| FIRST BANK & TRUST CO September 15, 2004
         Mr. Robert E. FeldmanExecutive Secretary
 ATT: Comments/Legal ESS
 Federal Deposit Insurance Corp
 550 17th St, NW
 Washington, DC 20429
 RE: RIN Number 3064-AC50: FDIC Proposed Increase in the Threshold for 
        the Small Bank CRA Streamlined Examination  Dear Sir or Madam,  I am Marcella Latimer of First Bank & Trust Co, located in Duncan, 
        OK, a city of about 25,000 residents. I am writing to strongly support 
        the FDIC’s proposal to raise the threshold for the streamlined small 
        bank CRA examination to $1 billion without regard to the size of the 
        bank’s holding company. This would greatly relieve the regulatory burden 
        imposed on many small banks such as my own under the current regulation, 
        which are required to meet the standards imposed on the nation’s largest 
        $1 trillion banks. I understand that this is not an exemption from CRA 
        and that my bank would still have to help meet the credit needs of its 
        entire community and be evaluated by my regulator.  I also support the addition of a community development criterion to 
        the small bank examination for larger community banks. It appears to be 
        a significant improvement over the investment test. However, I urge the 
        FDIC to adopt its original $500 million threshold for small banks 
        without a CD criterion and only apply the new CD criterion to community 
        banks greater than $500 million up to $1 billion. Banks under $500 
        million now hold about the same percent of overall industry assets as 
        community banks under $250 million did a decade ago when the revised CRA 
        regulations were adopted, so this adjustment in the CRA threshold is 
        appropriate. As FDIC examiners know, it has proven extremely difficult 
        for small banks, especially those in rural areas to find appropriate CRA 
        qualified investments in their communities. Many small banks have had to 
        make regional or statewide investments that are extremely unlikely to 
        ever benefit the banks’ own communities. That was certainly not the 
        intent of Congress when it enacted CRA.  An additional reason to support the FDIC’s CD criterion is that it 
        significantly reduces the current regulation’s “cliff effect.” Today, 
        when a small bank goes over $250 million, it must completely reorganize 
        its CRA program and begin a massive new reporting, monitoring and 
        investment program. If the FDIC adopts its proposal, a state nonmember 
        bank would move from the small bank examination to an expanded but still 
        streamlined small bank examination, with the flexibility to mix 
        Community Development loans, services and investments to meet the new CD 
        criterion. This would be far more appropriate to the size of the bank, 
        and far better than subjecting the community bank to the same large bank 
        examination that applies to $1 trillion banks. This more graduated 
        transition to the large bank examination is a significant improvement 
        over the current regulation.  I strongly oppose making the CD criterion a separate test from the 
        bank’s overall CRA evaluation. For a community bank, CD lending is not 
        significantly different from the provision of credit to the entire 
        community. The current small bank test considers the institution’s 
        overall lending in its community. The addition of a category of CD 
        lending (and services to aid lending and investments as a substitute for 
        lending) fits well within the concept of serving the whole community. A 
        separate test would create an additional CD obligation and regulatory 
        burden that would erode the benefit of the streamlined exam.  I strongly support the FDIC’s proposal to change the definition of 
        “community development” from only focusing on low-and moderate-income 
        area residents to including rural residents. I think that this change in 
        the definition will go a long way toward eliminating the current 
        distortions in the regulation. We caution the FDIC to provide a 
        definition of “rural” that will not be subject to misuse to favor and 
        just affluent residents of rural areas.  In conclusion, I believe that the FDIC has proposed a major 
        improvement in the CRA regulations, one that much more closely aligns 
        the regulations with the Community Reinvestment Act itself, and I urge 
        the FDIC to adopt its proposal with the recommendations above.  Sincerely,  Marcella LatimerFinancial Services Representative
 First Bank & Trust Co.
 Duncan, OK 73533
 
 |