Internal Appeals Process for Material Supervisory Determinations and Policy Statement Regarding the Ombudsman for the Federal Reserve System, 8391-8396 [2018-03907]
Download as PDF
8391
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 83, No. 39
Tuesday, February 27, 2018
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
12 CFR Chapter II
[Docket No. OP–1597]
Internal Appeals Process for Material
Supervisory Determinations and Policy
Statement Regarding the Ombudsman
for the Federal Reserve System
Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System.
ACTION: Proposed policy statement;
request for comments.
AGENCY:
The Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System (‘‘Board’’) is
inviting comments on proposed
amendments to its guidelines on an
internal appeals process for institutions
wishing to appeal an adverse material
supervisory determination and to its
policy regarding the Ombudsman for the
Federal Reserve System.
DATES: Comments should be received
April 30, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by Docket No. OP–1597 by
any of the following methods:
• Agency Web Site: https://
www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments at
https://www.federalreserve.gov/
generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm.
• Email: regs.comments@
federalreserve.gov. Include the docket
number in the subject line of the
message.
• Fax: (202) 452–3819 or (202) 452–
3102.
• Mail: Ann E. Misback, Secretary,
Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, 20th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20551.
All public comments will be made
available on the Board’s website at
https://www.federalreserve.gov/
generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm as
submitted, unless modified for technical
reasons. Accordingly, your comments
will not be edited to remove any
identifying or contact information.
Public comments may also be viewed
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:03 Feb 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
electronically or in paper form in Room
3515, 1801 K Street (between 18th and
19th Streets NW), Washington, DC
20006 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
on weekdays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jason A. Gonzalez, Special Counsel,
(202) 452–3275, or Jay Schwarz, Senior
Counsel, (202) 452–2970, Legal
Division, Ryan Lordos, Deputy
Associate Director, (202) 452–2961,
Supervision & Regulation, or Suzanne
Killian, Senior Associate Director, (202)
452–2090, or Carol Evans, Associate
Director, (202) 452–2051, Division of
Consumer and Community Affairs, for
matters relating to the appeals process;
and Margie Shanks, Ombudsman, (202)
452–3584, or Jay Schwarz, Senior
Counsel, (202) 452–2970, Legal
Division, for matters relating to the
functions of the Ombudsman.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf
(TDD) users may call (202) 263–4869.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System (‘‘Board’’) is committed
to maintaining an effective independent,
intra-agency appellate process to allow
institutions to seek review of material
supervisory determinations. The Board
is also committed to maintaining an
effective Ombudsman to serve as a
resource for individuals and institutions
that are affected by the Federal
Reserve’s regulatory and supervisory
actions.
The Board first established guidelines
for an appeals process in March 1995,
when after a period of public notice and
comment, the Board published final
guidelines to implement Section 309 of
the Riegle Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994
(the ‘‘Riegle Act’’), 12 U.S.C. 4806,
which governs the appeals requirements
for Federal banking agencies. The
existing guidelines provide that all
institutions that are subject to Federal
Reserve oversight, including bank
holding companies, U.S. agencies and
branches of foreign banks and Edge
corporations, may appeal any material
supervisory determination (60 FR 16470
(March 30, 1995)).
In general, the existing guidelines
provide that any institution supervised
by the Federal Reserve System (‘‘Federal
Reserve’’) may file a written appeal of
any material supervisory determination.
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Appeals will then be decided within a
specified time frame by a review panel
selected by the Reserve Bank, in
consultation with Board staff, and
comprised of persons who are not
employed by the Reserve Bank and have
not participated in, or reported to the
persons who made the material
supervisory determination under
review. An institution is granted the
further right to appeal an adverse
decision by the review panel to the
Reserve Bank President and ultimately
to a member of the Board. The existing
guidelines also have safeguards to
protect institutions that file appeals
from examiner retaliation.
The guidelines apply to any ‘‘material
supervisory determination,’’ which
includes any material matter relating to
the examination or inspection process.
The only matters excluded from this
appeals process are those matters, such
as the imposition of a prompt corrective
action directive or a cease and desist
order or other formal actions, for which
an alternative, independent process of
appeal exists. As noted in the existing
guidelines, institutions are encouraged
to express questions or concerns about
supervisory determinations during the
course of an inspection or examination,
consistent with the longstanding
Federal Reserve practice of resolving
problems informally during the course
of the inspection or examination
process.
The Board’s existing Ombudsman
policy was adopted in August 1995. It
specifies the responsibilities of the
Ombudsman, which include serving as
a point of contact for complaints
regarding any System action, referring
complaints to the appropriate person,
and investigating and resolving
complaints of retaliation.
II. Overview of Proposed Changes
Appeals Guidelines
Since 1995, the Board has had the
opportunity to observe the operation of
the appeals guidelines over a significant
period of time and receive feedback
from supervised institutions. Based on
that experience and feedback, the Board
is now proposing to amend its appellate
guidelines in several ways. In particular,
the proposed revisions are designed to
improve and expedite the appeals
process, particularly for institutions that
are in troubled condition. In doing so,
the proposed revisions attempt to strike
E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM
27FEP1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
8392
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules
an equitable balance among
accommodating the interests of the
institutions the Federal Reserve
supervises in a substantive review of
material supervisory determinations, the
institutions’ interest in achieving a swift
resolution of any material supervisory
determination in dispute, and the
interests of both an appealing institution
and the Federal Reserve in the efficient
use of limited resources.
The Board’s current appeals process
was designed with three levels of appeal
in an attempt to ensure objectivity in the
appeals process. However, experience
has shown that objectivity can be
ensured with a more streamlined and
efficient process. With these goals in
mind, the proposal reduces the levels of
appeal from three to two and enhances
independent review of the matter by
providing that System and Board
experts not affiliated with the affected
Reserve Bank review the matter at both
appeals levels.
In addition to removing one level of
appeal, the proposed revisions address
a timing conflict between the Prompt
Corrective Action (‘‘PCA’’) framework
under section 38 of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Act and the Board’s existing
appeals process. PCA requires that, no
later than 90 days after an insured
depository institution becomes critically
undercapitalized, the appropriate
Federal banking agency must either
appoint a receiver for the institution or
take such other action that the Board
determines, with the concurrence of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
(‘‘FDIC’’), would better achieve the
purposes of PCA. Although the banking
agency’s decision to appoint a receiver
for a critically undercapitalized
institution is not appealable under the
Riegle Act, some material supervisory
determinations (such as reclassifications
of loans) may cause an institution to
become critically undercapitalized and,
unless reversed, result in receivership.
The revised process would establish
an accelerated process for appeals that
relate to or cause an institution to
become critically undercapitalized
under the PCA framework to better
assure that a review of an adverse
material supervisory determination
occurs within the PCA time frame of 90
days. The goal of this accelerated
process is to provide a thorough,
adequate, and independent review of
the material supervisory determination
that places the institution at risk of
receivership. Notwithstanding the
proposed changes, situations may arise
that would prevent an appeal from
being completed before PCA requires a
receivership to be imposed. In these
situations, the existence of an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:03 Feb 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
outstanding appeal would not prevent
the Board from meeting its statutorily
mandated obligation under PCA to
appoint a receiver, in which case an
appeal will become moot.
The revised process also establishes
specific standards of review to be
applied in the two levels of appeal. The
panel that reviews the initial appeal
must approach the determination being
appealed as if no determination had
previously been made. The initial
review panel will consider a record that
includes any relevant materials
submitted by the appealing institution
and Federal Reserve staff. Under this
standard, the panel will have the
discretion to rely on examination
workpapers and other materials
developed by Federal Reserve staff
during an examination.
If the appealing institution continues
to have concerns regarding the material
supervisory determination following the
initial review panel’s decision, the
appealing institution may request a
subsequent final review conducted by a
review panel comprised primarily of
Board staff. The final review panel will
consider whether the decision of the
initial review panel is reasonable and
supported by a preponderance of the
evidence in the record, but will not seek
to augment the record with new
information. In order to maximize
transparency, the decision of the final
review panel will be made public.
The Board welcomes comment on all
aspects of the revised guidelines,
including, in particular, on (i) the
standards of review that are proposed
for the two review panels, (ii) the nature
and composition of the review panels,
(iii) the record that the panels may
consider, and (iv) the timeline that is
proposed to take PCA into account.
Ombudsman Policy
The Board is considering making
changes to the Ombudsman policy in
conjunction with the changes to the
appeals guidelines. Currently, the
Ombudsman is the initial recipient of
all complaints pertaining to the
supervisory process, which may include
an appeal request. The proposed
revisions would formalize this practice
and allow the Ombudsman to attend
hearings or deliberations relating to the
appeal as an observer, if requested by
the institution or Federal Reserve
personnel. In addition, the proposed
revisions specify that the Ombudsman’s
role is to be the decision-maker with
respect to claims of retaliation. The
proposal also emphasizes the
Ombudsman’s availability to facilitate
the informal resolution of concerns that
could ultimately lead to formal appeals,
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
clarifies the Ombudsman’s role in
addressing complaints regarding
appeals of consumer complaints, and
provides for tracking of complaints
made by regulated institutions.
The Board welcomes comment on all
aspects of the Ombudsman policy.
The Appeals guidelines and
Ombudsman policy for the Federal
Reserve System are attached as Exhibit
A and Exhibit B, respectively.
By order of the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, February 21, 2018.
Ann E. Misback,
Secretary of the Board.
Exhibit A
GUIDELINES FOR APPEALS OF MATERIAL
SUPERVISORY DETERMINATIONS
The Board is committed to maintaining an
independent, intra-agency process to review
appeals of material supervisory
determinations that complies with Section
309 of the Riegle Community Development
and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, 12
U.S.C. 4806.
The purpose of these guidelines is to
establish a comprehensive appellate process
for material supervisory determinations. In
order to ensure that institutions will be
granted the same appellant rights regardless
of the Federal Reserve district in which they
reside, appeals will be administered using
procedures that are consistent with these
guidelines. These guidelines include an
accelerated review process to improve their
alignment with the PCA framework under
section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Act.
A. In General
Any institution about which the Federal
Reserve makes a material supervisory
determination is eligible to utilize the
appeals process. An eligible institution
includes a state member bank, bank holding
company and its nonbank subsidiaries, U.S.
agency or branch of a foreign bank, Edge and
agreement corporation, savings and loan
holding company, third party electronic data
processing servicer, systemically important
nonbanking financial organization identified
by the Financial Stability Oversight Council,
and any other entity examined or inspected
by the Federal Reserve.
An appeal under these guidelines may be
made of any material supervisory
determination. A ‘‘material supervisory
determination’’ includes, but is not limited
to, any material determination relating to
examination or inspection composite ratings,
material examination or inspection
component ratings, the adequacy of loan loss
reserves and/or capital, significant loan
classification, accounting interpretation, and
Community Reinvestment Act (including
component ratings) and consumer
compliance rating. The term does not include
any supervisory determination for which an
independent right of appeal exists. Excluded
actions include PCA directives issued
pursuant to section 38 of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Act (the FDI Act), an action to
impose administrative enforcement actions
E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM
27FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
under the FDI Act, the Home Owners’ Loan
Act of 1933, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the
Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (the BHC
Act) or other applicable act, a capital
directive, and an order related to approval or
denial of a transaction issued pursuant to
section 3 or 4 of the BHC Act. Prior to a
material supervisory determination being
made, it is expected that the supervised
institution will have provided all available
information it believes to be relevant to the
examination staff to assist them in making
the determination.
B. General Procedures for Appealing a
Material Supervisory Determination
In general, the appeals process is an
informal process that is not subject to the
adjudicative provisions of the Administrative
Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 554–557). An
appeal of a material supervisory
determination shall be filed and considered
pursuant to the following procedures:
(1) Authorization to File. Any appeal must
be approved by the board of directors of the
eligible institution, or in the case of a U.S.
agency or branch of a foreign bank, the senior
management or person(s) responsible for the
bank’s U.S. operations.
(2) Timelines and Contents. The institution
must file the appeal in writing with the
Board’s Ombudsman within 30 calendar days
of the date of the relevant written material
supervisory determination, with a copy to the
Officer in Charge of Supervision at the
appropriate Reserve Bank. The appeal must
include a clear and complete statement of all
relevant facts and issues, as well as all
arguments that the institution wishes to
present, and must include all relevant and
material documents that the institution
wishes to be considered.
(3) Distribution of Appeal. After receipt of
a request for an appeal, the Board’s
Ombudsman shall promptly notify the
director of the appropriate division of the
Board and the Board’s General Counsel of the
appeal.
(4) Initial Review Panel. Within ten
calendar days of receipt of a timely appeal,
the director of the appropriate division of the
Board or an officer designated by the
appropriate division director must appoint
three Reserve Bank employees to form an
initial review panel to consider the appeal
and an attorney to advise the initial review
panel in the exercise of its responsibilities.
The members of the initial review panel and
the appointed attorney must not have been
substantively involved in any matter at issue;
must not directly or indirectly report to any
person(s) who made the material supervisory
determination under review; must not be
employed by the Reserve Bank that made the
material supervisory determination under
review; and must have relevant experience to
contribute to the review of the material
supervisory determination. An individual
shall be considered to have been
substantively involved in a material
supervisory determination if the individual
was personally consulted regarding the issue
being determined and provided guidance
regarding how it should be resolved. The
initial review panel shall determine all
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:03 Feb 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
procedural issues that are governed by the
appeals guidelines.
(5) Initial Review Meeting. The initial
review panel may, in its discretion, conduct
an informal appeal meeting. If the panel
decides to conduct such a meeting it shall
notify the institution in writing of the date,
time and place of the meeting, to be set no
later than 21 calendar days after the date the
appeal is received. The institution may
appear at the appeal meeting personally or
through counsel to make an oral presentation
to the panel. Panel members may ask
questions of any person participating in the
meeting. The institution and the Reserve
Bank may not cross examine persons
participating in the meeting. A verbatim
transcript of the meeting may be taken if the
institution requests a transcript and agrees to
pay all expenses, and if the initial review
panel determines that a transcript would
assist the panel in carrying out its
responsibilities. The meeting provided under
these guidelines is not governed by formal
rules of evidence. No formal discovery is
required or permitted. The initial review
panel may make any rulings reasonably
necessary to facilitate the effective and
efficient operation of the meeting.
(6) Record. The record of the appeal shall
at a minimum include the original decision
being appealed, the materials submitted by
the institution in connection with the appeal
and the materials identified by Federal
Reserve staff as relevant to the material
supervisory determination being appealed,
including workpapers. The initial review
panel may, in its discretion, supplement the
record in the manner described below. The
entire record of the appeal, including the
decision of the initial review panel and any
meeting transcripts or material(s) submitted
in connection with any subsequent final
review, shall be considered confidential
supervisory information of the Board.
(7) Standard of Review Applied by Initial
Review Panel. The initial review panel shall
conduct a review of the material supervisory
determination on appeal. The panel must
consider whether the Reserve Bank’s material
supervisory determination is consistent with
the Board’s policies, consistent with
applicable laws and regulations, and
supported by the record. In doing so, the
panel shall make its own supervisory
determination and shall not defer to the
judgment of the Reserve Bank staff that made
the material supervisory determination
though it may rely on any examination
workpapers developed by the Reserve Bank
or materials submitted by the institution if it
determines it is reasonable to do so. The
panel may supplement the record described
above by soliciting the views of outside
parties, including staff from the Board, the
Reserve Banks, and other supervisory
agencies (for example, in cases of joint
examinations or inspections), including the
Federal Reserve staff who participated in
making the material supervisory
determination being appealed, prior to
issuing a decision. The panel may, in its
discretion, conduct additional fact-finding.
(8) Notice of Decision. Within 45 calendar
days after the date the appeal is received, the
initial review panel shall provide written
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8393
notice of its decision to the board of directors
of the institution. The notice of decision shall
contain a statement of the basis for the initial
review panel’s decision to continue,
terminate, or otherwise modify the material
supervisory determination(s) at issue or to
remand consideration of the material
supervisory determination at issue to the
examiners that made the determination to
allow them to consider additional evidence
presented in connection with the appeal. The
notice of decision shall also indicate that the
institution may request a final review as set
forth in this subpart by filing a written
request with the Ombudsman of the Board.
The initial review panel may extend the
period for issuing a decision by up to 30
calendar days if the panel determines that the
record is incomplete and additional factfinding is necessary for the panel to issue a
decision.
(9) Ombudsman Participation. The
Ombudsman may attend, as an observer,
hearings or deliberations relating to the
appeal. The Ombudsman will not have
substantive involvement in or act as a
decision-maker with respect to the appeal.
(10) Use of Confidential Supervisory
Information. If the Reserve Bank or the Board
have confidential supervisory information
from another regulated institution that is
pertinent to the appeal, they may elect to use
that information, provided that the
information is entered into the record for the
appeal and provided to the appealing
institution, subject to limitations on
disclosure, including those imposed by the
Board’s applicable regulations,1 and
redaction of all information not relevant to
the appeal.
(11) Request for Final Review. Within 14
calendar days after notice of decision by the
initial review panel, the institution, with the
consent of its board of directors, or in the
case of a U.S. agency or branch of a foreign
bank, the senior management person(s)
responsible for the bank’s U.S. operations,
may appeal that decision to a final review
panel by filing a written request for final
review with the Ombudsman. The request for
final review must state all the reasons, legal
and factual, the institution disagrees with the
initial review panel’s decision.
(12) Waiver of Final Review. Failure to
timely request final review in a manner
consistent with these guidelines shall
constitute a waiver of the opportunity for
final review, and the decision of the initial
review panel shall constitute a final and
unappealable material supervisory
determination.
(13) Distribution of Final Review Request.
After receipt of a request for final review, the
Board’s Ombudsman shall promptly notify
the director of the appropriate division of the
Board and the Board’s General Counsel of the
request for final review.
(14) Final Review Panel. When an
institution files a request for final review, the
director of the appropriate division of the
Board shall promptly appoint three
individuals to form a final review panel to
permit completion of the appeal within the
applicable period. The final review panel
1 See
E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM
12 CFR 261.20.
27FEP1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
8394
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules
shall include at least two Board employees,
at least one of whom must be an officer of
the Board at the level of associate director or
higher. The Board’s General Counsel shall
appoint an attorney to advise the final review
panel in the exercise of its responsibilities.
The members of the final review panel and
the appointed attorney must not be employed
by the Reserve Bank that made the material
supervisory determination under review;
must not have been members of the initial
review panel; and must not have been
personally consulted regarding the issue
being determined and provided guidance
regarding how it should be resolved, or
directly or indirectly report to the person(s)
who made the material supervisory
determination under review. The final review
panel shall determine all procedural issues
regarding the final review.
(15) Final Review Meeting. The final
review panel may determine in its discretion
to have an informal appeal meeting at which
a representative of the institution or counsel
may appear personally to make an oral
presentation to the panel. No facts may be
introduced in this meeting that are not
contained in the record upon which the
initial review panel made its decision. In the
event the panel decides to have a meeting
with the appealing institution, panel
members may ask questions of any person
participating in the meeting. The institution
may not cross examine persons participating
in the meeting. A verbatim transcript of the
meeting may be taken at the cost of the Board
if the final review panel determines that a
transcript would assist the panel in carrying
out its responsibilities. The meeting provided
under these guidelines is not governed by
formal rules of evidence. No formal discovery
is required or permitted. The final review
panel may make any procedural rulings
reasonably necessary to facilitate the effective
and efficient operation of the meeting.
(16) Scope of Final Review. The scope of
the final review shall be confined to the
record upon which the initial review panel
made its decision.
(17) Standard of Review of Final Review.
The final review panel shall determine
whether the decision of the initial review
panel is reasonable. In reaching this
determination, the panel should consider,
among other things, whether the decision
was based on a consideration of the relevant
factors, whether there has been a clear error
of judgment, and whether the decision is
supported by a preponderance of the
evidence. The final review panel may affirm
the decision of the initial review panel even
if it is possible to draw a contrary conclusion
from the record presented on appeal.
(18) Final Review Decision. Within 21
calendar days of the filing of a request for
final review, the director of the appropriate
division of the Board shall provide written
notice of the decision of the final review
panel to the board of directors of the
institution. The final review panel may
continue, terminate, or otherwise modify the
material supervisory determination(s) at
issue or remand consideration of the material
supervisory determination at issue to the
examiners that made the determination to
allow them to consider additional evidence
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:03 Feb 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
presented in connection with the appeal. A
copy of the decision will be provided to the
director of the appropriate division of the
Board and the Officer in Charge of
Supervision at the appropriate Reserve Bank.
A copy of the decision will be published as
soon as practicable, and the published
decision will be redacted to avoid disclosure
of exempt information. In cases in which
redaction is deemed insufficient to prevent
improper disclosure, the published decision
may be presented in summary form.
C. Expedited Procedures for Appealing a
Material Supervisory Determination
When a material supervisory determination
relates to or causes an institution to become
critically undercapitalized, the review of any
appeal of that supervisory determination will
be processed on an expedited basis.
Notwithstanding any other provision in
these guidelines, a matter processed under
expedited review will be subject to the same
policies that govern all appeals except that
the initial review panel will issue a decision
within 35 calendar days following the date
the appeal is received (such period may be
extended by up to an additional 7 calendar
days if the initial review panel decides that
such time is required to supplement the
record and to consider any additional
information received), the institution shall
have 7 days to file an appeal of the initial
review panel’s decision, and the final review
panel will issue a decision within 10
calendar days.
D. Effect of Appeal on Material Supervisory
Determinations
A material supervisory determination shall
remain in effect while under appeal and until
such time as it is modified or overturned
through the appeals process. An appeal does
not prevent or suspend the Federal Reserve
or any other appropriate agency from taking
any supervisory or enforcement action–either
formal or informal–it deems appropriate to
discharge the agency’s supervisory
responsibilities. In such cases, the rights of
appeal provided for in the statutes and
regulations concerning those actions shall
govern.
In addition, an appeal does not prevent or
suspend the operation of the PCA framework
under section 38 of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Act, prevent or suspend an
appropriate authority from appointing a
receiver for the institution or otherwise
causing the closure of an institution, or
prevent or suspend an appropriate authority
from taking any other action under the PCA
framework. If the institution is placed into
receivership while an appeal is outstanding,
the appeal will be considered moot and will
not be completed.
E. Safeguards Against Retaliation
Neither the Federal Reserve nor any
employee of the Federal Reserve may
retaliate against an institution or person
based on the filing or outcome of an appeal
under this guidance. In accordance with
longstanding Federal Reserve practice, the
appeals framework is intended to foster an
environment where concerns and issues may
be freely and openly discussed.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Each Reserve Bank shall provide
institutions with notice of the Board’s antiretaliation policy in connection with each
Federal Reserve led examination.
An institution that believes that it has
suffered retaliation or any other form of
unfair treatment is encouraged to contact the
appropriate Reserve Bank, and may file a
claim of retaliation with the Board’s
Ombudsman. The Ombudsman may attempt
to resolve a claim of retaliation informally by
engaging in discussions with the concerned
institution and the appropriate Board or
Reserve Bank staff.
Nothing in this guidance is intended to
prevent the Ombudsman from initiating a
factual inquiry into alleged retaliation at any
time. The Ombudsman may initiate a factual
inquiry into a claim of retaliation, at any
time, by providing notice to the appropriate
Board division director(s) and the
appropriate Reserve Bank officer in charge of
supervision. As part of the inquiry, the
Ombudsman may collect and review
documents, interview witnesses, and consult
Board and Reserve Bank staff with subject
matter expertise. The Ombudsman also may
request that the appropriate division director
authorize or assign such additional resources
as necessary to assist the Ombudsman in
fully reviewing the matter.
Upon the completion of a factual inquiry
into a claim of retaliation, if the Ombudsman
concludes that retaliation has occurred, the
Ombudsman will forward the claim of
retaliation, along with the Ombudsman’s
factual findings to the appropriate division
director(s) of the Board. These officials will
take appropriate action to resolve the matter.
In addition, to prevent future retaliation for
an appeal, the Ombudsman may recommend
to the appropriate division director(s) that
the next examination of the institution or
review that may lead to a material
supervisory determination exclude personnel
involved in the claim of retaliation. The
division director(s) will make the final
decision as to whether any examination staff
should be excluded.
The Board’s Ombudsman will contact
institutions within six months after a
material supervisory determination appeal
has been decided to inquire whether
retaliation has occurred.
F. Availability of Procedures
The Federal Reserve, through the Board
and Reserve Banks, shall make these
guidelines readily available on its public
website and to any member of the public who
requests them.
Exhibit B
Ombudsman for the Federal Reserve System
Policy Statement
Section 309 of the Riegle Community
Development and Regulatory Improvement
Act of 1994, 12 U.S.C. 4806, requires each of
the federal banking agencies to appoint an
Ombudsman. Section 309 provides that the
Ombudsman:
(1) is to act as a liaison between the agency
and any affected person with respect to any
problem such party may have in dealing with
the agency resulting from the regulatory
activities of the agency; and
E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM
27FEP1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules
(2) is to ensure that safeguards exist to
encourage complainants to come forward and
preserve confidentiality.
Mission of the Ombudsman. The
Ombudsman is charged with performing
three major functions: (1) serving as a
facilitator and moderator for the fair and
timely resolution of complaints related to the
Federal Reserve System’s regulatory
activities; (2) reporting to the Board on issues
that are likely to have a significant impact on
the Federal Reserve System’s missions,
activities, or reputation that arise from the
Ombudsman’s review of complaints, such as
patterns of issues that occur in multiple
complaints; (3) receiving, reviewing, and
deciding claims of retaliatory conduct by
Federal Reserve System staff. The
Ombudsman also serves as the initial
recipient for an appeal of a material
supervisory determination and plays a role in
resolving appeals of some consumer
complaints. In addition, the Ombudsman
ensures that safeguards exist to encourage
complainants to come forward and to protect
confidentiality.
Serving as a Complaint Facilitator. The
Ombudsman assists institutions with issues
and questions related to Reserve Bank or
Board regulatory activities. In doing so, the
Ombudsman shall operate independently of
the supervisory process to the extent
necessary to ensure that appropriate
safeguards exist to encourage complainants
to come forward and preserve confidentiality.
In situations where the Board has not
established a process for addressing a certain
type of question or complaint, the
Ombudsman is available to facilitate the
resolution of the question or complaint.
Although the Ombudsman does not have
decision-making authority regarding any
substantive matters, including supervisory
determinations and regulatory action (other
than for retaliation claims), the Ombudsman
is available to assist institutions, and
particularly community banks, in locating
the correct System staff person to address or
resolve such a question or complaint and
may coordinate meetings and facilitate
discussions between the institution and
System staff, including senior officials, as
necessary. In order to facilitate this process,
the Ombudsman may investigate the
situation in order to identify the relevant
facts and circumstances. The Ombudsman
may also participate in meetings or
discussions related to the matter if requested
by either the institution or System staff, and
may require updates from System staff, as
appropriate, until the matter is resolved. If
the Ombudsman believes such a complaint
has not been satisfactorily addressed, the
Ombudsman may raise the matter with the
appropriate Division Director or Board
committee, as appropriate.
When an issue is brought to the attention
of the Ombudsman for which the Board’s
rules or procedures provide an avenue of
appeal or another appropriate forum for
resolution, the Ombudsman will explain the
process to the complaining party, and direct
the party to the appropriate appeals process
or forum for the complaint.1 In addition, the
1 The Board’s rules provide existing mechanisms
for resolutions of complaints in many instances,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:03 Feb 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
Ombudsman is also available to facilitate
informal discussions between a potential
appellant and the appropriate Reserve Bank
or Board staff in order to explore solutions
before an appeal is filed. Such discussions do
not stay or otherwise alter any of the
deadlines under the Board’s rules or
procedures.
The Ombudsman will serve as the initial
recipient for an appeal of a material
supervisory determination and may attend,
as an observer, hearings or deliberations
relating to the appeal if requested by either
the institution or System personnel. In any
event, the Ombudsman will not have any
substantive involvement in or act as a
decision-maker with respect to the appeal.
Providing Feedback on Patterns of Issues.
The Ombudsman is in a unique position to
identify and report patterns of issues arising
from complaints related to Reserve Bank or
Board regulatory activities. The Ombudsman
will track inquiries and complaints based on
relevant characteristics, such as geographic
location, scope, policy implications, and
final disposition, to help identify any such
trends, including trends that implicate
differently sized institutions
disproportionately. This tracking will be
conducted in a manner designed to preserve
confidentiality of the complainant to the
maximum extent possible. As appropriate,
the Ombudsman will report findings of
patterns of issues to the appropriate Board
committee or division director and Reserve
Bank or Board staff. The Ombudsman will
also report any issue stemming from a
complaint that is likely to have a significant
impact on the Federal Reserve System’s
mission, activities, or reputation.
Retaliation Claims by Supervised Persons.
The Federal Reserve Board does not tolerate
retaliation by System staff against a
supervised institution or its employees
(‘‘supervised persons’’). Retaliation is defined
as any action or decision by Reserve Bank or
Board staff that causes a supervised person
to be treated differently or more harshly than
other similarly situated institutions because
the supervised person attempted to resolve a
complaint by filing an appeal of a material
supervisory determination or utilized any
other Board mechanisms for resolving
complaints. Retaliation includes, but is not
limited to, delaying or denying action that
might benefit a supervised person without a
sound supervisory reason or subjecting a
supervised institution to heightened
examination standards without a sound
supervisory reason.
The Ombudsman is authorized to receive,
review, and determine the merits of
complaints of retaliatory conduct by Reserve
Bank or Board staff. The Ombudsman may
such as: material supervisory determinations
pursuant to section 309(a) of the Act; review of
actions delegated to the Reserve Banks or Board
staff pursuant to 12 CFR part 265; prompt corrective
action directives under section 38 of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Act; denials or partial denials of
Freedom of Information or Privacy Act requests;
issuance of capital directives pursuant to 12 CFR
263.80–263.85; decisions with respect to
applications; and matters within the jurisdiction of
the Board’s Inspector General or Federal or State
investigatory or prosecutorial authorities.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8395
attempt to resolve retaliation claims
informally by engaging in discussions with
the concerned supervised person and the
appropriate Board or Reserve Bank staff. If a
complaint cannot be resolved informally, the
Ombudsman may initiate a full investigation
into the underlying facts and circumstances.
To commence a factual investigation of a
complaint of retaliatory conduct, the
Ombudsman should provide written notice
to the appropriate Board committee and
division director and the appropriate Reserve
Bank officer in charge of supervision. As part
of the investigation, the Ombudsman may,
among other things, collect and review
documents, interview witnesses, and seek
any other relevant information. The
Ombudsman may also consult Board and
Reserve Bank staff with subject matter
expertise. Where necessary, the appropriate
Board committee or division director may
authorize or assign such additional resources
as may be needed to assist the Ombudsman
in fully reviewing the matter.
Upon completion of the factual
investigation of a complaint of retaliatory
conduct, the Ombudsman will decide
whether a member of System staff retaliated,
as defined above. The Ombudsman will
report this determination to the appropriate
Board committee or Governor and division
director and the appropriate Reserve Bank
officer in charge of supervision and may
make recommendations for resolution of the
matter to those parties. However, the
Ombudsman shall not make
recommendations regarding disciplinary
action against a System staff member. The
Ombudsman’s determination regarding
retaliation will be communicated in writing
to the supervised person.
To further ensure that supervised persons
are not subjected to retaliation, as defined
above, the Ombudsman will contact a
supervised institution within six months
after an appeal has been decided to inquire
whether retaliation occurred. Where possible,
the Ombudsman will also contact the
institution after the next examination
following an appeal. In the event an
institution complains of retaliation, the
Ombudsman will initiate the process
outlined above to informally review the
matter or initiate a factual investigation.
Consumer Complaints and Appeals.
Independent of the Ombudsman function,
the Federal Reserve System operates a
consumer complaint and inquiry program to
assist members of the public who are
experiencing problems with their financial
institution. In accordance with this program,
the Ombudsman will refer all consumer
complaints to the Division of Consumer and
Community Affairs (DCCA). DCCA will
review the complaint to determine
appropriate handling. If a new complaint is
received, DCCA will refer the complaint to
the Federal Reserve Consumer Help Center
(FRCH) for processing. If the complainant
requested an independent review of a
previously filed complaint, the Ombudsman
will refer the complaint to DCCA, who will
perform the review and respond to the
complainant. The Ombudsman will consult
with DCCA during the appeal investigation,
and in some instances, suggest additional
E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM
27FEP1
8396
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules
actions, including further investigations that
should be taken to ensure that the matter is
fully and fairly addressed. When responding
to the complainant, DCCA will also provide
a final copy of the response letter to the
Ombudsman.
If the Ombudsman receives a complaint
regarding DCCA’s review of an appeal, the
Ombudsman will collect and review the
complaint documents and seek any other
relevant information. The Ombudsman may
also consult Board and Reserve Bank staff to
discuss the details of the previous complaint
investigations. The Ombudsman is
responsible for responding to the
complainant with its determination. As
appropriate, the Ombudsman will contact the
appropriate Board division director and
Reserve Bank staff with feedback or concerns.
Safeguards. These policies, processes, and
practices are intended as safeguards to
encourage complainants to come forward
with issues or complaints related to the
Federal Reserve System’s regulatory
activities.
To the extent possible, the Ombudsman
will honor requests to keep confidential the
identity of a complaining party. It must be
recognized, however, that it may not be
possible for the Ombudsman to resolve
certain complaints, including complaints of
retaliation, if the Ombudsman cannot
disclose the identity of the complaining party
to other members of Federal Reserve staff.
Procedures. A party may contact the
Ombudsman at any time regarding concerns
or issues resulting from the regulatory
activities of the Board or the Reserve Banks
by calling 1-800–337–0429, by sending a fax
to 202–530–6208, by writing to the Office of
the Ombudsman, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, Washington, D.C.
20551, or by sending an email to
Ombudsman@frb.gov.
[FR Doc. 2018–03907 Filed 2–26–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Part 300
RIN 1820–AB77
[Docket ID ED–2017–OSERS–0128]
Assistance to States for the Education
of Children With Disabilities;
Preschool Grants for Children With
Disabilities
Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services (OSERS),
Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
In order to ensure the
Department’s ‘‘Equity in IDEA’’ or
‘‘significant disproportionality’’
regulations effectively address
significant disproportionality, the
Department proposes to postpone the
compliance date by two years, from July
1, 2018, to July 1, 2020. The Department
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:03 Feb 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
also proposes to postpone the date for
including children ages three through
five in the analysis of significant
disproportionality with respect to the
identification of children as children
with disabilities and as children with a
particular impairment from July 1, 2020,
to July 1, 2022.
DATES: We must receive your comments
on or before May 14, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery,
or hand delivery. We will not accept
comments by fax or email. To ensure
that we do not receive duplicate copies,
please submit your comments only
once. In addition, please include the
Docket ID at the top of your comments.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
www.regulations.gov to submit your
comments electronically. Information
on using Regulations.gov, including
instructions for accessing agency
documents, submitting comments, and
viewing the docket is available on the
site under the ‘‘Help’’ tab.
• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery,
or Hand Delivery: The Department
strongly encourages commenters to
submit their comments electronically.
However, if you mail or deliver your
comments in response to this request,
address them to Johnny W. Collett,
Assistant Secretary, Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitation Services,
U.S. Department of Education, 400
Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5107,
Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC
20202–2500.
Privacy Note: The Department’s
policy is to make all comments received
from members of the public available for
public viewing in their entirety on the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov. Therefore,
commenters should be careful to
include in their comments only
information that they wish to make
publicly available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate
Friday, U.S. Department of Education,
400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5104,
Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC
20202–2500. Telephone: (202) 245–
7605, or by email at: Kate.Friday@
ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay
Service, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you
to submit comments regarding this
notice of proposed rulemaking. We will
consider comments on proposed
delayed compliance dates only and will
not consider comments on the text or
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
substance of the final regulations. See
ADDRESSES for instructions on how to
submit comments.
During and after the comment period,
you may inspect all public comments
about this notice of proposed
rulemaking by accessing
Regulations.gov. You may also inspect
the comments in person in Room 5104,
400 Maryland Avenue SW, Potomac
Center Plaza, Washington, DC, between
8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Washington, DC
time, Monday through Friday of each
week, except Federal holidays. If you
want to schedule time to inspect
comments, please contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Assistance to Individuals with
Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request, we will
provide an appropriate accommodation
or auxiliary aid to an individual with a
disability who needs assistance to
review the comments or other
documents in the public rulemaking
record for this notice of proposed
rulemaking. If you want to schedule an
appointment for this type of
accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
On February 24, 2017, President
Trump signed Executive Order 13777,
‘‘Enforcing the Regulatory Reform
Agenda,’’ which established a policy ‘‘to
alleviate unnecessary regulatory
burdens’’ on the American people.
Section 3(a) of the Executive Order
directed each Federal agency to
establish a regulatory reform task force,
the duty of which is to evaluate existing
regulations and ‘‘make
recommendations to the agency head
regarding their repeal, replacement, or
modification.’’ On June 22, 2017,
therefore, the Department published a
notice in the Federal Register (82 FR
28431) seeking input on regulations that
may be appropriate for repeal,
replacement, or modification.
As part of that regulatory review
exercise, OSERS is reviewing the
Assistance to States for the Education of
Children With Disabilities; Preschool
Grants for Children With Disabilities
regulations (the ‘‘Equity in IDEA’’ or
‘‘significant disproportionality’’
regulations), published in the Federal
Register on December 19, 2016 (81 FR
92376). We are, therefore, proposing to
postpone the compliance by two years
in order that the Department may
review the regulation to ensure it
effectively addresses significant
disproportionality.
Statute: Section 618(d)(1) of IDEA (20
U.S.C. 1418(d)(1)) requires every State
that receives IDEA Part B funds to
E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM
27FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8391-8396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03907]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 8391]]
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
12 CFR Chapter II
[Docket No. OP-1597]
Internal Appeals Process for Material Supervisory Determinations
and Policy Statement Regarding the Ombudsman for the Federal Reserve
System
AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
ACTION: Proposed policy statement; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
(``Board'') is inviting comments on proposed amendments to its
guidelines on an internal appeals process for institutions wishing to
appeal an adverse material supervisory determination and to its policy
regarding the Ombudsman for the Federal Reserve System.
DATES: Comments should be received April 30, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. OP-1597 by
any of the following methods:
Agency Web Site: https://www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments at https://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm.
Email: [email protected]. Include the
docket number in the subject line of the message.
Fax: (202) 452-3819 or (202) 452-3102.
Mail: Ann E. Misback, Secretary, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20551.
All public comments will be made available on the Board's website
at https://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm as
submitted, unless modified for technical reasons. Accordingly, your
comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact
information. Public comments may also be viewed electronically or in
paper form in Room 3515, 1801 K Street (between 18th and 19th Streets
NW), Washington, DC 20006 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason A. Gonzalez, Special Counsel,
(202) 452-3275, or Jay Schwarz, Senior Counsel, (202) 452-2970, Legal
Division, Ryan Lordos, Deputy Associate Director, (202) 452-2961,
Supervision & Regulation, or Suzanne Killian, Senior Associate
Director, (202) 452-2090, or Carol Evans, Associate Director, (202)
452-2051, Division of Consumer and Community Affairs, for matters
relating to the appeals process; and Margie Shanks, Ombudsman, (202)
452-3584, or Jay Schwarz, Senior Counsel, (202) 452-2970, Legal
Division, for matters relating to the functions of the Ombudsman.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may call (202) 263-
4869.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (``Board'') is
committed to maintaining an effective independent, intra-agency
appellate process to allow institutions to seek review of material
supervisory determinations. The Board is also committed to maintaining
an effective Ombudsman to serve as a resource for individuals and
institutions that are affected by the Federal Reserve's regulatory and
supervisory actions.
The Board first established guidelines for an appeals process in
March 1995, when after a period of public notice and comment, the Board
published final guidelines to implement Section 309 of the Riegle
Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (the
``Riegle Act''), 12 U.S.C. 4806, which governs the appeals requirements
for Federal banking agencies. The existing guidelines provide that all
institutions that are subject to Federal Reserve oversight, including
bank holding companies, U.S. agencies and branches of foreign banks and
Edge corporations, may appeal any material supervisory determination
(60 FR 16470 (March 30, 1995)).
In general, the existing guidelines provide that any institution
supervised by the Federal Reserve System (``Federal Reserve'') may file
a written appeal of any material supervisory determination. Appeals
will then be decided within a specified time frame by a review panel
selected by the Reserve Bank, in consultation with Board staff, and
comprised of persons who are not employed by the Reserve Bank and have
not participated in, or reported to the persons who made the material
supervisory determination under review. An institution is granted the
further right to appeal an adverse decision by the review panel to the
Reserve Bank President and ultimately to a member of the Board. The
existing guidelines also have safeguards to protect institutions that
file appeals from examiner retaliation.
The guidelines apply to any ``material supervisory determination,''
which includes any material matter relating to the examination or
inspection process. The only matters excluded from this appeals process
are those matters, such as the imposition of a prompt corrective action
directive or a cease and desist order or other formal actions, for
which an alternative, independent process of appeal exists. As noted in
the existing guidelines, institutions are encouraged to express
questions or concerns about supervisory determinations during the
course of an inspection or examination, consistent with the
longstanding Federal Reserve practice of resolving problems informally
during the course of the inspection or examination process.
The Board's existing Ombudsman policy was adopted in August 1995.
It specifies the responsibilities of the Ombudsman, which include
serving as a point of contact for complaints regarding any System
action, referring complaints to the appropriate person, and
investigating and resolving complaints of retaliation.
II. Overview of Proposed Changes
Appeals Guidelines
Since 1995, the Board has had the opportunity to observe the
operation of the appeals guidelines over a significant period of time
and receive feedback from supervised institutions. Based on that
experience and feedback, the Board is now proposing to amend its
appellate guidelines in several ways. In particular, the proposed
revisions are designed to improve and expedite the appeals process,
particularly for institutions that are in troubled condition. In doing
so, the proposed revisions attempt to strike
[[Page 8392]]
an equitable balance among accommodating the interests of the
institutions the Federal Reserve supervises in a substantive review of
material supervisory determinations, the institutions' interest in
achieving a swift resolution of any material supervisory determination
in dispute, and the interests of both an appealing institution and the
Federal Reserve in the efficient use of limited resources.
The Board's current appeals process was designed with three levels
of appeal in an attempt to ensure objectivity in the appeals process.
However, experience has shown that objectivity can be ensured with a
more streamlined and efficient process. With these goals in mind, the
proposal reduces the levels of appeal from three to two and enhances
independent review of the matter by providing that System and Board
experts not affiliated with the affected Reserve Bank review the matter
at both appeals levels.
In addition to removing one level of appeal, the proposed revisions
address a timing conflict between the Prompt Corrective Action
(``PCA'') framework under section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Act and the Board's existing appeals process. PCA requires that, no
later than 90 days after an insured depository institution becomes
critically undercapitalized, the appropriate Federal banking agency
must either appoint a receiver for the institution or take such other
action that the Board determines, with the concurrence of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (``FDIC''), would better achieve the
purposes of PCA. Although the banking agency's decision to appoint a
receiver for a critically undercapitalized institution is not
appealable under the Riegle Act, some material supervisory
determinations (such as reclassifications of loans) may cause an
institution to become critically undercapitalized and, unless reversed,
result in receivership.
The revised process would establish an accelerated process for
appeals that relate to or cause an institution to become critically
undercapitalized under the PCA framework to better assure that a review
of an adverse material supervisory determination occurs within the PCA
time frame of 90 days. The goal of this accelerated process is to
provide a thorough, adequate, and independent review of the material
supervisory determination that places the institution at risk of
receivership. Notwithstanding the proposed changes, situations may
arise that would prevent an appeal from being completed before PCA
requires a receivership to be imposed. In these situations, the
existence of an outstanding appeal would not prevent the Board from
meeting its statutorily mandated obligation under PCA to appoint a
receiver, in which case an appeal will become moot.
The revised process also establishes specific standards of review
to be applied in the two levels of appeal. The panel that reviews the
initial appeal must approach the determination being appealed as if no
determination had previously been made. The initial review panel will
consider a record that includes any relevant materials submitted by the
appealing institution and Federal Reserve staff. Under this standard,
the panel will have the discretion to rely on examination workpapers
and other materials developed by Federal Reserve staff during an
examination.
If the appealing institution continues to have concerns regarding
the material supervisory determination following the initial review
panel's decision, the appealing institution may request a subsequent
final review conducted by a review panel comprised primarily of Board
staff. The final review panel will consider whether the decision of the
initial review panel is reasonable and supported by a preponderance of
the evidence in the record, but will not seek to augment the record
with new information. In order to maximize transparency, the decision
of the final review panel will be made public.
The Board welcomes comment on all aspects of the revised
guidelines, including, in particular, on (i) the standards of review
that are proposed for the two review panels, (ii) the nature and
composition of the review panels, (iii) the record that the panels may
consider, and (iv) the timeline that is proposed to take PCA into
account.
Ombudsman Policy
The Board is considering making changes to the Ombudsman policy in
conjunction with the changes to the appeals guidelines. Currently, the
Ombudsman is the initial recipient of all complaints pertaining to the
supervisory process, which may include an appeal request. The proposed
revisions would formalize this practice and allow the Ombudsman to
attend hearings or deliberations relating to the appeal as an observer,
if requested by the institution or Federal Reserve personnel. In
addition, the proposed revisions specify that the Ombudsman's role is
to be the decision-maker with respect to claims of retaliation. The
proposal also emphasizes the Ombudsman's availability to facilitate the
informal resolution of concerns that could ultimately lead to formal
appeals, clarifies the Ombudsman's role in addressing complaints
regarding appeals of consumer complaints, and provides for tracking of
complaints made by regulated institutions.
The Board welcomes comment on all aspects of the Ombudsman policy.
The Appeals guidelines and Ombudsman policy for the Federal Reserve
System are attached as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, respectively.
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, February 21, 2018.
Ann E. Misback,
Secretary of the Board.
Exhibit A
GUIDELINES FOR APPEALS OF MATERIAL SUPERVISORY DETERMINATIONS
The Board is committed to maintaining an independent, intra-
agency process to review appeals of material supervisory
determinations that complies with Section 309 of the Riegle
Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, 12
U.S.C. 4806.
The purpose of these guidelines is to establish a comprehensive
appellate process for material supervisory determinations. In order
to ensure that institutions will be granted the same appellant
rights regardless of the Federal Reserve district in which they
reside, appeals will be administered using procedures that are
consistent with these guidelines. These guidelines include an
accelerated review process to improve their alignment with the PCA
framework under section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
A. In General
Any institution about which the Federal Reserve makes a material
supervisory determination is eligible to utilize the appeals
process. An eligible institution includes a state member bank, bank
holding company and its nonbank subsidiaries, U.S. agency or branch
of a foreign bank, Edge and agreement corporation, savings and loan
holding company, third party electronic data processing servicer,
systemically important nonbanking financial organization identified
by the Financial Stability Oversight Council, and any other entity
examined or inspected by the Federal Reserve.
An appeal under these guidelines may be made of any material
supervisory determination. A ``material supervisory determination''
includes, but is not limited to, any material determination relating
to examination or inspection composite ratings, material examination
or inspection component ratings, the adequacy of loan loss reserves
and/or capital, significant loan classification, accounting
interpretation, and Community Reinvestment Act (including component
ratings) and consumer compliance rating. The term does not include
any supervisory determination for which an independent right of
appeal exists. Excluded actions include PCA directives issued
pursuant to section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (the FDI
Act), an action to impose administrative enforcement actions
[[Page 8393]]
under the FDI Act, the Home Owners' Loan Act of 1933, the Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Bank Holding
Company Act of 1956 (the BHC Act) or other applicable act, a capital
directive, and an order related to approval or denial of a
transaction issued pursuant to section 3 or 4 of the BHC Act. Prior
to a material supervisory determination being made, it is expected
that the supervised institution will have provided all available
information it believes to be relevant to the examination staff to
assist them in making the determination.
B. General Procedures for Appealing a Material Supervisory
Determination
In general, the appeals process is an informal process that is
not subject to the adjudicative provisions of the Administrative
Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 554-557). An appeal of a material
supervisory determination shall be filed and considered pursuant to
the following procedures:
(1) Authorization to File. Any appeal must be approved by the
board of directors of the eligible institution, or in the case of a
U.S. agency or branch of a foreign bank, the senior management or
person(s) responsible for the bank's U.S. operations.
(2) Timelines and Contents. The institution must file the appeal
in writing with the Board's Ombudsman within 30 calendar days of the
date of the relevant written material supervisory determination,
with a copy to the Officer in Charge of Supervision at the
appropriate Reserve Bank. The appeal must include a clear and
complete statement of all relevant facts and issues, as well as all
arguments that the institution wishes to present, and must include
all relevant and material documents that the institution wishes to
be considered.
(3) Distribution of Appeal. After receipt of a request for an
appeal, the Board's Ombudsman shall promptly notify the director of
the appropriate division of the Board and the Board's General
Counsel of the appeal.
(4) Initial Review Panel. Within ten calendar days of receipt of
a timely appeal, the director of the appropriate division of the
Board or an officer designated by the appropriate division director
must appoint three Reserve Bank employees to form an initial review
panel to consider the appeal and an attorney to advise the initial
review panel in the exercise of its responsibilities. The members of
the initial review panel and the appointed attorney must not have
been substantively involved in any matter at issue; must not
directly or indirectly report to any person(s) who made the material
supervisory determination under review; must not be employed by the
Reserve Bank that made the material supervisory determination under
review; and must have relevant experience to contribute to the
review of the material supervisory determination. An individual
shall be considered to have been substantively involved in a
material supervisory determination if the individual was personally
consulted regarding the issue being determined and provided guidance
regarding how it should be resolved. The initial review panel shall
determine all procedural issues that are governed by the appeals
guidelines.
(5) Initial Review Meeting. The initial review panel may, in its
discretion, conduct an informal appeal meeting. If the panel decides
to conduct such a meeting it shall notify the institution in writing
of the date, time and place of the meeting, to be set no later than
21 calendar days after the date the appeal is received. The
institution may appear at the appeal meeting personally or through
counsel to make an oral presentation to the panel. Panel members may
ask questions of any person participating in the meeting. The
institution and the Reserve Bank may not cross examine persons
participating in the meeting. A verbatim transcript of the meeting
may be taken if the institution requests a transcript and agrees to
pay all expenses, and if the initial review panel determines that a
transcript would assist the panel in carrying out its
responsibilities. The meeting provided under these guidelines is not
governed by formal rules of evidence. No formal discovery is
required or permitted. The initial review panel may make any rulings
reasonably necessary to facilitate the effective and efficient
operation of the meeting.
(6) Record. The record of the appeal shall at a minimum include
the original decision being appealed, the materials submitted by the
institution in connection with the appeal and the materials
identified by Federal Reserve staff as relevant to the material
supervisory determination being appealed, including workpapers. The
initial review panel may, in its discretion, supplement the record
in the manner described below. The entire record of the appeal,
including the decision of the initial review panel and any meeting
transcripts or material(s) submitted in connection with any
subsequent final review, shall be considered confidential
supervisory information of the Board.
(7) Standard of Review Applied by Initial Review Panel. The
initial review panel shall conduct a review of the material
supervisory determination on appeal. The panel must consider whether
the Reserve Bank's material supervisory determination is consistent
with the Board's policies, consistent with applicable laws and
regulations, and supported by the record. In doing so, the panel
shall make its own supervisory determination and shall not defer to
the judgment of the Reserve Bank staff that made the material
supervisory determination though it may rely on any examination
workpapers developed by the Reserve Bank or materials submitted by
the institution if it determines it is reasonable to do so. The
panel may supplement the record described above by soliciting the
views of outside parties, including staff from the Board, the
Reserve Banks, and other supervisory agencies (for example, in cases
of joint examinations or inspections), including the Federal Reserve
staff who participated in making the material supervisory
determination being appealed, prior to issuing a decision. The panel
may, in its discretion, conduct additional fact-finding.
(8) Notice of Decision. Within 45 calendar days after the date
the appeal is received, the initial review panel shall provide
written notice of its decision to the board of directors of the
institution. The notice of decision shall contain a statement of the
basis for the initial review panel's decision to continue,
terminate, or otherwise modify the material supervisory
determination(s) at issue or to remand consideration of the material
supervisory determination at issue to the examiners that made the
determination to allow them to consider additional evidence
presented in connection with the appeal. The notice of decision
shall also indicate that the institution may request a final review
as set forth in this subpart by filing a written request with the
Ombudsman of the Board. The initial review panel may extend the
period for issuing a decision by up to 30 calendar days if the panel
determines that the record is incomplete and additional fact-finding
is necessary for the panel to issue a decision.
(9) Ombudsman Participation. The Ombudsman may attend, as an
observer, hearings or deliberations relating to the appeal. The
Ombudsman will not have substantive involvement in or act as a
decision-maker with respect to the appeal.
(10) Use of Confidential Supervisory Information. If the Reserve
Bank or the Board have confidential supervisory information from
another regulated institution that is pertinent to the appeal, they
may elect to use that information, provided that the information is
entered into the record for the appeal and provided to the appealing
institution, subject to limitations on disclosure, including those
imposed by the Board's applicable regulations,\1\ and redaction of
all information not relevant to the appeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 12 CFR 261.20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(11) Request for Final Review. Within 14 calendar days after
notice of decision by the initial review panel, the institution,
with the consent of its board of directors, or in the case of a U.S.
agency or branch of a foreign bank, the senior management person(s)
responsible for the bank's U.S. operations, may appeal that decision
to a final review panel by filing a written request for final review
with the Ombudsman. The request for final review must state all the
reasons, legal and factual, the institution disagrees with the
initial review panel's decision.
(12) Waiver of Final Review. Failure to timely request final
review in a manner consistent with these guidelines shall constitute
a waiver of the opportunity for final review, and the decision of
the initial review panel shall constitute a final and unappealable
material supervisory determination.
(13) Distribution of Final Review Request. After receipt of a
request for final review, the Board's Ombudsman shall promptly
notify the director of the appropriate division of the Board and the
Board's General Counsel of the request for final review.
(14) Final Review Panel. When an institution files a request for
final review, the director of the appropriate division of the Board
shall promptly appoint three individuals to form a final review
panel to permit completion of the appeal within the applicable
period. The final review panel
[[Page 8394]]
shall include at least two Board employees, at least one of whom
must be an officer of the Board at the level of associate director
or higher. The Board's General Counsel shall appoint an attorney to
advise the final review panel in the exercise of its
responsibilities. The members of the final review panel and the
appointed attorney must not be employed by the Reserve Bank that
made the material supervisory determination under review; must not
have been members of the initial review panel; and must not have
been personally consulted regarding the issue being determined and
provided guidance regarding how it should be resolved, or directly
or indirectly report to the person(s) who made the material
supervisory determination under review. The final review panel shall
determine all procedural issues regarding the final review.
(15) Final Review Meeting. The final review panel may determine
in its discretion to have an informal appeal meeting at which a
representative of the institution or counsel may appear personally
to make an oral presentation to the panel. No facts may be
introduced in this meeting that are not contained in the record upon
which the initial review panel made its decision. In the event the
panel decides to have a meeting with the appealing institution,
panel members may ask questions of any person participating in the
meeting. The institution may not cross examine persons participating
in the meeting. A verbatim transcript of the meeting may be taken at
the cost of the Board if the final review panel determines that a
transcript would assist the panel in carrying out its
responsibilities. The meeting provided under these guidelines is not
governed by formal rules of evidence. No formal discovery is
required or permitted. The final review panel may make any
procedural rulings reasonably necessary to facilitate the effective
and efficient operation of the meeting.
(16) Scope of Final Review. The scope of the final review shall
be confined to the record upon which the initial review panel made
its decision.
(17) Standard of Review of Final Review. The final review panel
shall determine whether the decision of the initial review panel is
reasonable. In reaching this determination, the panel should
consider, among other things, whether the decision was based on a
consideration of the relevant factors, whether there has been a
clear error of judgment, and whether the decision is supported by a
preponderance of the evidence. The final review panel may affirm the
decision of the initial review panel even if it is possible to draw
a contrary conclusion from the record presented on appeal.
(18) Final Review Decision. Within 21 calendar days of the
filing of a request for final review, the director of the
appropriate division of the Board shall provide written notice of
the decision of the final review panel to the board of directors of
the institution. The final review panel may continue, terminate, or
otherwise modify the material supervisory determination(s) at issue
or remand consideration of the material supervisory determination at
issue to the examiners that made the determination to allow them to
consider additional evidence presented in connection with the
appeal. A copy of the decision will be provided to the director of
the appropriate division of the Board and the Officer in Charge of
Supervision at the appropriate Reserve Bank. A copy of the decision
will be published as soon as practicable, and the published decision
will be redacted to avoid disclosure of exempt information. In cases
in which redaction is deemed insufficient to prevent improper
disclosure, the published decision may be presented in summary form.
C. Expedited Procedures for Appealing a Material Supervisory
Determination
When a material supervisory determination relates to or causes
an institution to become critically undercapitalized, the review of
any appeal of that supervisory determination will be processed on an
expedited basis.
Notwithstanding any other provision in these guidelines, a
matter processed under expedited review will be subject to the same
policies that govern all appeals except that the initial review
panel will issue a decision within 35 calendar days following the
date the appeal is received (such period may be extended by up to an
additional 7 calendar days if the initial review panel decides that
such time is required to supplement the record and to consider any
additional information received), the institution shall have 7 days
to file an appeal of the initial review panel's decision, and the
final review panel will issue a decision within 10 calendar days.
D. Effect of Appeal on Material Supervisory Determinations
A material supervisory determination shall remain in effect
while under appeal and until such time as it is modified or
overturned through the appeals process. An appeal does not prevent
or suspend the Federal Reserve or any other appropriate agency from
taking any supervisory or enforcement action-either formal or
informal-it deems appropriate to discharge the agency's supervisory
responsibilities. In such cases, the rights of appeal provided for
in the statutes and regulations concerning those actions shall
govern.
In addition, an appeal does not prevent or suspend the operation
of the PCA framework under section 38 of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Act, prevent or suspend an appropriate authority from
appointing a receiver for the institution or otherwise causing the
closure of an institution, or prevent or suspend an appropriate
authority from taking any other action under the PCA framework. If
the institution is placed into receivership while an appeal is
outstanding, the appeal will be considered moot and will not be
completed.
E. Safeguards Against Retaliation
Neither the Federal Reserve nor any employee of the Federal
Reserve may retaliate against an institution or person based on the
filing or outcome of an appeal under this guidance. In accordance
with longstanding Federal Reserve practice, the appeals framework is
intended to foster an environment where concerns and issues may be
freely and openly discussed.
Each Reserve Bank shall provide institutions with notice of the
Board's anti-retaliation policy in connection with each Federal
Reserve led examination.
An institution that believes that it has suffered retaliation or
any other form of unfair treatment is encouraged to contact the
appropriate Reserve Bank, and may file a claim of retaliation with
the Board's Ombudsman. The Ombudsman may attempt to resolve a claim
of retaliation informally by engaging in discussions with the
concerned institution and the appropriate Board or Reserve Bank
staff.
Nothing in this guidance is intended to prevent the Ombudsman
from initiating a factual inquiry into alleged retaliation at any
time. The Ombudsman may initiate a factual inquiry into a claim of
retaliation, at any time, by providing notice to the appropriate
Board division director(s) and the appropriate Reserve Bank officer
in charge of supervision. As part of the inquiry, the Ombudsman may
collect and review documents, interview witnesses, and consult Board
and Reserve Bank staff with subject matter expertise. The Ombudsman
also may request that the appropriate division director authorize or
assign such additional resources as necessary to assist the
Ombudsman in fully reviewing the matter.
Upon the completion of a factual inquiry into a claim of
retaliation, if the Ombudsman concludes that retaliation has
occurred, the Ombudsman will forward the claim of retaliation, along
with the Ombudsman's factual findings to the appropriate division
director(s) of the Board. These officials will take appropriate
action to resolve the matter. In addition, to prevent future
retaliation for an appeal, the Ombudsman may recommend to the
appropriate division director(s) that the next examination of the
institution or review that may lead to a material supervisory
determination exclude personnel involved in the claim of
retaliation. The division director(s) will make the final decision
as to whether any examination staff should be excluded.
The Board's Ombudsman will contact institutions within six
months after a material supervisory determination appeal has been
decided to inquire whether retaliation has occurred.
F. Availability of Procedures
The Federal Reserve, through the Board and Reserve Banks, shall
make these guidelines readily available on its public website and to
any member of the public who requests them.
Exhibit B
Ombudsman for the Federal Reserve System
Policy Statement
Section 309 of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory
Improvement Act of 1994, 12 U.S.C. 4806, requires each of the
federal banking agencies to appoint an Ombudsman. Section 309
provides that the Ombudsman:
(1) is to act as a liaison between the agency and any affected
person with respect to any problem such party may have in dealing
with the agency resulting from the regulatory activities of the
agency; and
[[Page 8395]]
(2) is to ensure that safeguards exist to encourage complainants
to come forward and preserve confidentiality.
Mission of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is charged with
performing three major functions: (1) serving as a facilitator and
moderator for the fair and timely resolution of complaints related
to the Federal Reserve System's regulatory activities; (2) reporting
to the Board on issues that are likely to have a significant impact
on the Federal Reserve System's missions, activities, or reputation
that arise from the Ombudsman's review of complaints, such as
patterns of issues that occur in multiple complaints; (3) receiving,
reviewing, and deciding claims of retaliatory conduct by Federal
Reserve System staff. The Ombudsman also serves as the initial
recipient for an appeal of a material supervisory determination and
plays a role in resolving appeals of some consumer complaints. In
addition, the Ombudsman ensures that safeguards exist to encourage
complainants to come forward and to protect confidentiality.
Serving as a Complaint Facilitator. The Ombudsman assists
institutions with issues and questions related to Reserve Bank or
Board regulatory activities. In doing so, the Ombudsman shall
operate independently of the supervisory process to the extent
necessary to ensure that appropriate safeguards exist to encourage
complainants to come forward and preserve confidentiality.
In situations where the Board has not established a process for
addressing a certain type of question or complaint, the Ombudsman is
available to facilitate the resolution of the question or complaint.
Although the Ombudsman does not have decision-making authority
regarding any substantive matters, including supervisory
determinations and regulatory action (other than for retaliation
claims), the Ombudsman is available to assist institutions, and
particularly community banks, in locating the correct System staff
person to address or resolve such a question or complaint and may
coordinate meetings and facilitate discussions between the
institution and System staff, including senior officials, as
necessary. In order to facilitate this process, the Ombudsman may
investigate the situation in order to identify the relevant facts
and circumstances. The Ombudsman may also participate in meetings or
discussions related to the matter if requested by either the
institution or System staff, and may require updates from System
staff, as appropriate, until the matter is resolved. If the
Ombudsman believes such a complaint has not been satisfactorily
addressed, the Ombudsman may raise the matter with the appropriate
Division Director or Board committee, as appropriate.
When an issue is brought to the attention of the Ombudsman for
which the Board's rules or procedures provide an avenue of appeal or
another appropriate forum for resolution, the Ombudsman will explain
the process to the complaining party, and direct the party to the
appropriate appeals process or forum for the complaint.\1\ In
addition, the Ombudsman is also available to facilitate informal
discussions between a potential appellant and the appropriate
Reserve Bank or Board staff in order to explore solutions before an
appeal is filed. Such discussions do not stay or otherwise alter any
of the deadlines under the Board's rules or procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Board's rules provide existing mechanisms for
resolutions of complaints in many instances, such as: material
supervisory determinations pursuant to section 309(a) of the Act;
review of actions delegated to the Reserve Banks or Board staff
pursuant to 12 CFR part 265; prompt corrective action directives
under section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act; denials or
partial denials of Freedom of Information or Privacy Act requests;
issuance of capital directives pursuant to 12 CFR 263.80-263.85;
decisions with respect to applications; and matters within the
jurisdiction of the Board's Inspector General or Federal or State
investigatory or prosecutorial authorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ombudsman will serve as the initial recipient for an appeal
of a material supervisory determination and may attend, as an
observer, hearings or deliberations relating to the appeal if
requested by either the institution or System personnel. In any
event, the Ombudsman will not have any substantive involvement in or
act as a decision-maker with respect to the appeal.
Providing Feedback on Patterns of Issues. The Ombudsman is in a
unique position to identify and report patterns of issues arising
from complaints related to Reserve Bank or Board regulatory
activities. The Ombudsman will track inquiries and complaints based
on relevant characteristics, such as geographic location, scope,
policy implications, and final disposition, to help identify any
such trends, including trends that implicate differently sized
institutions disproportionately. This tracking will be conducted in
a manner designed to preserve confidentiality of the complainant to
the maximum extent possible. As appropriate, the Ombudsman will
report findings of patterns of issues to the appropriate Board
committee or division director and Reserve Bank or Board staff. The
Ombudsman will also report any issue stemming from a complaint that
is likely to have a significant impact on the Federal Reserve
System's mission, activities, or reputation.
Retaliation Claims by Supervised Persons. The Federal Reserve
Board does not tolerate retaliation by System staff against a
supervised institution or its employees (``supervised persons'').
Retaliation is defined as any action or decision by Reserve Bank or
Board staff that causes a supervised person to be treated
differently or more harshly than other similarly situated
institutions because the supervised person attempted to resolve a
complaint by filing an appeal of a material supervisory
determination or utilized any other Board mechanisms for resolving
complaints. Retaliation includes, but is not limited to, delaying or
denying action that might benefit a supervised person without a
sound supervisory reason or subjecting a supervised institution to
heightened examination standards without a sound supervisory reason.
The Ombudsman is authorized to receive, review, and determine
the merits of complaints of retaliatory conduct by Reserve Bank or
Board staff. The Ombudsman may attempt to resolve retaliation claims
informally by engaging in discussions with the concerned supervised
person and the appropriate Board or Reserve Bank staff. If a
complaint cannot be resolved informally, the Ombudsman may initiate
a full investigation into the underlying facts and circumstances.
To commence a factual investigation of a complaint of
retaliatory conduct, the Ombudsman should provide written notice to
the appropriate Board committee and division director and the
appropriate Reserve Bank officer in charge of supervision. As part
of the investigation, the Ombudsman may, among other things, collect
and review documents, interview witnesses, and seek any other
relevant information. The Ombudsman may also consult Board and
Reserve Bank staff with subject matter expertise. Where necessary,
the appropriate Board committee or division director may authorize
or assign such additional resources as may be needed to assist the
Ombudsman in fully reviewing the matter.
Upon completion of the factual investigation of a complaint of
retaliatory conduct, the Ombudsman will decide whether a member of
System staff retaliated, as defined above. The Ombudsman will report
this determination to the appropriate Board committee or Governor
and division director and the appropriate Reserve Bank officer in
charge of supervision and may make recommendations for resolution of
the matter to those parties. However, the Ombudsman shall not make
recommendations regarding disciplinary action against a System staff
member. The Ombudsman's determination regarding retaliation will be
communicated in writing to the supervised person.
To further ensure that supervised persons are not subjected to
retaliation, as defined above, the Ombudsman will contact a
supervised institution within six months after an appeal has been
decided to inquire whether retaliation occurred. Where possible, the
Ombudsman will also contact the institution after the next
examination following an appeal. In the event an institution
complains of retaliation, the Ombudsman will initiate the process
outlined above to informally review the matter or initiate a factual
investigation.
Consumer Complaints and Appeals. Independent of the Ombudsman
function, the Federal Reserve System operates a consumer complaint
and inquiry program to assist members of the public who are
experiencing problems with their financial institution. In
accordance with this program, the Ombudsman will refer all consumer
complaints to the Division of Consumer and Community Affairs (DCCA).
DCCA will review the complaint to determine appropriate handling. If
a new complaint is received, DCCA will refer the complaint to the
Federal Reserve Consumer Help Center (FRCH) for processing. If the
complainant requested an independent review of a previously filed
complaint, the Ombudsman will refer the complaint to DCCA, who will
perform the review and respond to the complainant. The Ombudsman
will consult with DCCA during the appeal investigation, and in some
instances, suggest additional
[[Page 8396]]
actions, including further investigations that should be taken to
ensure that the matter is fully and fairly addressed. When
responding to the complainant, DCCA will also provide a final copy
of the response letter to the Ombudsman.
If the Ombudsman receives a complaint regarding DCCA's review of
an appeal, the Ombudsman will collect and review the complaint
documents and seek any other relevant information. The Ombudsman may
also consult Board and Reserve Bank staff to discuss the details of
the previous complaint investigations. The Ombudsman is responsible
for responding to the complainant with its determination. As
appropriate, the Ombudsman will contact the appropriate Board
division director and Reserve Bank staff with feedback or concerns.
Safeguards. These policies, processes, and practices are
intended as safeguards to encourage complainants to come forward
with issues or complaints related to the Federal Reserve System's
regulatory activities.
To the extent possible, the Ombudsman will honor requests to
keep confidential the identity of a complaining party. It must be
recognized, however, that it may not be possible for the Ombudsman
to resolve certain complaints, including complaints of retaliation,
if the Ombudsman cannot disclose the identity of the complaining
party to other members of Federal Reserve staff.
Procedures. A party may contact the Ombudsman at any time
regarding concerns or issues resulting from the regulatory
activities of the Board or the Reserve Banks by calling 1[dash]800-
337-0429, by sending a fax to 202-530-6208, by writing to the Office
of the Ombudsman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
Washington, D.C. 20551, or by sending an email to [email protected].
[FR Doc. 2018-03907 Filed 2-26-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P