|  
 PIONEER BANK & TRUST
 
 September
              23, 2004
             Robert E. Feldman, Executive SecretaryAttention:	Comments/Legal ESS
 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
 550 17th Street, NW
 Washington, DC 20429
 Dear Mr. Feldman: Re:	Community Reinvestment. RIN number 3064-AC5O:Proposal to Expand Eligibility for the Streamlined CRA Exam
 As a community
              banker, I join my fellow community bankers throughout the nation
              in strong
              support of the FDIC’s proposal to increase
            the asset size limit of banks eligible for the streamlined small-bank
            CRA examination. I also strongly support the elimination of the separate
            holding company qualification. The proposal
              will greatly alleviate unnecessary paperwork and examination burden
              without
              weakening our commitment to reinvest in our communities.
            Reinvesting in our communities is something we do everyday as a matter
            of good business. My community bank will not long survive if my local
            community doesn’t thrive, and that means my bank must be responsive
            to community needs and promote and support community and economic
            development. Making it less burdensome to undergo a CRA exam by expanding expanding
            eligibility for the streamlined exam will not change the way my bank
            does business. In fact, it will free up human and financial resources
            that can be redirected to the community and used to make loans and
            provide other services. It is important
              to remember that the streamlined CRA exam is not an exemption from
              CRA. It
              is a more cost effective and efficient
            CRA exam. Banks subject to the simplified CRA exam are still fully
            obligated to comply with CRA. Just as now, community banks would
            continue to be examined to ensure they lend to all segments of their
            communities, including low- and moderate-income individuals and neighborhoods.
            It just doesn’t make sense and is inequitable to evaluate a
            $500 million or $1 billion bank using the same exam procedures as
            for $100 billion or $500 billion bank.
 One of the problems with the current large bank CRA exam is that
              the definition of “qualified investments” is too limited,
              and qualified investments can be difficult to find. As a result,
              many community banks (especially those in rural areas) have to
              invest in regional or statewide mortgage bonds or housing bonds
              and the like to meet CRA requirements. These investments may benefit
              other areas of the state or region, but they actually take resources
              away from the bank’s local community. Community banks and
              communities would be better off if the banks could truly reinvest
              those dollars locally to support their own local economies and
              residents.
 For this reason,
              I find that the FDIC’s proposed community
            development requirement for banks between $250 million and $1 billion
            is more flexible and more appropriate than the large bank investment
            test. The advantage to this proposal is that it continues to focus
            on community development, but considers investments, lending and
            services. It would let community banks pursue community development
            activities that both meet the local community’s needs and make
            sense in light of the bank’s strategic strengths. Similarly, the
              proposal will help rural banks meet the special needs of their
              communities
              by expanding the definition of “community
            development” so that it includes activities that benefit rural
            residents in addition to low-and moderate-income individuals. Rural
            banks are frequently called upon to support needed economic or infrastructure
            development such as school construction, revitalizing Main Street,
            or loans that help create needed or better-paying jobs. These activities
            should not be ineligible for CRA credit because they do not benefit
            only low- or moderate-income individuals. The FDIC’s
              proposed changes to CRA are needed to help alleviate regulatory
              burden.
              Without changes such as this, more and more community
            banks like mine will find they cannot sustain independent existence
            because of the crushing regulatory burden, and will opt to sell out.
            For many small towns and rural communities, the loss of the local
            bank is a major blow to the local community. By easing regulatory
            burden, it will make it easier for community banks like mine to continue
            to provide committed service to local communities that few other
            financial service providers are willing to do. Thank you for considering my views. Sincerely, Eric KurtzSenior Vice President
 
              |