In Conestoga National Bank of Lancaster v. Patterson, 442 Pa. 289, 275 A.2d 6 (1971), prior to the Department's promulgation of the application protest regulations, the supreme court identified the constitutional due process required when a bank protests the application of another bank. Our supreme court held that "procedural due process requires that protesting banks be afforded notice, a hearing, the opportunity to present evidence, and access to the application and supporting data when confronted with a proposal for a new branch." Id. at 299, 275 A.2d at 11. Two years later, in 1973, the Department promulgated the application protest regulations pursuant to rule-making authority set forth in statutes governing banks, pawnbrokers, consumer discount companies, savings associations and credit unions. See 3 Pa. B. 217 (1973); See also 10 Pa. Code Ch. 3, Authority. Thus, the objective was to establish adequate due process for any of the supervised or regulated entities who would protest the charter or license application of another. Indeed, the Department stated: The purpose of these regulations is to provide a procedural framework for hearings where it is the responsibility of the Department to reach informed decisions as to the public need or public interest [with respect to charter or license applications]....3 Pa. B. 216 (1973).