Dustin N. Nofziger

On April 20, 2026, Pryor Cashman Partners Dustin N. Nofziger, a member of the Financial Institutions Practice, and Pinchus D. Raice, Co-Chair of the Financial Institutions Practice, submitted comments to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) in response to an OCC proposal to reform to its process for banks and other supervised entities to appeal the agency’s material supervisory determinations.

The authors express strong support for the OCC’s effort to strengthen the independence and fairness of its supervisory appeals process. At the same time, the authors recommend that the OCC further enhance its proposal by aligning key elements with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (FDIC) Guidelines for Appeals of Material Supervisory Determinations, which the FDIC recently revised.

The comments were informed by the authors’ substantial experience with bank intra-agency appeals, and focused on improving the independence, transparency, and procedural fairness of the OCC’s appeals process.

Dustin and Pinchus recommended the following:

• Independence of the Appeals Board: Like the FDIC, the OCC should ensure that members of its Appeals Board are not current agency employees. In particular, the inclusion of an agency employee—such as the OCC’s Chief National Bank Examiner—on the Appeals Board may undermine supervised entities’ confidence in the impartiality and fairness of the appeals process.
• Industry Experience on Appeals Panels: The OCC should require that at least one member of the Appeals Board have private-sector “industry experience,” such as prior work at a bank or in private regulatory practice, to ensure a diversity of perspectives (similar to the FDIC model).
• Transparency and Information Sharing: Consistent with the FDIC’s approach, the OCC should require that all materials considered by the Appeals Board be shared with the appealing institution, with the reasons for any redactions based on applicable legal limitations disclosed.
• Oral Presentations: The OCC should allow appealing institutions to request oral presentations before the Appeals Board, similar to the FDIC model, to improve decision-making, enhance fairness, and help ensure that both sides are heard on equal footing.
• Clarifying Who May File Appeals: Like the FDIC, the OCC should not specify that appeals be submitted only by a financial institution’s president or CEO, particularly given that outside counsel often submit appeals on an institution’s behalf.  
• Expanding Appealable Determinations: Like the FDIC, the OCC should clarify that appealable material supervisory determinations include decisions to initiate informal enforcement actions and that determinations in supervisory letters may be appealed.
• Appeals of Certain Enforcement-Related Matters: Consistent with the FDIC’s approach, the OCC should permit appeals of the facts and circumstances underlying proposed or pending formal enforcement actions where safety and soundness, AML/CFT, or sanctions issues are not implicated.

Dustin and Pinchus conclude that while the OCC’s proposal represents an important step forward, further alignment with the FDIC’s framework would significantly strengthen the independence, transparency, and fairness of the OCC’s supervisory appeals process.