| 
CITIZENS TRI-COUNTY BANK
 March 9, 2004  Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary Attention Comments
 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
 550 17th  Street NW
 Washington, DC 20429
 Dear Sir. I strongly approve of the proposal made by federal bank regulators to 
        increase the asset size of banks that are eligible for the streamlined 
        Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) examination from $250 million to $500 
        million and the elimination of the holding company size limit (currently 
        $1 billion). I am certain that this proposal will effectively reduce 
        regulatory burden. I am the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of 
        Citizens Tri-County Bank, a $312 million community bank, located in 
        Dunlap, Tennessee.
 As a community banker, I congratulate the agencies for their 
        recognition of the need to expand this significant burden reduction 
        benefit to larger community banks. This expansion will permit more 
        community banks to focus on customer service, which in turn energizes 
        local economies. When a community bank must comply with the requirements 
        of the large bank CRA examination process, costs and burdens 
        dramatically increase. The resources that must be allocated to CRA 
        compliance are resources that are not available to meet the credit needs 
        and demands of the community. Community banks must bear the expenses of, 
        among other things, additional overhead, training, reallocation of 
        resources, and computer software and hardware. In all fairness, banks should be compared to their peers. In my 
        opinion, it is unfair to assess the CRA performance of a $300 million 
        bank or a $1 billion bank with the identical procedures used to examine 
        a $500 billion bank. In addition, I believe that the size of banks 
        eligible for the streamlined CRA examination should be increased to at 
        least $1 billion.  Community activists object to bank mergers and acquisitions that 
        remove locally owned banks from communities. Yet, they seem unconcerned 
        about the excessive costs and regulatory burdens that both small and 
        large community banks must bear. Communities have better access to the 
        decision-makers when banks are locally owned and operated. Community 
        banks may be forced to consider selling to larger institutions because 
        they can no longer bear excessive regulatory burdens; therefore, 
        community activists should be encouraged to support this proposal.  The success and growth of a community and the community bank is 
        interdependent. Small community banks are so closely involved with 
        communities that they will not be relieved of CRA responsibilities even 
        if the size of banks eligible for the streamlined CRA evaluation is 
        increased.  I understand that community banks must comply with the general CRA 
        requirements; however, increasing the asset size of banks eligible for 
        streamlined examination will greatly reduce regulatory burden. The 
        elimination of a separate holding company qualification for a 
        streamlined CRA examination can provide smaller community banks that are 
        held by larger holding companies a fairer advantage. I would urge the 
        agencies to consider raising the ceiling for banks eligible for 
        streamlined CRA examination to at least $1 billion to better reflect the 
        current demographics of the banking industry.  Sincerely,  H. Glenn Barker CEO and Chairman
 Citizens Tri-County Bank
 Dunlap, TN
 
 
 |