Skip to main content
U.S. flag
An official website of the United States government
Dot gov
The .gov means it’s official. 
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
Https
The site is secure. 
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
Federal Register Publications

FDIC Federal Register Citations



Home Regulation & Examinations Laws & Regulations FDIC Federal Register Citations


   


FDIC Federal Register Citations

Little River Band of Ottawa Indians

October 20, 2004

Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary
Att: Comments/Legal ESS, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
via: comments@FDIC.gov

RIN number 3064-AC50 - Regulatory Changes to the Community Reinvestment Act

Dear Mr. Feldman,

The Little River Band of Ottawa Indians is a federally recognized Tribe located on the eastern shores of Lake Michigan, in the middle of the lower Michigan. We are surrounded by water on one side, and federal forests on the other. We have in excess of 3000 members who rely on the Tribal Council to make long term governmental decisions to provide housing opportunities and support economic benefits through employment and business development. We have been advised of the proposed changes to the Community Reinvestment Act regulations (CRA) by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and we are enclosing the following comments on behalf of the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians (the Tribe).

The CRA was adopted by Congress to ‘encourage’ banks to become a part of the community by serving all the needs of the community, not just those that are profitable. A bank, as part of a community, is an institution that can help create growth in the economy, which fosters better wages, which fosters better housing and living conditions through lending programs. These programs are in part, generated through low– and moderate– housing mortgage programs, and in part through lending through small business development programs implemented through banks under federal, Tribal, and state programs.

A large percent of our Tribal members are of low–and moderate– income who have set high hopes on the opportunities the CRA offers to communities like ours. Of special interest to us has been the great opportunity to take advantage of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program that will bring to the community real possibilities to develop a housing solution in partnership with our local lending institutions. Under the current CRA regulations community banks have a clear incentive to develop such partnerships.

The proposed changes remove any incentive for community banks to continue seeking our partnership to develop programs such as the tax credit program referred to above. Indeed, by redefining small banks by way of increasing the threshold of their assets, the FDIC would empower these banks with the ability to decide the activities they would favor to remain in compliance, without regard of the needs of the community. While the current regulations contain a streamlined test to rate small banks’ CRA compliance, and continues the three-pronged test for large banks, the proposed regulation increases the threshold of small banks’ assets. This makes community banks testing for compliance similar to that of the current large banks, but maintains the “old” streamlined test to measure their CRA performance.

It is our belief that this change will lead to negative consequences. Small banks have an incentive to comply. Regulations and the possibility of merging with a larger institution represent a great incentive for them to be in compliance and offer opportunities to low– and moderate– income families. Once a bank has become part of a larger bank, that incentive is not as powerful as it was before because they have achieved their goal of increasing bank profits through mergers and the increase in the number of bank customers.

If in addition, the CRA regulations allow them to “pick-and-choose” any of the three activities to develop, there is no question that banks will concentrate on activities that would be profitable at a minimum risk. This would ultimately defeat the legislative purpose of the CRA, which is to provide incentives to participate in the community as a whole, in order to bring the entire community to a higher economic level.

Similarly, if banks are granted the freedom to choose between low–and moderate– income risk and rural risk, there is no doubt that banks will choose the rural risk. Rural risk is not tied to income level. Since investing in a suburban development would qualify as a CRA activity under the proposed regulations, I cannot see the reason why a bank would choose to invest in low– and moderate– income housing projects. The incentive is not there, and the proposed FDIC’s regulations would allow community banks to escape the responsibilities they have toward the entire community.

In addition, allowing banks the option to invest in ‘rural risk’ defeats the purposes of the CRA. As stated above, the CRA is aimed at low– and moderate– risk income activities. Rural risk activities have no tie to income levels, and could avoid the low– or moderate–risk exposure entirely.

The Tribe does not oppose a new definition of small banks by way of increasing the threshold amount of assets regardless of holding company affiliation. As long as the tests banks are subjected to inquiry about banking activities in the areas of investments, lending and service to low–and moderate– income activities, they will have a greater incentive to participate in that community.

The Tribe is strongly opposed to having the banks decide which areas of activity they can develop in order to comply with the CRA performance requirements. A balance of involvement in the three identified areas above is what we support. This balance of activity supports all levels of the community, and ultimately raises the economic balance of the entire community through housing and economic development.

Finally, the Tribe is concerned about adding to the group of individuals to be served under CRA those banking activities of those living in rural areas without an income limitation. The intention of the regulations are already served without further introducing another classification of possible individuals to be utilized by community banks to meet their community responsibilities.

The purpose of the act is to serve low– and moderate– income individuals, whether they are located in urban or rural areas. If the regulations introduce a new classification –individuals living in rural areas– it is sending the message to the banks that they will be CRA compliant if they meet the “rural” requirement without regard of the income requirement. The ultimate result is that banks are given back the“red pen” to draw new lines around the demographic or geographic make-up of their communities, once again leaving low– and moderate– income individuals without services.

In conclusion,
1) the Tribe supports changing the threshold of assets regardless of holding company affiliation in the definition of small banks as one with assets from $250,00 to $1 billion;
2) the Tribe opposes a streamlined test to measure their CRA performance, supporting maintaining the three-pronged test, requiring a balance of investment, lending and service activity within the community;
3) the Tribe opposes to banks having the power to choose between activities they may favor the most; and,
4) the Tribe opposes adding to the category of individuals’ beneficiaries of the CRA activities to any rural resident, and advocates for maintaining as the beneficiaries’ individuals of low– and moderate– income.
We are available for further discussion regarding these regulations if you would find that helpful.

Sincerely,

Stephen Parsons, Speaker
Tribal Council
Little River Band of Ottawa Indians



Last Updated 11/16/2004 regs@fdic.gov

Last Updated: August 4, 2024