| FIRST STATE BANK Mr. Robert E. Feldman Executive Secretary
 Attention: Comments/Legal ESS
 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
 550 17th Street, NW
 Washington, DC 20429
 
        Re: RIN Number 3064-AC50: FDIC Proposed Increase in the Threshold for 
        the Small Bank CRA Streamlined Examination
         Dear Mr. Feldman:
         I am Vice President for First State Bank, located in Tennessee with 
        markets in the rural counties of Weakley, Obion, Benton, Carroll, 
        Gibson, Henderson, and Henry. We also have markets in the MSA’s of 
        Memphis-Shelby County, Nashville and Jackson, Tennessee. My bank size is 
        approximately $700 million in assets. In 2004 we are being examined as a 
        small bank but in 2005 we will be subject to large bank CRA exam.  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. We understand that this is not 
        an exemption from CRA and that our bank would still have to help meet 
        the credit needs of its entire market and be evaluated by my regulator. 
        However, I believe that this would lower my current regulatory burden.
         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. 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 intent of Congress when 
        it enacted CRA. It has been impossible for us to find qualified 
        investment opportunities in our rural communities.
         With the regulation as it is currently, at year end we must totally 
        reorganize our CRA program and begin massive new reporting, monitoring 
        and investment program. If the FDIC adopts its proposal, we as 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 our 
        organization, and far better than subjecting us 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. We 
        currently have a Community Development Corporation and are currently 
        developing new loan relations with the New Market Tax Credit program.
         A significant part of our assessment area is rural; 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 include 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 just affluent 
        residents of rural areas. Our rural areas have suffered greatly with the 
        closing of loss of many factory jobs. These jobs were lost to our area 
        when plants moved out of the country. We need to be able to help our 
        local economies create more jobs to replace the great many that we have 
        lost. 
         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. I will 
        be happy to discuss these issues further with you, if that would be 
        helpful.
         Sincerely,Chet A. Alexander, VP
 First State Bank
 |