From: Les Croughan
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 6:17 PM
To: Comments
Subject: RIN 3064-AC50
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the FDIC's proposed
rule on the Community Reinvestment Act.
If the object of the initial proposed rule was to reduce the regulatory
burden on small banks, this proposed rule will not achieve that
goal. By " adding a community development activity to the
streamlined evaluation method for small banks with assets greater
than $250 million and up to $1 billion " the rule simply adds
another layer. Now we will have very small banks ($250 million
or less), small banks ( Over $250 Million to $1 billion) and large
retail banks. I fail to see how this eases the compliance burden.
Adding to the confusion is the recently issued and irresponsible
Final Rule by the O.T.S..
We are going back to the bad old days when each agency issued slightly
different rules. The Riegle Community Development and Regulatory
Improvement Act of 1994 directed the agencies to work jointly to
make uniform all regulations and guidelines implementing common
statutory or supervisory policies. The actions of the O.T.S. and,
now, of the FDIC, hardly fit this "uniform" criterion.
Conclusion-- the Agencies are failing in their responsibilities
to both the general public and to their supervised institutions.
As a compliance consultant to eight banks (1 national bank, 1 savings
association, and 5 non-members) and to a national provider of training
materials, I am particularly
distressed by this lack of uniformity. One must also that realize that bank
employees may move from one institution to another, governed by a different
regulator. Over time compliance with non-uniform regulations leads to a failure
to comply other 'uniform" regulations, notwithstanding the good faith
efforts of the employees and the institutions.
I sincerely hope that the banking regulators, including the O.T.S., take a
deep breath and elect to act in a uniform manner.
