On April 20, 2026, Pryor Cashman Partner Pinchus D. Raice, Co-Chair of the Financial Institutions Practice, and Partner Dustin N. Nofziger, a member of the Financial Institutions Practice, submitted comments to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) in response to the agency’s proposed rulemaking OCC–2026–0001 concerning reforms to the bank supervisory appeals process.

The comments express strong support for the OCC’s effort to strengthen the independence and fairness of its intra-agency appeals framework. 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.

The comments were informed by the authors’ experience with federal banking regulators and focus on improving independence, transparency, and procedural fairness in the appeals process.

The comments recommended the following:

• Independence of the Appeals Board: The OCC should ensure that members of its Appeals Board are not current OCC employees. In particular, the presence of a permanent internal member—such as the Chief National Bank Examiner—may undermine perceived independence and confidence in the 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: The OCC should require that all materials considered by the Appeals Board be shared with the appealing institution, subject to lawful redactions. The authors also recommend prohibiting ex parte communications between OCC staff and the Appeals Board.
• Oral Presentations: The OCC should allow appealing institutions to request oral presentations before the Appeals Board. The authors argue that oral argument would improve decision-making, enhance fairness, and help ensure that both sides are heard on equal footing.
• Clarifying Who May File Appeals: The OCC should remove proposed restrictions requiring that appeals be submitted only by a financial institution’s president or CEO, and instead allow submissions authorized by the institution, including through counsel.
• Expanding Appealable Determinations: The OCC should clarify that material supervisory determinations include those contained in supervisory letters and not only examination reports, and should broaden the scope of appealable matters accordingly.
• Appeals of Certain Enforcement-Related Matters: The OCC should permit appeals of the underlying facts in certain proposed or pending formal enforcement actions where urgent safety and soundness, AML/CFT, or sanctions issues are not implicated, consistent with the FDIC’s approach.

The comments 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 bank supervisory appeals process.