77112 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 241 / Friday, December 16, 2022 / Notices 

DATES: Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be 

submitted on or before January 17, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to 

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 

Find this particular information 

collection by selecting ‘‘Currently under 

30-day Review—Open for Public 

Comments’’ or by using the search 

function. Your comment must be 

submitted into www.reginfo.gov per the 

above instructions for it to be 

considered. In addition to submitting in 

www.reginfo.gov also send a copy of 

your comment on the proposed 

information collection to Nicole Ongele, 

FCC, via email to PRA@fcc.gov and to 

Nicole.Ongele@fcc.gov. Include in the 

comments the OMB control number as 

shown in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information or copies of the 

information collection, contact Nicole 

Ongele at (202) 418–2991. To view a 

copy of this information collection 

request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) go 

to the web page http://www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the 

section of the web page called 

‘‘Currently Under Review,’’ (3) click on 

the downward-pointing arrow in the 

‘‘Select Agency’’ box below the 

‘‘Currently Under Review’’ heading, (4) 

select ‘‘Federal Communications 

Commission’’ from the list of agencies 

presented in the ‘‘Select Agency’’ box, 

(5) click the ‘‘Submit’’ button to the 

right of the ‘‘Select Agency’’ box, (6) 

when the list of FCC ICRs currently 

under review appears, look for the Title 

of this ICR and then click on the ICR 

Reference Number. A copy of the FCC 

submission to OMB will be displayed. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As part of 

its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork burdens, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the FCC invited 

the general public and other Federal 

Agencies to take this opportunity to 

comment on the following information 

collection. Comments are requested 

concerning: (a) Whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the Commission, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

Commission’s burden estimates; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information collected; and 

(d) ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on the 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), 

the FCC seeks specific comment on how 

it might ‘‘further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’ 

OMB Control Number: 3060–1226. 

Title: Receiving Written Consent for 

Communication with Base Stations in 

Canada; Issuing Written Consent to 

Licensees from Canada for 

Communication with Base Stations in 

the U.S.; Description of Interoperable 

Communications with Licensees from 

Canada. 

Form Number: N/A. 

Type of Review: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondents: State, Local, or Tribal 

government agencies. 

Number of Respondents and 

Responses: 3,215 respondents; 3,215 

responses. 

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 

hours—1 hour. 

Frequency of Response: On occasion 

reporting requirement. 

Obligation to Respond: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits. Written 

consent from the licensee of a base 

station repeater is required before first 

responders from the other country can 

begin communicating with that base 

stations repeater. Applicants are advised 

to include a description of how they 

intend to interoperate with licensees 

from Canada when filing applications to 

operate under any of the scenarios 

described in Public Notice DA 16–739 

in order to ensure that the application 

is not inadvertently rejected by Canada. 

Statutory authority for these collections 

are contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 301, 

303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 

325(b), 332, 336(f), 338, 339, 340, 399b, 

403, 534, 535, 1404, 1452, and 1454 of 

the Communications Act of 1934. 

Total Annual Burden: 5,626 hours. 

Total Annual Cost: None. 

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No 

impact(s). 

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: 

Applicants who include a description of 

how they intend to interoperate with 

licensees from Canada need not include 

any confidential information with their 

description. Nonetheless, there is a need 

for confidentiality with respect to all 

applications filed with the Commission 

through its Universal Licensing System 

(ULS). Although ULS stores all 

information pertaining to the individual 

license via an FCC Registration Number 

(FRN), confidential information is 

accessible only by persons or entities 

that hold the password for each account, 

and the Commission’s licensing staff. 

Information on private land mobile 

radio licensees is maintained in the 

Commission’s system of records, FCC/ 

WTB–1, ‘‘Wireless Services Licensing 

Records.’’ The licensee records will be 

publicly available and routinely used in 

accordance with subsection (b) of the 

Privacy Act. TIN Numbers and material 

which is afforded confidential treatment 

pursuant to a request made under 47 

CFR 0.459 will not be available for 

Public inspection. Any personally 

identifiable information (PII) that 

individual applicants provide is covered 

by a system of records, FCC/WTB–1, 

‘‘Wireless Services Licensing Records,’’ 

and these and all other records may be 

disclosed pursuant to the Routine Uses 

as stated in this system of records 

notice. 

Needs and Uses: This collection will 

be submitted as an extension of an 

existing collection after this 60-day 

comment period to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) in order 

to obtain the full three-year clearance. 

The purpose of requiring an agency to 

issue written consent before allowing 

first responders from the other country 

to communicate with its base station 

repeater ensures to that the licensee of 

that base stations repeater (host 

licensee) maintains control and is 

responsible for its operation at all times. 

The host licensee can use the written 

consent to ensure that first responders 

from the other country understand the 

proper procedures and protocols before 

they begin communicating with its base 

station repeater. Furthermore, when 

reviewing applications filed by border 

area licensees, Commission staff will 

use any description of how an applicant 

intends to interoperate with licensees 

from Canada, including copies of any 

written agreements, in order to 

coordinate the application with 

Innovation, Science and Economic 

Development Canada (ISED) and reduce 

the risk of an inadvertent rejection by 

ISED. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2022–27287 Filed 12–15–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE 

CORPORATION 

RIN 3064–ZA20 

Guidelines for Appeals of Material 

Supervisory Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 241 / Friday, December 16, 2022 / Notices 77113 

1 12 U.S.C. 4806(a). 

2 12 U.S.C. 4806(f)(2). 

3 12 U.S.C. 4806(b). 

4 60 FR 15923 (Mar. 28, 1995). 

5 86 FR 6880 (Jan. 25, 2021). 

6 87 FR 30942 (May 20, 2022). 

ACTION: Notice of guidelines. 

SUMMARY: On December 13, 2022, the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

adopted revised Guidelines for Appeals 

of Material Supervisory Determinations 

(Guidelines). The revisions expand and 

clarify the role of the agency’s 

Ombudsman, adding the Ombudsman to 

the Supervision Appeals Review 

Committee as a non-voting member, and 

require that materials considered by the 

Supervision Appeals Review Committee 

be shared with both parties to the 

appeal on a timely basis, subject to 

applicable legal limitations on 

disclosure. In addition, the revised 

Guidelines allow insured depository 

institutions to request a stay of a 

material supervisory determination 

while an appeal is pending. 

DATES: The revised Guidelines become 

applicable December 13, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sheikha Kapoor, Senior Counsel, Legal 

Division, 202–898–3960, skapoor@

fdic.gov; James Watts, Counsel, Legal 

Division, 202–898–6678, jwatts@

fdic.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 309(a) of the Riegle 

Community Development and 

Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 

(Riegle Act) required the FDIC (as well 

as the other Federal banking agencies 

and the National Credit Union 

Administration) to establish an 

‘‘independent intra-agency appellate 

process’’ to review material supervisory 

determinations.1 The statute 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.’’ 2 In the appeals process, 

the FDIC is required to ensure that: (1) 

an IDI’s appeal of a material supervisory 

determination is heard and decided 

expeditiously; and (2) appropriate 

safeguards exist for protecting 

appellants from retaliation by agency 

examiners.3

In 1995, the FDIC adopted Guidelines 

for Appeals of Material Supervisory 

Determinations to implement section 

309(a). At that time, the FDIC’s Board of 

Directors established the SARC to 

consider and decide appeals of material 

supervisory determinations.4 The Board 

has modified the composition of the 

SARC over the years, but as of 2021, the 

SARC included: one inside member of 

the FDIC’s Board of Directors (serving as 

Chairperson); one deputy or special 

assistant to each of the other inside 

Board members; and the General 

Counsel as a non-voting member. 

In January 2021, the FDIC adopted 

Guidelines that replaced the SARC as 

the final level of review in the appellate 

process with a standalone office within 

the FDIC, designated the Office of 

Supervisory Appeals (Office).5 After 

appealing a material supervisory 

determination to the relevant Division 

Director, an IDI would have had the 

option to appeal to the Office. If a 

material supervisory determination was 

appealed to the Office, a three- or fivemember panel of reviewing officials 

would consider the appeal and issue a 

written decision to the IDI. The 

Guidelines did not provide for 

additional review beyond the Office. 

Earlier this year, the FDIC revised the 

Guidelines by restoring the SARC as the 

final level of review of material 

supervisory determinations made by the 

FDIC.6 The revised Guidelines 

reconstituted the SARC as it existed in 

2021. The revised Guidelines also 

included procedural changes to reflect 

the restoration of the SARC structure, 

such as granting specific authorities to 

the SARC Chairperson. The FDIC also 

eliminated a provision that had been 

added specifically to accommodate an 

independent Office of Supervisory 

Appeals, which required 

communications between the Office and 

either supervisory staff or the appealing 

IDI, including materials submitted to the 

Office for review, to be shared with the 

other party to the appeal. 

The FDIC invited comments on all 

aspects of the revised Guidelines, 

including, in particular, how the 

process could be further enhanced to 

include the Ombudsman’s perspective. 

Commenters generally disagreed with 

the restoration of the SARC structure, 

but supported expanding the 

Ombudsman’s role in the appeals 

process. In addition, commenters 

recommended changes to other aspects 

of the appeals process, including the 

sharing of information with an 

appealing institution, the standard of 

review, and staying supervisory actions 

while an appeal is pending. 

II. October 2022 Proposal To Amend 

the Guidelines 

In October 2022, the FDIC proposed 

further amendments to the Guidelines to 

incorporate certain suggestions made by 

commenters and address concerns 

raised by the commenters. Recognizing 

the need for a balance of perspectives to 

be reflected in the appellate process, the 

FDIC proposed to add the Ombudsman 

to the SARC as a non-voting member. 

Adding the Ombudsman to the SARC as 

a non-voting member would minimize 

any potential for conflict with the 

Ombudsman’s statutory role as a liaison 

between the agency and any affected 

person. As a non-voting member, the 

Ombudsman would be expected to 

attend SARC meetings, participate in 

discussions, and offer views, opinions, 

and advice to the SARC during its 

deliberations based on the 

Ombudsman’s perspective as a neutral 

advocated for a fair process, and as a 

party independent of the supervisory 

process. Under the proposed 

Guidelines, the Ombudsman would also 

have access to all materials reviewed by 

the SARC. 

The FDIC also recognized that adding 

the Ombudsman to the SARC could 

cause IDIs to reconsider whether they 

should share confidential information 

with the Ombudsman, given that the 

Ombudsman could be involved in 

deciding a potentially related 

supervisory appeal. The FDIC proposed 

to address this by allowing a SARC 

member to designate any member of his 

or her staff within the member’s area of 

responsibility to serve on the SARC on 

his or her behalf. For example, if the 

Ombudsman were unable to serve as a 

SARC member with respect to a 

particular appeal because of information 

learned from meeting with the 

institution, he or she might designate a 

Regional Ombudsman who has not been 

involved in the matter to serve on the 

SARC instead. 

To address concerns expressed by 

commenters about possible retaliatory 

actions if an IDI submits a supervisory 

appeal, the proposal required the 

Ombudsman to monitor the supervisory 

process following an IDI’s submission of 

an appeal, and noted that the 

Ombudsman will be expected to report 

to the Board on these matters 

periodically. 

The FDIC also sought to address 

commenters’ concerns regarding the 

elimination of a provision that generally 

required communications between the 

Office and supervisory staff to be shared 

with the appealing institution. The FDIC 

agreed that basic notions of fairness 

support a requirement that both parties 

to the appeal are aware of the 

information considered by the decisionmaker. The proposal required that all 

materials considered by the SARC be 

shared with both parties to the appeal, 

subject to applicable legal limitations on 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
77114 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 241 / Friday, December 16, 2022 / Notices 

7For example, the disclosure of confidential 

supervisory information and certain other types of 

information is restricted under 12 CFR part 309. 

Thus, to the extent that materials shared with the 

SARC include such confidential supervisory 

information relating to another IDI, for example, 

that material could be redacted. 

disclosure.7 The Ombudsman would 

oversee this aspect of the process, 

verifying that both parties have received 

all materials considered by the SARC. 

Related to the proposed addition of 

the Ombudsman as a non-voting 

member of the SARC, the FDIC 

proposed to make certain conforming 

changes to other provisions of the 

Guidelines in section G.4 and prior 

section J. The FDIC also proposed to 

amend section G.1 of the Guidelines to 

require copies of all relevant materials 

related to an appeal to be provided to 

the Office of the Ombudsman. 

The FDIC further proposed to amend 

the Guidelines to expressly permit IDIs 

to request a stay of an action or 

determination from the appropriate 

Division Director while its appeal is 

pending. The request would be in 

writing and include the reasons for the 

stay. The Division Director would have 

discretion to grant a stay, and would 

generally decide whether a stay is 

granted within 21 days of receiving the 

IDI’s request. The Division Director 

could grant a stay subject to certain 

conditions where appropriate; for 

example, a stay could be time-limited. 

III. Discussion of Comments 

The FDIC received three comment 

letters in response to the proposed 

Guidelines: (1) a joint letter from six 

banking industry trade associations; (2) 

a letter from a bank holding company; 

and (3) a letter from a nonprofit think 

tank. While commenters were 

appreciative of some of the FDIC’s 

proposed changes, they all had further 

suggestions. 

SARC Membership 

Commenters were generally 

supportive of including the 

Ombudsman as a member of the SARC. 

While commenters viewed this change 

as an improvement, one commenter 

questioned why the Ombudsman would 

be made a non-voting member, rather 

than a voting member, of the SARC. 

A commenter suggested that the 

Guidelines specify the criteria for 

minimum qualifications to serve as a 

voting member of the SARC when an 

individual is designated by an FDIC 

Director, stating that this would 

promote greater credibility and trust in 

the process. The commenter also 

recommended that the FDIC develop 

and maintain a list of qualified 

candidates outside the FDIC to serve on 

the SARC, including current state 

supervisors (from states and regions 

outside of where the appeal originated) 

and retired examiners, and allow FDIC 

Directors to appoint individuals from 

this list to serve on the SARC. 

Stay of a Supervisory Decision or Action 

Commenters generally appreciated the 

proposal to allow institutions to request 

a stay of a material supervisory 

determination while an appeal is 

pending. However, one commenter 

suggested requiring the SARC, rather 

than the appropriate Division Director, 

to decide requests for stays. The 

commenter recommended that the FDIC 

set specific standards for evaluating stay 

requests, and making public the basis 

for denial of any stay request (subject to 

the protection of confidential 

information). Another commenter 

suggested that a stay should be 

automatic unless the relevant Division 

Director can make a showing in writing 

that a stay would pose a threat to the 

safety and soundness of the bank or 

otherwise adversely impact the banking 

system. 

Appeal Directly to SARC and SARC 

Standard of Review 

One commenter suggested giving 

institutions the option to bypass the 

Division Director level review and 

appeal directly to the SARC. This 

commenter also suggested requiring the 

SARC to conduct a de novo review and 

prohibiting the SARC from relying on 

the opinions and conclusions of the 

Division Directors, including their 

findings of facts. 

Sharing of Information 

One commenter suggested that the 

FDIC prohibit ex parte communications 

(including oral communications) and 

require any ex parte communications 

that inadvertently occur to be 

memorialized in writing and made 

available to both the SARC and the 

appealing bank on a timely basis. 

Additionally, the commenter 

suggested that the FDIC clarify that both 

parties will receive the information 

considered by the SARC on a timely 

basis prior to the issuance of the SARC’s 

decision, so that both parties will have 

an opportunity to correct the factual 

record prior to a SARC decision. 

Burden of Proof 

A commenter stated that the burden 

of proof in appeals proceedings should 

not be on the institution, noting that this 

is not required by statute, and the 

appellate process is not governed by the 

Administrative Procedure Act or other 

formal judicial review procedures. The 

commenter stated that this reinforces a 

structure under which an appeal cannot 

succeed unless the decision maker rules 

that the people they supervise are not 

merely wrong, but clearly wrong. 

Inspector General Review 

One commenter recommended that 

the FDIC instruct the FDIC’s Office of 

the Inspector General (OIG) conduct 

periodic reviews of the appellate 

process as well as the decisions or 

outcomes of appeals, and publish these 

findings on the FDIC’s website. The 

commenter stated that the FDIC Board 

should annually review and approve the 

OIG’s findings and make them public. 

IV. Final Guidelines 

The FDIC is amending the Guidelines 

generally as proposed, with additional 

changes intended to address certain 

areas raised by the commenters. As 

discussed further below, the revised 

Guidelines would include the following 

changes: (1) adding the Ombudsman as 

a non-voting member of the SARC, (2) 

requiring all materials considered by the 

SARC to be shared with both parties to 

the appeal on a timely basis, subject to 

applicable legal limitations on 

disclosure, and (3) requiring the 

Division Director, when deciding 

whether to issue a stay with respect to 

a material supervisory determination, to 

provide the institution with the 

reason(s) for his or her decision in 

writing. 

Ombudsman’s Role 

The revised Guidelines include the 

Ombudsman as a non-voting member of 

the SARC. The FDIC believes that this 

provides for a balance of perspectives 

while minimizing potential for conflict 

with the Ombudsman’s statutory role 

that may result if the Ombudsman were 

a voting member. The FDIC’s 

Ombudsman has a longstanding 

commitment to neutrality that could be 

compromised if the Ombudsman were 

to serve as a voting member of the 

SARC. If the Ombudsman were a voting 

member, he or she might decide a 

matter against the institution, and this 

possibility could affect IDIs’ willingness 

to utilize the Ombudsman’s services. As 

a non-voting member, the Ombudsman 

will attend SARC meetings, participate 

in discussions, and offer views, 

opinions, and advice to the SARC 

during its deliberations based on the 

Ombudsman’s perspective as a neutral 

advocate for a fair process, and as a 

party independent of the supervisory 

process. As a SARC member, the 

Ombudsman will have access to all 

materials reviewed by the SARC. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 241 / Friday, December 16, 2022 / Notices 77115 

8Specifically, G.4 is amended to eliminate the 

reference to the Ombudsman submitting views in 

writing to the SARC. As explained in the proposal, 

a separate mechanism for providing views to the 

SARC is not necessary because the Ombudsman 

will now be a SARC member. Section J of the 

Guidelines states that the subject matter of a 

material supervisory determination is not eligible 

for consideration by the Ombudsman, and is also 

being eliminated to accommodate the 

Ombudsman’s membership on the SARC. 

9See 82 FR 34522, 34525 (July 25, 2017). 

10 12 U.S.C. 4806(f)(2). 

Consistent with these changes, the 

Guidelines include conforming 

amendments in sections G.4 and J.8

In addition, the FDIC is adopting the 

proposed provision of the Guidelines 

that would require the Ombudsman to 

monitor the supervisory process 

following an IDI’s submission of an 

appeal. This should help to alleviate 

concerns regarding potential retaliation. 

The Ombudsman will be expected to 

report to the Board on these matters 

periodically. 

Consistent with the proposal, the 

revised Guidelines allow a SARC 

member to designate any member of his 

or her staff within the member’s area of 

responsibility to serve on the SARC on 

his or her behalf. For example, if the 

Ombudsman is unable to serve as a 

SARC member with respect to a 

particular appeal because of information 

learned from meeting with the 

institution, he or she might designate a 

Regional Ombudsman who has not been 

involved in the matter to serve on the 

SARC instead. 

The Ombudsman also oversees the 

sharing of information considered by 

the SARC in connection with the 

appeal, as described in further detail 

below. 

Sharing of Information 

As noted above, a commenter 

appreciated the proposed provision that 

would require information considered 

by the SARC to be shared with both 

parties to the appeal, subject to 

applicable legal limitations on 

disclosure. However, the commenter 

suggested that the FDIC clarify the 

timing of when parties will receive this 

information. The FDIC agrees that such 

clarification would be useful. The 

revised Guidelines state that 

information considered by the SARC 

(subject to applicable legal limitations 

on disclosure) will be shared on a 

timely basis. This information will be 

provided in time for the appealing 

institution to prepare for a meeting with 

the SARC, if oral presentation is 

requested. The Ombudsman will 

oversee this aspect of the process, 

verifying that both parties have received 

all materials considered by the SARC. 

Stay of Material Supervisory 

Determinations 

As discussed above, commenters 

raised concerns relating to the proposed 

provision of the Guidelines that would 

allow institutions to request a stay of a 

supervisory determination while an 

appeal is pending, requesting that the 

SARC decide requests for stays. The 

revised Guidelines provide that requests 

for a stay should be directed to and 

decided by the Division Director. In 

order to preserve the SARC’s 

independent judgment based on the 

complete record of the appeal as 

provided by the appealing bank and the 

responsible supervisory staff, decisionmaking authority regarding a request for 

a stay will remain with the appropriate 

Division Director. The FDIC also 

appreciates the recommendation that 

any decision with respect to a stay 

include the reason(s) for the decision in 

writing, and is including this in the 

revised Guidelines. This is consistent 

with current practice. In terms of 

standards for evaluating a request for a 

stay, the FDIC expects that the decision 

may be based on a number of factors, 

including the likelihood of irreparable 

and/or material harm. The resolution of 

procedural requests, including a request 

for a stay, will typically be set forth in 

the SARC’s decision with respect to an 

appeal, which will be published as 

provided by the Guidelines. 

The FDIC further notes that if an 

institution is concerned about the 

impact of a supervisory determination, 

section G of the Guidelines also 

provides for expedited review by the 

SARC under appropriate circumstances. 

In some circumstances, this course of 

action may be more appropriate than 

requesting a stay of a supervisory 

decision or action. 

V. Responses to Other Comments 

SARC Membership 

A commenter suggested that the 

Guidelines specify the criteria for 

minimum qualifications to serve as a 

voting member of the SARC when an 

individual is designated by an FDIC 

Director, stating that this would 

promote greater credibility and trust in 

the process. SARC members that have 

been designated by Directors are special 

assistants or deputies to that Director 

and have a broad view of FDIC policy 

due to their positions. They are agency 

officials independent from the staff that 

carry out day-to-day supervisory 

responsibilities, but have substantial 

exposure to the supervisory process, 

providing a strong foundation for 

reviewing material supervisory 

determinations. 

Appeal Directly to SARC 

A commenter suggested giving 

institutions the option to bypass the 

Division Director level review and 

appeal directly to the SARC. The FDIC 

has previously noted, however, that its 

experience in administering the 

appellate process suggests that Divisionlevel review resolves issues, narrowing 

the matters in dispute prior to SARC 

review or eliminating the need for an 

appeal to the SARC.9 Division-level 

review also ensures that arguments are 

more fully developed for the SARC’s 

review, and allows the Division Director 

to correct errors and maintain 

consistency across the organization. The 

Division Director also has the authority 

to refer an appeal directly to the SARC 

under the current Guidelines. 

Structure of Appeals Process 

As noted above, the commenters did 

not support the approach reflected in 

the proposed Guidelines, with two 

commenters recommending that the 

either FDIC reinstate the Office of 

Supervisory Appeals or develop and 

maintain a list of qualified candidates 

outside the FDIC to serve on the SARC. 

The Riegle Act requires appeals to be 

decided by agency officials, as it defines 

‘‘independent appellate process’’ as 

‘‘review by an agency official who does 

not directly or indirectly report to the 

agency official who made the material 

supervisory determination under 

review.’’ 10 Review of material 

supervisory determinations by a Boardlevel committee such as the SARC also 

promotes accountability in the 

supervisory appeals process. Ultimate 

responsibility for the FDIC’s supervision 

function is vested in the agency’s Board 

of Directors by statute, and the SARC 

structure ensures that the Board remains 

accountable for the agency’s supervisory 

determinations. Hiring individuals from 

outside the agency to make final 

supervisory decisions was a significant 

departure from the FDIC’s established 

approach for more than 25 years of 

reliance on a Board-level committee and 

could undermine accountability for 

supervisory determinations. Moreover, 

this approach differed significantly from 

how the other agencies subject to the 

Riegle Act carry out their 

responsibilities under the Act. While 

there is some diversity of approach, the 

Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the 

Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency, and the National Credit 

Union Administration utilize full-time, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
77116 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 241 / Friday, December 16, 2022 / Notices 

internal staff or Board members in their 

appeals processes. 

While reinstatement of the SARC was 

not the subject of the proposal, one 

commenter asserted that the rescission 

of the Office of Supervisory Appeals 

without notice and comment was 

inconsistent with the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA) and that the 

proposed Guidelines do not 

meaningfully address concerns about 

the appeals process. Taking action to 

restore the SARC structure quickly 

avoided a situation in which an appeal 

might be filed while the Guidelines and 

the appropriate appeals structure were 

under review. The FDIC also notes that 

while notice and comment was not 

required, the FDIC requested comment, 

and subsequently further solicited 

comment on additional changes. 

SARC Standard of Review 

A commenter suggested requiring the 

SARC to conduct a de novo review and 

prohibiting the SARC from relying on 

the opinions and conclusions of the 

Division Directors, including their 

findings of facts. The SARC reviews an 

appeal for consistency with the policies, 

practices, and mission of the FDIC and 

the overall reasonableness of, and the 

support offered for, the positions 

advanced. The FDIC believes this 

standard of review is appropriate at the 

final level of review, and is retaining it 

in the revised Guidelines. The FDIC also 

notes that use of a de novo standard at 

the final level of review would be 

inconsistent with the appeals processes 

used at other banking agencies, such as 

the Board of Governors of the Federal 

Reserve System. However, the Division 

Director considers whether material 

supervisory determinations are 

consistent with applicable laws, 

regulations, and policy, and makes his 

or her own supervisory determination 

without deferring to the judgments of 

either party. The FDIC has previously 

noted that this approach may reasonably 

be characterized or described as a de 

novo standard of review, while in fact 

providing more specificity on the actual 

considerations to be applied. 

Burden of Proof 

Section G.3 of the current Guidelines 

provides that the burden of proof as to 

all matters at issue in the appeal rests 

with the institution. A commenter 

raised concern with this provision, 

stating that an appeal cannot succeed 

unless the decision maker finds that a 

determination is not merely wrong, but 

clearly wrong. This conflates the burden 

of proof with the standard of review. 

The burden of proof only provides that 

the institution must come forward with 

evidence or arguments in order to make 

its case. The standard of review 

provides the level of proof demanded to 

satisfy that burden. The Guidelines do 

not require the institution to 

demonstrate that the determination is 

clearly wrong. Rather, the SARC reviews 

whether a material supervisory 

determination is consistent with the 

established policies, practices, and 

mission of the FDIC, as well as the 

overall reasonableness of, and the 

support offered for, the positions 

advanced. 

Inspector General Review 

As noted above, a commenter 

recommended that the FDIC instruct the 

FDIC’s Office of the Inspector General to 

conduct periodic reviews of the 

appellate process, and recommended 

that the FDIC’s Board annually review 

and approve the OIG’s findings and 

make them public. The FDIC 

appreciates this suggestion, but notes 

that the OIG is an independent office 

that conducts audits, evaluations, 

investigations, and other reviews of 

FDIC programs and operations. The 

FDIC generally does not instruct the OIG 

to initiate particular reviews. With 

respect to review of OIG findings, the 

FDIC’s Audit Committee reviews all 

reports from the OIG relating to FDIC’s 

operations. However, the FDIC is not in 

a position to approve the findings of the 

OIG, which is an independent office. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation adopts Guidelines for 

Appeals 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) (Riegle 

Act) required 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 Guidelines for Appeals 

of Material Supervisory Determinations 

(Guidelines) describe the types of 

determinations that are eligible for 

review and the process by which 

appeals will be considered and decided. 

The procedures set forth in these 

Guidelines establish an appeals process 

for the review of material supervisory 

determinations by the Supervision 

Appeals Review Committee (SARC). 

B. SARC Membership 

The following individuals comprise 

the three (3) voting members of the 

SARC: (1) One inside FDIC Board 

member, either the Chairperson, the 

Vice Chairperson, or the FDIC Director 

(Appointive), as designated by the FDIC 

Chairperson (this person would serve as 

the Chairperson of the SARC); and (2) 

one deputy or special assistant to each 

of the inside FDIC Board members who 

are not designated as the SARC 

Chairperson. The General Counsel and 

the Ombudsman are non-voting 

members of the SARC. The FDIC 

Chairperson may designate alternate 

member(s) to the SARC if there are 

vacancies so long as the alternate 

member was not involved in making or 

affirming the material supervisory 

determination under review. A member 

of the SARC may designate and 

authorize a member of his or her staff 

within the member’s area of 

responsibility related to cases before the 

SARC to act on his or her behalf. 

C. Institutions Eligible to Appeal 

The Guidelines apply to the insured 

depository institutions that the FDIC 

supervises (i.e., insured State 

nonmember banks, insured branches of 

foreign banks, and state savings 

associations), and to other insured 

depository institutions for which the 

FDIC makes material supervisory 

determinations. 

D. Determinations Subject to Appeal 

An institution may appeal any 

material supervisory determination 

pursuant to the procedures set forth in 

these Guidelines. 

(1) Material supervisory 

determinations include: 

(a) CAMELS ratings under the 

Uniform Financial Institutions Rating 

System; 

(b) IT ratings under the Uniform 

Rating System for Information 

Technology; 

(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 

appropriateness of loan loss reserve 

provisions; 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 241 / Friday, December 16, 2022 / Notices 77117 

(j) Classifications of loans and other 

assets in dispute the amount of which, 

individually or in the aggregate, exceeds 

10 percent of an institution’s total 

capital; 

(k) Determinations relating to 

violations of a statute or regulation that 

may affect the capital, earnings, or 

operating flexibility of an institution, or 

otherwise affect the nature and level of 

supervisory oversight accorded an 

institution; 

(l) Truth in Lending Act (Regulation 

Z) restitution; 

(m) Filings made pursuant to 12 CFR 

303.11(f), for which a request for 

reconsideration has been granted, other 

than denials of a change in bank control, 

change in senior executive officer or 

board of directors, or denial of an 

application pursuant to section 19 of the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act), 

12 U.S.C. 1829 (which are contained in 

12 CFR 308, subparts D, L, and M, 

respectively), if the filing was originally 

denied by the Director, Deputy Director, 

or Associate Director of the Division of 

Depositor and Consumer Protection 

(DCP) or the Division of Risk 

Management Supervision (RMS); 

(n) Decisions to initiate informal 

enforcement actions (such as 

memoranda of understanding); 

(o) Determinations regarding the 

institution’s level of compliance with a 

formal enforcement action; however, if 

the FDIC determines that the lack of 

compliance with an existing formal 

enforcement action requires an 

additional formal enforcement action, 

the proposed new enforcement action is 

not appealable; 

(p) Matters requiring board attention; 

and 

(q) Any other supervisory 

determination (unless otherwise not 

eligible for appeal) that may affect the 

capital, earnings, operating flexibility, 

or capital category for prompt corrective 

action purposes of an institution, or that 

otherwise affects the nature and level of 

supervisory oversight accorded an 

institution. 

(2) Material supervisory 

determinations do not include: 

(a) Decisions to appoint a conservator 

or receiver for an insured depository 

institution, and other decisions made in 

furtherance of the resolution or 

receivership process, including but not 

limited to determinations pursuant to 

parts 370, 371, and 381, and § 360.10 of 

the FDIC’s rules and regulations; 

(b) Decisions to take prompt 

corrective action pursuant to section 38 

of the FDI Act, 12 U.S.C. 1831o; 

(c) Determinations for which other 

appeals procedures exist (such as 

determinations of deposit insurance 

assessment risk classifications and 

payment calculations); and 

(d) Formal enforcement-related 

actions and decisions, including 

determinations and the underlying facts 

and circumstances that form the basis of 

a recommended or pending formal 

enforcement action. 

(3) A formal enforcement-related 

action or decision commences, and 

becomes unappealable, when the FDIC 

initiates a formal investigation under 12 

U.S.C. 1820(c) (Order of Investigation), 

issues a notice of charges or a notice of 

assessment under 12 U.S.C. 1818 or 

other applicable laws (Notice of 

Charges), provides the institution with a 

draft consent order, or otherwise 

provides written notice to the 

institution that the FDIC is reviewing 

the facts and circumstances presented to 

determine if a formal enforcement 

action is merited under applicable 

statutes or published enforcementrelated policies of the FDIC, including 

written notice of a referral to the 

Attorney General pursuant to the Equal 

Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) or a 

notice to the Secretary of Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD) for 

violations of ECOA or the Fair Housing 

Act (FHA). Such notice may be 

provided in the transmittal letter 

accompanying a Report of Examination. 

For the purposes of these Guidelines, 

remarks in a Report of Examination do 

not constitute written notice that the 

FDIC is reviewing the facts and 

circumstances presented to determine if 

a proposed enforcement action is 

merited. Commencement of a formal 

enforcement-related action or decision 

will not suspend or otherwise affect a 

pending request for review or appeal 

that was submitted before the 

commencement of the formal 

enforcement-related action or decision. 

(4) Additional Appeal Rights: 

(a) In the case of any written notice 

from the FDIC to the institution that the 

FDIC is determining whether a formal 

enforcement action is merited, the FDIC 

must issue an Order of Investigation, 

issue a Notice of Charges, or provide the 

institution with a draft consent order 

within 120 days of such a notice, or the 

most recent submission of information 

from the institution, whichever is later, 

or appeal rights will be made available 

pursuant to these Guidelines. If the 

FDIC timely provides the institution 

with a draft consent order and the 

institution rejects the draft consent 

order in writing, the FDIC must issue an 

Order of Investigation or a Notice of 

Charges within 90 days from the date on 

which the institution rejects the draft 

consent order in writing or appeal rights 

will be made available pursuant to these 

Guidelines. The FDIC may extend these 

periods, with the approval of the SARC 

Chairperson, after the FDIC notifies the 

institution that the relevant Division 

Director is seeking formal authority to 

take an enforcement action. 

(b) In the case of a referral to the 

Attorney General for violations of the 

ECOA, beginning on the date the referral 

is returned to the FDIC, the FDIC must 

proceed in accordance within paragraph 

(a), including within the specified 

timeframes, or appeal rights will be 

made available pursuant to these 

Guidelines. 

(c) In the case of providing notice to 

HUD for violations of the ECOA or the 

FHA, beginning on the date the notice 

is provided, the FDIC must proceed in 

accordance within paragraph (a), 

including within the specified 

timeframes, or appeal rights will be 

made available pursuant to these 

Guidelines. 

(d) Written notification will be 

provided to the institution within 10 

days of a determination that appeal 

rights have been made available under 

this section. 

(e) The relevant FDIC Division and 

the institution may mutually agree to 

extend the timeframes in paragraphs (a), 

(b), and (c) if the parties deem it 

appropriate. 

E. Good-Faith Resolution 

An institution should make a goodfaith effort to resolve any dispute 

concerning a material supervisory 

determination with the on-site examiner 

and/or the appropriate Regional Office. 

The on-site examiner and the Regional 

Office will promptly respond to any 

concerns raised by an institution 

regarding a material supervisory 

determination. Informal resolution of 

disputes with the on-site examiner and 

the appropriate Regional Office is 

encouraged, but seeking such a 

resolution is not a condition to filing a 

request for review with the appropriate 

Division, either DCP, RMS, or the 

Division of Complex Institution 

Supervision and Resolution (CISR), or to 

filing a subsequent appeal with the 

SARC under these Guidelines. 

F. Filing a Request for Review With the 

Appropriate Division 

(1) An institution may file a request 

for review of a material supervisory 

determination with the Division that 

made the determination, either the 

Director, DCP, the Director, RMS, or the 

Director, CISR (Director or Division 

Director), 550 17th Street NW, Room F– 

4076, Washington, DC 20429, within 60 

calendar days following the institution’s 

receipt of a report of examination 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
77118 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 241 / Friday, December 16, 2022 / Notices 

containing a material supervisory 

determination or other written 

communication of a material 

supervisory determination. Requests for 

review also may be submitted 

electronically. To ensure 

confidentiality, requests should be 

submitted through securemail.fdic.gov, 

directing the message to 

DirectorReviewRequest@fdic.gov. A 

request for review must be in writing 

and must 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 materially affect the 

institution, and whether a good-faith 

effort was made to resolve the dispute 

with the on-site examiner and the 

Regional Office; and 

(b) A statement that the institution’s 

board of directors or senior management 

has considered the merits of the request 

and has authorized that it be filed. 

Senior management is defined as the 

core group of individuals directly 

accountable to the board of directors for 

the sound and prudent day-to-day 

management of the institution. If an 

institution’s senior management files an 

appeal, it must inform the board of 

directors of the substance of the appeal 

before filing and keep the board of 

directors informed of the appeal’s 

status. 

(2) Within 45 calendar days after 

receiving a request for review described 

in paragraph (1), the Division Director 

will: 

(a) review the appeal, considering 

whether the material supervisory 

determination is consistent with 

applicable laws, regulations, and policy, 

make his or her own supervisory 

determination without deferring to the 

judgments of either party, and issue a 

written determination on the request for 

review, setting forth the grounds for that 

determination; or 

(b) refer the request for review to the 

SARC for consideration as an appeal 

under Section G and provide written 

notice to the institution that the request 

for review has been referred to the 

SARC. 

(3) No appeal to the SARC will be 

allowed unless an institution has first 

filed a timely request for review with 

the appropriate Division Director. 

(4) In any decision issued pursuant to 

paragraph (2)(a) of this section, the 

Director will inform the institution of 

the 30-day time period for filing with 

the SARC and will provide the mailing 

address for any appeal the institution 

may wish to file. 

(5) The Division Director may request 

guidance from the SARC Chairperson or 

the Legal Division as to procedural or 

other questions relating to any request 

for review. 

G. Appeal to the SARC 

An institution that does not agree 

with the written determination rendered 

by the Division Director may appeal that 

determination to the SARC within 30 

calendar days after the date of receipt of 

that determination. Failure to file within 

the 30-day time limit may result in 

denial of the appeal by the SARC. 

1. Filing With the SARC 

An appeal to the SARC will be 

considered filed if the written appeal is 

received by the FDIC within 30 calendar 

days after the date of receipt of the 

Division Director’s written 

determination or if the written appeal is 

placed in the U.S. mail within that 30- 

day period. The appeal should be sent 

to the address indicated on the Division 

Director’s determination being 

appealed, or sent via email to ESS_

Appeals@fdic.gov. An acknowledgment 

of the appeal will be provided to the 

institution, and copies of the 

institution’s appeal will be provided to 

the Office of the Ombudsman and the 

appropriate Division Director. Copies of 

all relevant materials related to an 

appeal will be provided to the Office of 

the Ombudsman. 

2. Contents of Appeal 

The appeal should be labeled to 

indicate that it is an appeal to the SARC 

and should contain the name, address, 

and telephone number of the institution 

and any representative, as well as a 

copy of the Division Director’s 

determination being appealed. If oral 

presentation is sought, that request 

should be included in the appeal. If 

expedited review is requested, the 

appeal should state the reason for the 

request. Only matters submitted to the 

appropriate Division Director in a 

request for review may be appealed to 

the SARC. Evidence not presented for 

review to the Division Director is 

generally not permitted; such evidence 

may be submitted to the SARC only if 

approved by the SARC Chairperson and 

with a reasonable time for the Division 

Director to review and respond. The 

institution should set forth all of the 

reasons, legal and factual, why it 

disagrees with the Division Director’s 

determination. Nothing in the SARC 

administrative process shall create any 

discovery or other such rights. 

3. Burden of Proof 

The burden of proof as to all matters 

at issue in the appeal, including 

timeliness of the appeal if timeliness is 

at issue, rests with the institution. 

4. Submission From the Division 

Director 

The Division Director may submit 

views regarding the appeal to the SARC 

within 30 calendar days of the date on 

which the appeal is received by the 

SARC. 

5. Oral Presentation 

The SARC will, if a request is made 

by the institution or by FDIC staff, allow 

an oral presentation. The SARC may 

hear oral presentations in person, 

telephonically, electronically, or 

through other means agreed upon by the 

parties. If an oral presentation is held, 

the institution and FDIC staff will be 

allowed to present their positions on the 

issues raised in the appeal and to 

respond to any questions from the 

SARC. 

6. Consolidation, Dismissal, and 

Rejection 

Appeals based upon similar facts and 

circumstances may be consolidated for 

expediency. An appeal may be 

dismissed by the SARC if it is not timely 

filed, if the basis for the appeal is not 

discernable from the appeal, or if the 

institution moves to withdraw the 

appeal. The SARC will decline to 

consider an appeal if the institution’s 

right to appeal is not yet available under 

Section D(4), above. 

7. Scope of Review and Decision 

The SARC will be an appellate body 

and will make independent supervisory 

determinations. The SARC will review 

the appeal for consistency with the 

policies, practices, and mission of the 

FDIC and the overall reasonableness of, 

and the support offered for, the 

positions advanced. The SARC’s review 

will be limited to the facts and 

circumstances as they existed prior to, 

or at the time the material supervisory 

determination was made, even if later 

discovered, and no consideration will 

be given to any facts or circumstances 

that occur or corrective action taken 

after the determination was made. The 

SARC will not consider any aspect of an 

appeal that seeks to change or modify 

existing FDIC rules or policy. The 

SARC, after consultation with the Legal 

Division, will refer any appeals that 

raise policy matters of first impression 

to the Chairperson’s Office for its 

consideration. The SARC will notify the 

institution, in writing, of its decision 

concerning the disputed material 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 241 / Friday, December 16, 2022 / Notices 77119 

supervisory determination(s) within 45 

days after the date the SARC meets to 

consider the appeal, which meeting will 

be held within 90 days after either the 

date of the filing of the appeal or the 

date that the Division Director refers the 

appeal to the SARC. 

8. Other Communications 

Materials considered by the SARC 

will be shared with both parties to the 

appeal, subject to applicable legal 

limitations on disclosure, on a timely 

basis. The Ombudsman will verify that 

both parties have received all materials 

considered by the SARC. 

H. Publication of Decisions 

Decisions of the SARC will be 

published as soon as practicable, and 

the published decisions will be redacted 

to avoid disclosure of the name of the 

appealing institution and any 

information exempt from disclosure 

under the Freedom of Information Act 

and the FDIC’s document disclosure 

regulations found in 12 CFR part 309. In 

cases in which redaction is deemed 

insufficient to prevent improper 

disclosure, published decisions may be 

presented in summary form. Published 

SARC decisions may be cited as 

precedent in appeals to the SARC. 

Annual reports on the SARC’s decisions 

and Division Directors’ decisions with 

respect to institutions’ requests for 

review of material supervisory 

determinations also will be published. 

I. Appeal Guidelines Generally 

Appeals to the SARC will be governed 

by these Guidelines. The SARC, with 

the concurrence of the Legal Division, 

will retain discretion to waive any 

provision of the Guidelines for good 

cause. Supplemental rules governing the 

SARC’s operations may be adopted. 

Institutions may request extensions of 

the time period for submitting appeals 

under these Guidelines from either the 

appropriate Division Director or the 

SARC Chairperson, as appropriate. If a 

filing under these Guidelines is due on 

a Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal 

holiday, the filing may be made on the 

next business day. 

Institutions may request a stay of a 

supervisory action or determination 

from the Division Director while an 

appeal of that determination is pending. 

The request must be in writing and 

include the reason(s) for the stay. The 

Division Director has discretion to grant 

a stay and will generally decide whether 

to grant a stay within 21 days of 

receiving the institution’s request, 

providing the institution with the 

reason(s) for his or her decision in 

writing. A stay may be granted subject 

to conditions, including time 

limitations, where appropriate. 

J. Coordination With State Regulatory 

Authorities 

In the event that a material 

supervisory determination subject to a 

request for review is the joint product of 

the FDIC and a State regulatory 

authority, the Director, DCP, the 

Director, RMS, or the Director, CISR, as 

appropriate, will promptly notify the 

appropriate State regulatory authority of 

the request, 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 request before making a 

determination. In the event that an 

appeal is subsequently filed with the 

SARC, the SARC will notify the 

institution and the State regulatory 

authority of its decision. Once the SARC 

has issued its determination, any other 

issues that may remain between the 

institution and the State regulatory 

authority will be left to those parties to 

resolve. 

K. 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 during the appeal or 

affect the FDIC’s authority to take any 

supervisory or enforcement action 

against that institution. 

L. 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 that 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. 

M. Prohibition on Examiner Retaliation 

The FDIC has an experienced 

examination workforce and is proud of 

its professionalism and dedication. 

FDIC policy prohibits any retaliation, 

abuse, or retribution by an agency 

examiner or any FDIC personnel against 

an institution. Such behavior 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. In light of this important 

principle, the Ombudsman will monitor 

the supervision process following an 

institution’s submission of an appeal 

under these Guidelines. The 

Ombudsman will report to the Board on 

these matters periodically. 

Institutions that believe they have 

been retaliated against are encouraged to 

contact the Regional Director for the 

appropriate FDIC region. Any 

institution that believes or has any 

evidence that it has been subject to 

retaliation may file a complaint with the 

Director, Office of the Ombudsman, 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 

3501 Fairfax Drive, Suite E–2022, 

Arlington, VA, 22226, 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. The Office of the 

Ombudsman will work with the 

appropriate Division Director to resolve 

the allegation of retaliation. 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. 

By order of the Board of Directors. 

Dated at Washington, DC, on December 13, 

2022. 

James P. Sheesley, 

Assistant Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2022–27351 Filed 12–15–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6714–01–P 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Change in Bank Control Notices; 

Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or 

Bank Holding Company 

The notificants listed below have 

applied under the Change in Bank 

Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and 

§ 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 

CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank 

or bank holding company. The factors 

that are considered in acting on the 

applications are set forth in paragraph 7 

of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). 

The public portions of the 

applications listed below, as well as 

other related filings required by the 

Board, if any, are available for 

immediate inspection at the Federal 

Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at 

the offices of the Board of Governors. 

This information may also be obtained 

on an expedited basis, upon request, by 

contacting the appropriate Federal 

Reserve Bank and from the Board’s 

Freedom of Information Office at 

https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/ 

request.htm. Interested persons may 

express their views in writing on the 

standards enumerated in paragraph 7 of 

the Act. 

Comments regarding each of these 

applications must be received at the 

Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1