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

Scott County Housing Council

From: Rick Schloemer
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 2:33 PM
To: Comments
Subject: community reinvestment RIN 3064-AC50

August 26, 2004

Mr. Robert E. Feldman
Executive Secretary
Attention: Comments/Legal ESS
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
550 17th St. NW
Washington, DC 20429

RE: RIN 3064-AC50

Dear Mr. Feldman:

As a member of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, the Scott County
Housing Council urges you to withdraw your proposed changes to the Community
Reinvestment Act (CRA) regulations. CRA has been instrumental in increasing
homeownership, boosting economic development, and expanding small businesses in
the nation’s minority, immigrant, and low- and moderate-income communities.
Your proposed changes are contrary to the CRA statute and Congress’ intent
because they will slow down, if not halt, the progress made in community
reinvestment.

Under the current CRA regulations, banks with assets of at least $250 million
are rated by performance evaluations that scrutinize their level of lending,
investing and services to low- and moderate-income communities. The proposed
changes will eliminate the investment and service parts of the CRA exam for
state-chartered banks with assets between $250 million and $1 billion. In place
of the investment and service parts of the CRA exam, the FDIC proposes to add a
community development criterion. The community development criterion would
require banks to offer community development loans, investments and services.

The community development criterion would be seriously deficient as a
replacement for the investment and services tests. Mid-size banks with assets
between $250 million and $1 billion would only have to engage in one of three
activities: community development lending, investing or services. Currently,
mid-size banks must engage in all three activities. Under your proposal, a mid-
size bank could now choose a community development activity that is easiest for
the bank instead of providing an array of comprehensive community development
activities needed by low- and moderate-income communities.

Here in the state of Iowa, 296 of the 297 banks regulated by the FDIC would be
exempt from the stricter “three-part test”. The effect of removing that many
banks from the need to engage in all three levels of lending and services will
be devastating to Iowa’s rural areas as well as its larger urban communities.

The consequences for low- and moderate-income communities is that CRA examiners
will no longer expect mid-size banks to maintain and/or build bank branches in
their communities. Mid-sized banks will no longer make sustained efforts to
provide affordable banking services, and checking and savings accounts to
consumers with modest income. Mid-size banks will also not respond to the
needs for the growing demand for services needed by immigrants which is a
growing population in Iowa.

Another destructive element in your proposal is the elimination of the small
business lending data reporting requirement for mid-size banks. Mid-size banks
with assets between $250 million and $1 billion will not longer be required to
report small business lending by census tracts or revenue size of the small
business borrowers. Without such data on lending to small businesses, it is
impossible for the public at large to hold mid-size banks accountable for
responding to the credit needs of minority-owned, women-owned, and other small
businesses. Data disclosure has been responsible for increasing access to
credit precisely because disclosure holds banks accountable.

In summary, your proposal is directly the opposite of CRA’s statutory mandate
of imposing a continuing and affirmative obligation to meet community needs.
Your proposal will dramatically reduce community development lending, investing
and services. You compound the damage of your proposal in rural areas, which
are least able to afford reductions in credit and capital. You also eliminate
critical data on small business lending. Two other regulatory agencies, the
Federal Reserve Board and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, did
not embark upon the path you are taking because they recognized the harm it
would cause.

CRA is too vital to be gutted by regulatory fiat and neglect. Please reverse
your proposed course of action, or we will ask Congress to halt your efforts
before the damage is done.

Sincerely,

Rick Schloemer
Resource Development Director
Scott County Housing Council
131 West 3rd Street, Suite M03
Davenport, Iowa 52801

 



Last Updated 08/27/2004 regs@fdic.gov

Last Updated: August 4, 2024