Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation

========================================================================
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.

========================================================================

[[Page 44293]]

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

12 CFR Part 363

RIN 3064-AC91

Annual Independent Audits and Reporting Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FDIC is proposing to amend its regulations concerning
annual independent audits and reporting requirements, which implement
Section 36 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act). Section 36
and the FDIC's implementing regulations are generally intended to
facilitate early identification of problems in financial management at
insured depository institutions with total assets above a certain
threshold (currently $500 million) through annual independent audits,
assessments of the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting and compliance with designated laws and regulations, and
related reporting requirements. Section 36 also includes requirements
for audit committees at these insured depository institutions. The
FDIC's amendments would raise the asset size threshold from $500
million to $1 billion for internal control assessments by management
and external auditors and for the members of the audit committee, who
must be outside directors, to be independent of management. As required
by section 36, the FDIC has consulted with the other Federal banking
agencies. These amendments are proposed to take effect December 31,
2005.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 16, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to
the FDIC by any of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Agency Web site: http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/propose.html.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the FDIC Web site.
E-mail: Comments@FDIC.gov. Include RIN number in the
subject line of the message.
Mail: Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, Attention:
Comments, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20429.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Guard station at the rear of the
550 17th Street building (located on F Street) on business days between
7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and RIN number for this rulemaking. All comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/propose.html
including any personal information provided. Comments may
be inspected and photocopied in the FDIC Public Information Center,
Room 100, 801 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4:30
p.m. on business days.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harrison E. Greene, Jr., Senior Policy
Analyst (Bank Accounting), Division of Supervision and Consumer
Protection, at hgreene@fdic.gov or (202) 898-8905; or Michelle
Borzillo, Counsel, Supervision and Legislation Section, Legal Division,
at mborzillo@fdic.gov or (202) 898-7400.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

Section 112 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Improvement Act of 1991 (FDICIA) added Section 36, ``Early
Identification of Needed Improvements in Financial Management,'' to the
FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1831m). Section 36 is generally intended to
facilitate early identification of problems in financial management at
insured depository institutions above a certain asset size threshold
through annual independent audits, assessments of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting and compliance with
designated laws and regulations, and related requirements. Section 36
also includes requirements for audit committees at these insured
depository institutions. Section 36 grants the FDIC discretion to set
the asset size threshold for compliance with these statutory
requirements, but it states that the threshold cannot be less than $150
million. Sections 36(d) and (f) also obligate the FDIC to consult with
the other Federal banking agencies in implementing these sections of
the FDI Act, and the FDIC has performed that consultation requirement.
In June 1993, the FDIC published 12 CFR part 363 (58 FR 31332, June
2, 1993) to implement the provisions of section 36 of the FDI Act.
Under part 363, the requirements of section 36 apply to each insured
depository institution with $500 million or more in total assets at the
beginning of its fiscal year (covered institution). Often referred to
as the ``FDICIA reporting requirements,'' part 363 requires each
covered institution to submit to the FDIC and other appropriate Federal
and state supervisory agencies an annual report that includes audited
financial statements, a statement of management's responsibilities,
assessments by management of the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting and compliance with designated laws and
regulations, and an auditor's attestation report on internal control
over financial reporting. In addition, part 363 provides that each
covered institution must establish an independent audit committee of
its board of directors comprised of outside directors who are
independent of management of the institution. Part 363 also includes
Guidelines and Interpretations (Appendix A to part 363), which are
intended to assist institutions and independent public accountants in
understanding and complying with section 36 and part 363.
A covered institution may satisfy the audited financial statements
requirement of part 363 at the holding company level. Subject to
certain conditions, the other requirements of part 363 may be satisfied
at the holding company level. Members of the independent audit
committee of a holding company may serve as the audit committee of a
subsidiary covered institution provided they are otherwise independent
of the subsidiary's management and meet the other criteria set forth in
part 363.
When it adopted part 363 in 1993, the FDIC stated that it was
setting the asset size threshold at $500 million rather

[[Page 44294]]

than the $150 million specified in section 36 to mitigate the financial
burden of compliance with section 36 consistent with safety and
soundness. In selecting $500 million in total assets as the size
threshold, the FDIC noted that approximately 1,000 of the then nearly
14,000 FDIC-insured institutions would be subject to part 363. These
covered institutions held approximately 75 percent of the assets of
insured institutions at that time. By imposing the audit, reporting,
and audit committee requirements of part 363 on institutions with this
percentage of the industry's assets, the FDIC intended to ensure that
the Congress's objectives for achieving sound financial management at
insured institutions when it enacted section 36 would be focused on
those institutions posing the greatest risk to the insurance funds
administered by the FDIC. Today, due to consolidation in the banking
and thrift industry and the effects of inflation, approximately 1,150
of the 8,900 insured institutions have $500 million or more in total
assets and are therefore subject to part 363. These covered
institutions hold approximately 90 percent of the assets of insured
institutions.

B. Increasing the Asset Size Threshold for Internal Control Assessments

An effective internal control structure is critical to the safety
and soundness of each insured institution. Given its importance,
internal control is evaluated as part of the supervision of individual
institutions and its adequacy is a factor in the management rating
assigned to an institution. Furthermore, in the audit of an
institution's financial statements, the external auditor must obtain an
understanding of internal control, including assessing control risk,
and must report certain matters regarding internal control to the
institution's audit committee.
An institution subject to part 363 has the added requirement that
its management perform an assessment of the internal control structure
and procedures for financial reporting and that its external auditor
examine, attest to, and report on management's assertion concerning the
institution's internal control over financial reporting. For purposes
of these internal control provisions of part 363, the FDIC has advised
covered institutions that the term ``financial reporting'' includes
both financial statements prepared in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles and those prepared for regulatory
reporting purposes.\1\ Until year-end 2004, external auditors performed
their internal control assessments in accordance with an attestation
standard issued by the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants (AICPA) known as ``AT 501.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ See FDIC Financial Institution Letter (FIL) 86-94, dated
December 23, 1994. FIL-86-94 indicates that financial statements
prepared for regulatory reporting purposes encompass the schedules
equivalent to the basic financial statements in an institution's
appropriate regulatory report, e.g., the bank Reports of Conditions
and Income and the Thrift Financial Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was enacted into law on July 30, 2002.
Section 404 of this Act imposes a requirement for internal control
assessments by the management and external auditors of all public
companies that is similar to the FDICIA requirement. The Securities and
Exchange Commission's (SEC) rules implementing these requirements took
effect at year-end 2004 for ``accelerated filers,'' i.e., generally,
public companies whose common equity has an aggregate market value of
at least $75 million, but they will not take effect until 2006 for
``non-accelerated filers.'' For the section 404 auditor attestations,
the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board's (PCAOB) Auditing
Standard No. 2 (AS 2) applies. AS 2 replaces the AICPA's AT 501
internal control attestation standard for public companies, but AS 2
does not apply to nonpublic companies. The SEC's section 404 rules for
management and the provisions of AS 2 for section 404 audits of
internal control establish more robust documentation and testing
requirements than those that have been applied by covered institutions
and their auditors to satisfy the internal control reporting
requirements in part 363.
For internal control attestations of nonpublic companies, the AICPA
is currently developing proposed revisions to AT 501 that are expected
to bring it closer into line with the provisions of AS 2. The revisions
also are likely to have the effect of requiring greater documentation
and testing of internal control over financial reporting by an
institution's management in order for the auditor to perform his or her
attestation work.
As the environment has changed and continues to change since the
enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the FDIC has observed that
compliance with the audit and reporting requirements of part 363 has
and will continue to become more burdensome and costly, particularly
for smaller nonpublic covered institutions. Thus, the FDIC has reviewed
the current asset size threshold for compliance with part 363 in light
of the discretion granted by Section 36 that permits the FDIC to
determine the appropriate size threshold (at or above $150 million) at
which insured institutions should be subject to the various provisions
of section 36. Based on this review, the FDIC is proposing to amend
part 363 to increase the asset size threshold for internal control
assessments by management and external auditors from $500 million to $1
billion. Raising the threshold to $1 billion would achieve meaningful
burden reduction without sacrificing safety and soundness.
In reaching this decision, the FDIC concluded that raising the $500
million asset size threshold to $1 billion and exempting all
institutions below this higher size level from all of the reporting
requirements of part 363 would not be consistent with the objective of
the underlying statute, i.e., early identification of needed
improvements in financial management. In contrast, the FDIC believes
that relieving smaller covered institutions from the burden of internal
control assessments, while retaining the financial statement audit and
other reporting requirements for all institutions with $500 million or
more in total assets, strikes an appropriate balance in accomplishing
this objective. If the FDIC were to raise the size threshold for
internal control assessments to $1 billion, about 600 of the largest
insured institutions with approximately 86 percent of industry assets
would continue to be covered by the internal control reporting
requirements of part 363. At the same time, the managements of covered
institutions would remain responsible for establishing and maintaining
an adequate internal control structure and procedures for financial
reporting, and all institutions with $500 million or more in total
assets would continue to include a statement to that effect in their
part 363 annual report.
Accordingly, the FDIC is seeking comments on the proposed amendment
to part 363 to increase the asset size threshold for internal control
assessments by management and external auditors to $1 billion. This
amendment is proposed to take effect December 31, 2005. For insured
institutions (both public and non-public) with calendar year fiscal
years that had $500 million or more in total assets, but less than $1
billion in total assets, on January 1, 2005, this proposal would mean
that the part 363 annual report for 2005 that they submit to the FDIC
and other appropriate Federal and state supervisory agencies would need
to include only audited financial statements, statements of
management's

[[Page 44295]]

responsibilities, management's assessment of the institution's
compliance with designated laws and regulations, and an auditor's
report on the financial statements.
For insured depository institutions that are public companies or
subsidiaries of public companies, regardless of size, the FDIC's
proposed amendment to part 363 would not relieve public companies of
their obligation to comply with the internal control assessment
requirements imposed by section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in
accordance with the effective dates for compliance set forth in the
SEC's implementing rules.
Nevertheless, the FDIC reminds insured institutions with $1 billion
or more in total assets that are public companies or subsidiaries of
public companies that they have considerable flexibility in determining
how best to satisfy the internal control assessment requirements in the
SEC's section 404 rules and the FDIC's part 363. As indicated in the
preamble to the SEC's section 404 final rule release, the FDIC (and the
other Federal banking agencies) agreed with the SEC that insured
depository institutions that are subject to both part 363 (as well as
holding companies permitted under the holding company exception in part
363 to file an internal control report on behalf of their insured
depository institution subsidiaries) and the SEC's rules implementing
section 404 can choose either of the following two options:
They can prepare two separate reports of management on the
institution's or the holding company's internal control over financial
reporting to satisfy the FDIC's part 363 requirements and the SEC's
section 404 requirements; or
They can prepare a single report of management on internal
control over financial reporting that satisfies both the FDIC's
requirements and the SEC's requirements.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Footnote 117 in the preamble to the SEC's Section 404 final
rule releases states that ``[a]n insured depository institution
subject to both the FDIC's [internal control assessment]
requirements and our new requirements [i.e., a public depository
institution] choosing to file a single report to satisfy both sets
of requirements will file the report with its primary Federal
regulator under the Exchange Act and the FDIC, its primary Federal
regulator (if other than the FDIC), and any appropriate state
depository institution supervisor under part 363 of the FDIC's
regulations. A [public] holding company choosing to prepare a single
report to satisfy both sets of requirements will file the report
with the [Securities and Exchange] Commission under the Exchange Act
and the FDIC, the primary federal regulator of the insured
depository institution subsidiary subject to the FDIC's
requirements, and any appropriate state depository institution
supervisor under part 363.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For more complete information on these two options, institutions
(and holding companies) should refer to Section II.H.4. of the preamble
to the SEC's Section 404 final rule release (68 FR 36648, June 18,
2003).

C. Composition of the Audit Committee

Currently, part 363 requires each covered institution to establish
an independent audit committee of its board of directors, comprised of
outside directors who are independent of management of the institution.
The duties of the audit committee include reviewing with management and
the institutions' independent public accountant the basis for the
reports included in the part 363 annual report submitted to the FDIC
and other appropriate Federal and state supervisory agencies. The
FDIC's Guidelines to part 363 provide that, at least annually, the
board of directors of a covered institution should determine whether
all existing and potential audit committee members are ``independent of
management of the institution.'' The guidelines also describe factors
to consider in making this determination.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ See Guidelines 27 through 29 of Appendix A to part 363.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 36 provides that an appropriate Federal banking agency may
grant a hardship exemption to a covered institution that would permit
its independent audit committee to be made up of less than all, but no
fewer than a majority of, outside directors who are independent of
management. To grant the exemption, the agency must find that the
institution has encountered hardships in retaining and recruiting a
sufficient number of competent outside directors.
Notwithstanding this exemption provision of section 36, the FDIC
has observed that a number of smaller covered institutions,
particularly those with few shareholders that have recently exceeded
$500 million in total assets and become subject to part 363, have
encountered difficulty in satisfying the independent audit committee
requirement. To comply with this requirement, these institutions must
identify and attract qualified individuals in their communities who
would be willing to become a director and audit committee member and
who would be independent of management.
To relieve this burden, but also recognizing that the FDIC has long
held that individuals who serve as directors of any insured depository
institution should be persons of independent judgment, the FDIC is
proposing to amend part 363 to increase from $500 million to $1 billion
the asset size threshold for requiring audit committee members to be
independent of management. Conforming changes would be made to
Guidelines 27-29 of Appendix A to part 363. Each insured depository
institution with total assets of $500 million or more but less than $1
billion would continue to be required to have an audit committee
comprised of outside directors. Consistent with Guideline 29 of
Appendix A to part 363, an outside director would be defined as an
individual who is not, and within the preceding year has not been, an
officer or employee of the institution or any affiliate of the
institution.
This proposed amendment to the audit committee requirements for
institutions with between $500 million and $1 billion in total assets
would allow an outside director who is, for example, a consultant or
legal counsel to the institution, a relative of an officer or employee
of the institution or its affiliates, or the owner of 10 percent or
more of the stock of the institution to serve as an audit committee
member. Nevertheless, the FDIC would encourage each institution with
between $500 million and $1 billion in assets to make a reasonable good
faith effort to establish an audit committee of outside directors who
are independent of management.
Accordingly, the FDIC is seeking comments on the proposed amendment
to increase from $500 million to $1 billion the asset size threshold at
which members of a covered institution's audit committee must be
outside directors who are independent of management. This amendment is
proposed to take effect December 31, 2005.

D. Technical Changes

The FDIC also proposes to make certain technical changes to part
363 to correct outdated titles, terms, and references in the regulation
and its appendix.

E. Other Revisions

The FDIC has identified other aspects of part 363 that may warrant
revision in light of changes in the industry and the passage of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act. However, the FDIC believes that finalizing the
amendments in this proposal should take priority over other possible
revisions to part 363 in order to reduce compliance burdens and
expenses for affected institutions in the current year. The FDIC
expects to propose further revisions to part 363 as soon as
practicable.

[[Page 44296]]

Request for Comments

The FDIC welcomes comments on all aspects of this proposal.

Solicitation of Comments on Use of Plain Language

Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Pub. L. 106-102, sec.
722, 113 Stat. 1338, 1471 (Nov. 12, 1999), requires the Federal banking
agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rules
published after January 1, 2000. We invite your comments on how to make
this proposal easier to understand. For example:
Have we organized the material to suit your needs? If not,
how could this material be better organized?
Are the requirements in the proposed regulation clearly
stated? If not, how could the regulation be more clearly stated?
Does the proposed regulation contain language or jargon
that is not clear? If so, which language requires clarification?
Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the regulation easier to
understand? If so, what changes to the format would make the regulation
easier to understand?
What else could we do to make the regulation easier to
understand?

Solicitation of Comments on Impact on Community Banks

The FDIC seeks comments on the impact of this proposal on community
banks. The FDIC recognizes that community banks operate with more
limited resources than larger institutions and may present a different
risk profile. Thus, the FDIC specifically requests comments on the
impact of the proposal on community banks' current resources, including
personnel, and whether the goals of the proposed rule could be
achieved, for community banks, through an alternative approach.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that each Federal
Agency either certify that a proposed rule would not, if adopted in
final form, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities or prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
(IRFA) of the proposal and publish the analysis for comment. See 5
U.S.C. 603, 605. The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines small
banks as those with less than $150 million in assets. Because this rule
expressly exempts insured depository institutions having assets of less
than $500 million, it is inapplicable to small entities as defined by
the SBA. Therefore, it is certified that this proposed rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed rule would revise a collection of information that
has been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget
under control number 3064-0113, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). The primary revisions increase the asset size
threshold for compliance with sections 363.2(b), 363.3(b), and
363.5(a). It is anticipated that these changes will result in a burden
reduction for affected insured institutions. Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information
has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden
of the information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways
to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology.
Comments should be addressed to Steven F. Hanft, Paperwork
Clearance Officer, Room MB-3064, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20429, with copies to Desk Officer
Mark Menchik, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503.
The paperwork burden associated with this rule was last reviewed in
2002. At that time, the FDIC estimated the burden to be 42,639 hours
for FDIC-supervised institutions. Since then, data has become available
to the FDIC that indicates the 2002 estimate was too low. Taking that
information (including the results of a burden study conducted by a
major trade association) into account, the FDIC believes a more
accurate estimate for this collection of information is 118,535 hours.
If the revisions in this proposed rule are implemented, the resulting
estimated reporting burden for the collection of information would be
65,612 hours, a 45 percent reduction (52,923 hours).
Number of Respondents: 5,243.
Total Annual Responses: 15,684.
Total Annual Burden Hours: 65,612.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 363

Accounting, Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, banking,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board of Directors
of the FDIC proposes to amend part 363 of title 12, chapter III, of the
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 363--ANNUAL INDEPENDENT AUDITS AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

1. The authority citation for part 363 continues to read as
follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C 1831m.

2. Section 363.1 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B) to
read as follows:

Sec. 363.1 Scope.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) Total assets of $5 billion or more and a composite CAMELS
rating of 1 or 2.
* * * * *
3. Section 363.2 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) and adding
paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:

Sec. 363.2 Annual reporting requirements.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) An assessment by management of the institution's compliance
with such laws and regulations during such fiscal year; and
(3) For an institution with total assets of $1 billion or more at
the beginning of such fiscal year, an assessment by management of the
effectiveness of such internal control structure and procedures as of
the end of such fiscal year.
4. Section 363.3 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec. 363.3 Independent public accountant.

* * * * *
(b) Additional reports. For each insured depository institution
with total assets of $1 billion or more at the beginning of the
institution's fiscal year, such independent public accountant shall
examine, attest to, and report separately on, the assertion of
management concerning the institution's internal control structure and
procedures for financial reporting. The attestation shall be made in
accordance with generally accepted standards for attestation
engagements.
* * * * *
5. Section 363.5 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

[[Page 44297]]

Sec. 363.5 Audit committees.

(a) Composition and duties. Each insured depository institution
shall establish an audit committee of its board of directors, the
composition of which complies with paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and (3) of
this section, and the duties of which shall include reviewing with
management and the independent public accountant the basis for the
reports issued under this part.
(1) Each insured depository institution with total assets of $1
billion or more as of the beginning of its fiscal year shall establish
an independent audit committee of its board of directors, the members
of which shall be outside directors who are independent of management
of the institution.
(2) Each insured depository institution with total assets of $500
million or more but less than $1 billion as of the beginning of its
fiscal year shall establish an audit committee of its board of
directors, the members of which shall be outside directors.
(3) An outside director is a director who is not, and within the
preceding fiscal year has not been, an officer or employee of the
institution or any affiliate of the institution.
* * * * *
6. Appendix A to Part 363 is amended as follows:
a. Footnote 2 Guideline 10 is amended by adding ``and Consumer
Protection Risk Management'' after ``FDIC's Division of Supervision'';
b. Guideline 16 is amended by removing ``Registration and
Disclosure Section'' and adding in its place ``Accounting and
Securities Disclosure Section'';
c. Guideline 22 is amended by revising the first sentence of
paragraph (a) to read as set forth below:
d. Guideline 27 is amended by revising the second sentence to read
as set forth below;
e. Guideline 28 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as set
forth below;
f. Guideline 29 is revised to read as set forth below; and
g. The first sentence of Guideline 36 is revised to read as set
forth below.
The revisions read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 363--Guidelines and Interpretations

* * * * *

Filing and Notice Requirements (Sec. 363.4)

22. * * *
(a) FDIC: Appropriate FDIC Regional or Area Office (Supervision
and Consumer Protection), i.e., the FDIC regional or area office in
the FDIC region or area that is responsible for monitoring the
institution or, in the case of a subsidiary institution of a holding
company, the consolidated company. * * *
* * * * *

Audit Committees (Sec. 363.5)

27. * * * At least annually at an institution with $1 billion or
more in total assets at the beginning of its fiscal year, the board
should determine whether all existing and potential audit committee
members are ``independent of management of the institution.'' * * *
28. * * *
(a) Has previously been an officer of the institution or any
affiliate of the institution;
29. Lack of Independence. An outside director should not be
considered independent of management if such director owns or
controls, or has owned or controlled within the preceding fiscal
year, assets representing 10 percent or more of any outstanding
class of voting securities of the institution.
* * * * *

Other

36. * * * The FDIC Board of Directors has delegated to the
Director of the FDIC's Division of Supervision and Consumer
Protection (DSC) authority to make and publish in the Federal
Register minor technical amendments to the Guidelines in this
appendix in consultation with the other appropriate Federal banking
agencies, to reflect the practical experience gained from
implementation of this part. * * *
* * * * *

By order of the Board of Directors.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Dated at Washington, DC, this 19th day of July, 2005.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 05-15109 Filed 8-1-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6714-01-P