

final decision. The Region will verify

that the determination being appealed

was made by an NCUA examiner. If the

decision was made by the state, the

appeal will be turned over to the state

for appropriate action. If the decision

was made by the NCUA examiner, the

dispute will be handed by the Region

and become appealable to the

Committee either 30 days after a

regional determination or 60 days after

the regional office has been contacted if

it has not made a determination. The

Committee chairperson will reverify

that the determination was made by

NCUA. Regional staff and the

Committee will notify and consult with

the state supervisory authority in

appropriate cases.

All federally insured corporate credit

unions (FCUs and FISCUs) must contact

the Office of Corporate Credit Unions

concerning its examiner’s final

determination and then the Committee

within the same time frames. Staff from

the Office of Corporate Credit Unions

and the Committee will consult with the

state supervisory authority in

appropriate cases involving corporate

FISCUs.

The board of directors of the

appealing credit union must authorize

that the appeal be filed. Appeals shall

be submitted in writing and shall be

mailed or delivered to Chairman,

Supervisory Review Committee, NCUA,

1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA

22314–3428.

Appeals may be made by letter, and

shall include the name of the appellant

credit union, the material supervisory

determination being appealed and the

reasons for the appeal. Appellants are

encouraged to submit all information

and supporting documentation relevant

to the matter in dispute.

Appellants are entitled to a personal

appearance before the Committee. The

Committee chairperson reserves the

right, however, to attempt to work out

the dispute through teleconference.

The material supervisory

determination remains in affect pending

appeal. The appeal does not prevent the

NCUA from taking any action, either

formal or informal, that it deems

appropriate during the pendency of the

appeal.

The Committee may request

additional information from the

appellant and/or the Regional Office

within 15 days of its receipt of the

appeal. The information must be

submitted to the Committee within 15

days of receipt of the Committee

request. The Committee shall make a

determination on the appeal within 30

days from the date of the receipt of an

appeal by the Committee or of its receipt

of any requested additional information.

These time requirements are subject to

adjustment by the Committee, whether

on its own or upon request of the

appellant or the Region involved.

The Committee decision is appealable

to the NCUA Board within 30 days of

receipt by the parties.

B—Other Appeals

Procedures for various formal and

informal adjudicative and nonadjudicative actions and proceedings

not covered by the Supervisory Review

Committee are found in Parts 709

(creditor claim appeals), 745 (share

insurance appeals), 792 (Freedom of

Information Act appeals) and 747

(appeals of various administrative and

enforcement actions) of the NCUA Rules

and Regulations (12 CFR 709, 745, 792,

and 747). These parts should be

reviewed to determine the procedures

which apply for a particular appeal. In

addition, the NCUA Board serves as the

final administrative decision maker for

major disputes that are not otherwise

covered by this IRPS or Parts 709, 745,

792 or 747. These include disputes over

chartering, insurance applications, field

of membership expansion, merger,

certain corporate credit union matters,

charter changes and letters of

understanding and agreement. These

issues should first be pursued through

the appropriate Regional Office or the

Office of Corporate Credit Unions.

Appeals concerning these matters

should be addressed to the NCUA Board

and submitted through the appropriate

Regional Office or the Office of

Corporate Credit Unions.

C—Retaliation

Alleged acts of retaliation should be

reported to NCUA’s Inspector General,

who is authorized by Congress, under

the Inspector General Act, to receive

and investigate complaints and other

information regarding abuse in agency

programs and operations.

Any retaliation by NCUA staff against

a credit union making any type of

appeal will subject the employee to

appropriate disciplinary or remedial

action by the appropriate supervisor.

Such disciplinary or remedial action

may include oral or written warning or

admonishment, reprimand, suspension

or separation from employment, change

in assigned duties, or disqualification

from a particular assignment, including

prohibition from participating in any

examination of the credit union that was

the subject of the retaliation.

[FR Doc. 95–6705 Filed 3–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7535–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Documents Containing Reporting or

Recordkeeping Requirements; Office

of Management and Budget (OMB)

Review

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC).

ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of

information collection.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) has recently

submitted to OMB for review the

following proposal for collection of

information under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35).

1. Type of submission, new, revision

or extension: New.

2. The title of the information

collections: FOIA Customer Satisfaction

Survey.