Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation

Empire Bank

October 4, 2004

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 writing on behalf of Empire Bank, a $640,000,000 state bank, serving essentially the Springfield, Missouri MSA. We currently are subject to the large bank CRA examination process.

We 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. -

We operate as a community bank and consider it our responsibility to meet the financial needs of our entire community, including credit, investment, and service.

In our highly comps. "`vve market, we compete with branches of large international banks (Bank of America and US Bank) and large regional banks (Commerce Bank, Union Planters Bank, and UMB), whose local branches are not examined for CRA since their charters are not located in this area and their business in the area is a small part of their total market. Additionally, we compete with a large number of local banks who qualify for small bank treatment; as well as a large number of non-bank, non-CRA competitors, such as credit unions, mortgage companies, and consumer credit companies.

We incur the cost of CRA regulation, which places us at a competitive disadvantage when seeking to extend credit, make investments, or provide service in our area.

We have a diversified portfolio of consumer, real estate, and commercial loans. We actively participate in the financing of local development and redevelopment through the use of credit and investments. We offer a comprehensive array of banking services. And, our officers and employees are active volunteers in all aspects of our community.

However, we have found the CRA examination process to be highly subjective when we compare the examination results of our affiliate banks. We find frequent inconsistencies in examination results, and local market conditions are not adequately taken into consideration when evaluating the opportunities for credit, and particularly investment, in various areas. Although our past two exams acknowledged that there are limited opportunities for qualified investments in our assessment area, exam results for investments did not recognize this limitation.

Additionally, we oppose establishing additional CRA criteria, such as a separate community development criteria, which will further complicate the already daunting array of hurdles imposed relative to CRA. We are active participants in community development through efforts to meet the credit and investment needs of our community. These additional criteria would further expose us to obstacles that are not required for most of our competitors.

We support the FDIC's proposal to change the definition of "community development" from focusing solely on low-and-moderate income urban area residents to include rural areas. Our service area includes rural as well as small urban/suburban areas.

We believe that changes in the CRA regulations are appropriate and will allow us to better meet the needs of our service area and thus, the intent of the Community Reinvestment Act.

Sincerely,

Michael J. Williamson
President & CEO