[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 53 (Monday, March 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14795-14799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6705]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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. [[Page 14796]] 

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. Twenty-two of these 
commenters suggested adding (or completely substituting) non- NCUA 
staff to the Committee to ensure that the Committee would exercise 
independent judgment. The Board does not have the authority to place 
non-NCUA 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 non-NCUA 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. 
[[Page 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 [[Page 14798]] 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 
intra-agency 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 
[[Page 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 non-
adjudicative 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