EBA欧洲银行-CP01rev_feedback_8页_185kb

CEBS Public Statement of Consultation Practices Feedback Summary

Core Content

CEBS initiated a public consultation process in March 2007 to modify its "Public Statement of Consultation Practices" (PCPS). The consultation period lasted three months, during which eight responses were received. The feedback focused on the simplification and clarity of consultation procedures, the use of impact assessment, and the involvement of industry experts. CEBS aimed to summarize the comments and assess them, making necessary adjustments to the PCPS.

Main Views and Key Information

General Comments

• Support for the Proposal: Respondents generally welcomed the proposal, considering it a sensible approach for handling drafting and limited amendments to CEBS guidelines.
• Impact Assessment: There was strong support for using impact assessment when developing or amending guidelines, with a clarification that the methodology would be as approved by the 3L3 Committees.
• Consultation Modes: Suggestions were made to hold informal roundtables or public hearings with market practitioners before launching formal consultations.
• Industry Expert Involvement: Some respondents questioned the representativeness of the Panel in nominating experts and suggested involving EBIC more in the process. CEBS, however, decided that the Panel's broad representation is sufficient.
• Timing of Consultations: Tight deadlines were criticized as unnecessary and inappropriate. CEBS acknowledged this but stated that external deadlines may be unavoidable in some procedures.
• Terminology: Some respondents pointed out that references to the banking industry were not inclusive of investment firm activities. CEBS agreed and adjusted the terminology accordingly.
• Amendment Definitions: There was a call for more clarity on the terms "technical changes" and "precising or completing the existing guidelines." CEBS responded by introducing clarifications in the Annex.

Specific Comments

• Examples of Amendments: CEBS agreed to include examples in the definitions of limited and drafting amendments to avoid overly restrictive exceptions.
• Consultative Panel Role: The Panel's role in the categorization of amendments was questioned for transparency. CEBS noted that the internal process is transparent and will disclose the Panel’s views.
• Procedure for Limited Amendments: Some respondents felt that the current procedure was too rigid and suggested a quicker process for updating guidelines. CEBS agreed to extend the consultation period in certain cases.
• Consultative Panel Involvement: The Panel was suggested to be involved in the approval of drafting amendments. CEBS acknowledged the logic but decided not to act on this.
• Comment Period for National Authorities: A two-week comment period for drafting amendments was questioned. CEBS did not change this but noted it is standard for minor issues.
• Annual Amendment Limit: The limitation of one amendment per year was clarified. CEBS acknowledged the trade-off between stability and responsiveness to market changes.

Key Actions Taken

• Inclusion of Examples: Examples of limited and drafting amendments were added to the Annex for better understanding.
• Early Industry Contacts: The consultation process now includes early contacts with industry experts before the formal consultation period.
• Extended Consultation Period: The consultation period for limited amendments can be extended in certain cases, as outlined in paragraph 11, first bullet point.
• Clarifications on Amendment Definitions: The terms "technical changes" and "precising or completing the existing guidelines" were clarified in the Annex.
• Impact Assessment Methodology: The methodology for impact assessment was specified as being subject to public consultation by the 3L3 Committees.

Unaddressed Issues

• EBIC Involvement in Expert Nomination: CEBS decided not to include EBIC in the nomination of experts, as the Panel already provides broad representation.
• Impact Assessment Depth for Limited Amendments: CEBS noted that the depth and intensity of impact assessments would vary based on the nature of the amendment.
• Standard Procedure as Default: While the current PCPS sets the standard procedure as the default, CEBS did not change this based on feedback.

Conclusion

The consultation process received positive feedback overall, with respondents appreciating the simplification and clarity of procedures. CEBS made several adjustments to address concerns, particularly around terminology, amendment definitions, and consultation timing. Some suggestions, such as involving EBIC in expert nomination, were not adopted. The final document reflects a balanced approach between the need for stability and responsiveness in the regulatory framework.