FDIC Federal Register Citations

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.